November 27, 2017

The Site C dam was approved by Christy Clark and the BC Liberal government in December of 2014 without a review by the BC Utilities Commission, whose job it is to evaluate if energy projects are in the best interest of British Columbians.
 

In August 2017, the new BC NDP government referred Site C to the BCUC. We now have their final report, and soon the BC government will decide the fate of the Site C dam project.
 

With all the conflicting views being presented in the media, it's no wonder that British Columbians may be confused about the basic facts surrounding the questions: do we need the energy and are we spending $10-12 billion of BC taxpayers' money on the right project?
 

Watch and decide for yourself.

November 02, 2017

Date:               November 2, 2017
 
To:                  PVLA and PVEA
 
From:             Robert McCullough
 
Subject:           What we have learned from the BCUC's Final Report

Executive Summary:

 
On August 3, 2017, Mr. Horgan’s government gave the British Columbia Utilities Commission an impossible charge.  They were to review the then $8 billion Site C project (now the $10 billion site C project) in three grueling months.  Little information was available about Site C.  The calculations were opaque and idiosyncratic; the underlying forecasts confidential; and the cost components unknown outside the Crown Corporation.
 
The BCUC’s first step was to assign the fact finding to the well-respected Deloitte firm which did an excellent job.  Their first report clarified the morass the project was sinking into – identifying a likely year delay and the presence of massive cost overruns.  Never has a prediction been so immediately validated when BC Hydro announced the delay of the river diversion and an additional $610 million cost overrun.
 
On Wednesday, at 10:00 A.M. my staff and I started reading the two hundred and ninety-nine-page Final Report.  To put it mildly, we were impressed.  Actually, we were more than impressed.  The Commission had digested and reviewed the thousands of pages of submissions, winnowed the wheat from the chaff, and made some courageous decisions:
 
While the Commission did not make a formal recommendation, a careful review of the Final Report makes it clear that termination of Site C is less expensive and less risky than the alternatives, and the actual content of the full report makes that very clear.

The BCUC states that:

1. Site C is over budget and behind schedule.  The BCUC estimates costs are now at $10 billion.

2. BC Hydro's load forecast is highly doubtful and the BCUC has recommended the use of the low forecast.

3. The export assumptions are unrealistic.  Again, the BCUC has recommended a much lower forecast.

4. Wind, solar, and geothermal are realistic alternatives.  Prices have declined significantly and will continue to fall.

5. The alternative resources cost less and are more deployable

6. BC Hydro's planning methodology is undocumented and inaccurate.

7. There is an excellent source of hydro-electric storage in the non-treatystorage agreement -- 25 times the storage of Site C.

Please click here for the full final report.

Please click here for the Site C - Frequently Asked Questions document.

October 31, 2017

What: International energy expert Robert McCullough, and Harry Swain, former chair of the federal-provincial review of the Site C project, will be available for interview following the release of the BCUC final report on Site C, this Wednesday, November 1.

The BCUC’s Site C Inquiry comes to an end this Wednesday when the panel will provide their report and findings to the NDP government regarding the future of the Site C project. Their report will be made available to the public as well.

Robert McCullough will be available to speak to the impacts the decision will have on BC’s economic future including the negative implications on BC ratepayers, and why Site C is not the best option to address BC's energy needs.

Harry Swain will be available to speak to how BC Hydro has consistently overestimated BC’s energy demand and that renewables such as wind, solar and geothermal are viable alternatives that will save BC ratepayers billions and can be implemented when, and if, demand materializes.

When:             Wednesday, November 1, 2017
                      Two hours after the report is released
                      (specific timing dependent on the BCUC release)
                        
Where:            Option 1: By phone
                      Option 2: In person at the Four Seasons Hotel Vancouver,
                                    791 W. Georgia St., Vancouver, BC
                      (please see media contacts below to set up a time)        
 
Who:               Robert McCullough, International Energy Expert
                       Harry Swain, Former Chair, Site C Joint Review Panel
                       Ken Boon, President, Peace Valley Landowner Association
 

Robert McCullough, Harry Swain and Ken Boon will also be available for interviews on November 2 and can provide detailed analyses of the BCUC’s report.

 
Media Contacts:

Amanda Munro: amanda@munrothompson.com / 604-360-3994
Emily Marroquin: emily@munrothompson.com / 604-928-6299

October 26, 2017

Terminate Site C and save BC Ratepayers $2.6 to $4.2 billion.  
 

or 
 

Build Site C instead of wind power, miss out on billions of savings, and sell the unneeded power to Alberta at a heavily discounted price with BC ratepayers picking up the difference.

What would you do? 

See the latest report in the Site C Inquiry from Robert McCullough, of McCullough Research, below.

​

------------

​

Date:                October 26, 2017
 
To:                   PVLA and PVEA
 
From:              Robert McCullough
 
Subject:            Site C Inquiry Update
 

British Columbia Hydro’s proposed Site C dam is now in its final week of regulatory review. We expect that the report will be publicly released on November 1st. We will be preparing an analysis of the report.

The vast majority of materials filed have supported termination of the project in favor of solutions that are less expensive, more deployable in response to actual requirements, and less environmentally destructive. We have filed extensive materials and testified twice at the Technical Presentation Sessions on October 13 and 14, 2017.

The basic economics indicate savings of Can$2.6 to Can$4.2 billion if the project is terminated and replaced with a portfolio of primarily wind power: 

​

 

This is close to a Can$1,000 savings for every adult in British Columbia.

Importantly, the savings from termination still exceed the costs of completing Site C even if assumptions are adopted that are not supported by the evidence or standard economics. Site C should still be terminated even if:

• The BC Hydro high load forecast is used,

• Sunk costs are included,

• Existing storage is reserved for export markets.

That said, cancellation of Site C is still opposed by BC Hydro on several economic grounds.

For example, replacing a 1,100 MW hydroelectric project with wind or solar is difficult in jurisdictions that do not have an extensive ability to store and shape intermittent resources.

BC Hydro submits that without Site C, British Columbia does not have sufficient capacity and has run out of hydroelectric storage.

This is an interesting hypothesis since some of the largest reservoirs in North America are in British Columbia. And even more curious, British Columbia Hydro's own submissions have made clear that Site C’s storage – only 4/10ths of 1% of Williston -- is incapable of supporting seasonal operations.

​

Read the rest of this McCullough Report here.

October 19, 2017

Vancouver, B.C. - October 19, 2017 - Yesterday, the Peace Valley Landowner Association (PVLA) and Peace Valley Environment Association (PVEA) made their final submission to the BCUC Site C Inquiry Review Panel. The report, prepared by McCullough Research, speaks to the BCUC’s own October 11 Alternative Portfolio findings, consisting primarily of a composition of wind power with battery backup.

Internationally respected energy expert Robert McCullough found that contrary to BC Hydro’s assertions, the BCUC October 11 Alternative Portfolio: 

• is less expensive than a portfolio with Site C, even considering sunk and termination costs;

• includes resources that are commercially feasible; and,

• does allow for the firming, shaping and storage capability to meet forecast need.
   

Building the BCUC’s wind powered portfolio instead of Site C will save BC ratepayers between $0.5 and $2.1 billion, even if sunk costs and termination costs are included.

Other key points that arise from a review of the McCullough report:
 

1. BC Hydro has not included storage capacity at the Mica Dam in its energy analysis. This is a low cost source of significant extra capacity.
    

2. BC Hydro continues to use outdated forecasts which incorrectly show that surplus electricity can be sold at a profit into the United States export market.
    

3. BC Hydro says it is expanding demand supply management (energy conservation programs), when it is not.
    

4. BC Hydro says that it cannot build wind power and must turn to the private sector which is much more costly. This is not true. If BC Hydro cannot develop the expertise to build wind in house, the private sector will be able access competitive financing, with a BC Hydro energy purchase contract in hand, to build.
    

5. BC Hydro says battery costs are higher than the BCUC forecasts, which is not supported by the evidence.
    

6. BC Hydro says the BCUC’s peak power prices to move load off peak are unrealistic. This ignores the fact that BC Hydro’s industrial load forecast is dropping in key areas such as pulp and paper, so peak pricing is not needed. It is also important to note electric vehicle charging will happen off peak, and if it doesn’t, time of use pricing can be used to encourage that consumer behaviour.
    

7. BC Hydro used out of date estimates for the cost of wind power. The BCUC cost estimates for wind power now, and in the future, are consistent with well-respected international benchmarks. Just across the border, wind power is being built at very low cost.
    

8. BC Hydro continues to assert that geothermal is not a viable low cost resource option in BC. As the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA) report shows (link included below), this is not true. Low cost viable geothermal power can be deployed on the same timetable as Site C. Everywhere else in North America geothermal is used in areas with the same geology as BC.
    

9. BC Hydro says consumer demand is growing, this is incorrect. The most recent quarterly report, issued by BC Hydro on October 16 (over a month late, and after the BCUC technical presentations were over), reveals no growth in demand for electricity by consumers in BC. In fact, the recent quarterly report shows the total gigawatt hours sold to domestic customers (industrial, residential, and commercial) decreased by almost 5% from the same quarter in 2016.

“We look forward to unequivocal advice from the BCUC to cancel Site C,” says Ken Boon, PVLA President. “The case is clear and compelling. The project is not past the point of no return and we will be looking to the provincial government to act in the best interest of all ratepayers and taxpayers, and cancel this project.”

To read McCullough Research’s most recent report, submitted to the BCUC Site C Inquiry on October 18, click here.

---
 

Additional Materials:

• McCullough Research report submitted to the BCUC Site C Inquiry on October 18: Comments on Commission Alternative Resource Portfolios

  • Report attachments can be found here.

• Letter to the BCUC Secretary Patrick Wruck from PVLA and PVEA legal counsel.

• Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA) report submitted to the BCUC Site C Inquiry on October 18: Comments on BCUC Alternative Portfolios.
   

For more information, please contact: 

• Robert McCullough, McCullough Research, 503-784-3758 or 503-771-5090

• Ken Boon, President, Peace Valley Landowner Association, 250-262-9014

October 12, 2017

What: International energy expert Robert McCullough will present his technical report to the BCUC's Site C Inquiry Panel, which finds terminating Site C and replacing it with an alternative portfolio of renewables will save between $2.08 to $4.37 billion.
 
The presentation provides unequivocal evidence that terminating Site C will save British Columbia ratepayers billions of dollars and will aid the BCUC in its advice to this effect to the BC Cabinet.

 
Robert McCullough will be available for interview following his presentation to the BCUC's Site C Inquiry panel.

When:             Friday, October 13, 2017
                      10:15 - 11:00 am, then by request
 
Where:            BCUC's Site C Inquiry Technical Presentation Sessions
                      1125 Howe St, Vancouver, BC V6Z 2K8
                      (interviews to take place outside, corner of Howe and Helmcken)
 
Who:               Robert McCullough, International Energy Expert
                   

McCullough's technical presentation will be publicly available at 12:00pm (PST)on Friday, October 13, 2017 at www.peacevalleyland.com/sitecinquiry.

Robert McCullough will also be available for interviews following BC Hydro's technical presentation to the BCUC's Site C Inquiry Panel at 5:00pm, Saturday, October 14.

Additional Information:

• PVLA and PVEA BCUC Panel Submission, October 11, 2017: 
  Savings from the Termination of Site C will be $2.08 to $4.37 Billion 

• PVLA and PVEA BCUC Panel Submission, October 11, 2017: 
  Termination Cost of Site C Overstated by $200 Million due to Interest Rate Hedges
   

Materials submitted to the BCUC's Site C Inquiry:

• 2017/09/10 Deloitte LLP’s Two Site C Reports

• 2017/09/12 What we have learned about Site C

• 2017/09/13 BCUC Site C Inquiry Presentation

• 2017/09/21 Preliminary Findings 

• 2017/09/23 BCUC Comments

• 2017/09/24 Question 22 Response

• 2017/09/24 Questions 46 and 47 Response

• 2017/09/26 A Reflection Sunk Costs

• 2017/09/29 Question 16: LNG Prospects

• 2017/10/02 Question 20: Electric Vehicles

• 2017/10/09 Problems with BC Hydro Response F1.8

• 2017/10/09 Problems with BC Hydro Response F1.11

• 2017/10/09 Problems with BC Hydro Response F1.7

• 2017/10/09 Problems with BC Hydro Response F1.6

September 29, 2017

Fort St. John, B.C. - September 29, 2017 - Yesterday, the Peace Valley Landowner Association (PVLA) and the Peace Valley Environment Association (PVEA) filed one in a series of McCullough Research expert reports with the BCUC's Site C Inquiry.
 

In the report, energy expert Robert McCullough addresses one of the main arguments made for continuing Site C: the fact BC Hydro has already sunk about $2.1 billion into the project.
 

“This reasoning is known as the the sunk cost fallacy and fails to acknowledge that the dollars already spent cannot be recovered regardless of the outcome," said Robert McCullough. "Sunk costs are never considered in economic decisions, because these costs are fixed, regardless of what decision is made. In the case of Site C, British Columbia Hydro has spent approximately a fifth of the $9 billion dollars needed to build the hydroelectric project. The dollars are spent and cannot be recovered whether the dam is completed or not. Part or all of the remainder – approximately $7 billion dollars – can be saved if a less expensive alternative is selected."
 

“There is simply no good reason to throw good money after bad," said PVLA President Ken Boon.
 

---
 

​

Date:              September 28, 2017
 
To:                British Columbia Utilities Commission
 
From:              Robert McCullough, Eric Shierman, Robby Gottesman
 
Subject:           Question 58 - The Sunk Cost Fallacy

​

The following is an excerpt from the report:

Question 58 in the preliminary report appears to suggest that sunk costs are a consideration and ought to be included in an assessment of the cost of terminating Site C and replacing Site C with a portfolio of renewables.
 
It is well accepted that sunk costs are not considered in such decisions.
 
A sunk cost is a past expenditure that cannot be recovered.  Economic theory states that sunk costs are never considered in economic decisions, because these costs are fixed, regardless of what decision is made.  The famous professor and jurist, retired U.S. Appeals Judge Richard A. Posner, commented in his study of the economics of law:
 
We commit the "sunk costs" fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. That is, in making decisions, we frequently ignore the adage of letting bygones be bygones; we are unable to ignore costs that, having already been incurred, cannot be altered by the decision.[1]
 

[1] Economic Analysis of Law (7th Ed.), 2007, U.S. Appeals Judge (retired) Richard A. Posner, page 17.

September 28, 2017

In 2014, Clean Energy BC commissioned KPMG to prepare a report on the jobs and economic benefits from a portfolio of renewable energy including wind power. Clean Energy BC then compared numbers from B.C. Hydro’s Site C projections on job creation and economic benefits to those set out in the Final Draft KPMG Report: Economic and Social Impacts of the Clean Energy Sector in B.C.

​

At the time of the release of the report, media outlet, Energetic City, covered the report and Clean Energy BC's comparisons. An abstract of that article is below.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Energetic City reported the following:

A comparison by CEBC of economic-impact numbers from a new KPMG study, and numbers from B.C. Hydro’s Site C projections, are said to show greater returns from a portfolio of smaller projects in employment income, both during construction and in later operation. It is also said to show a bigger over-all contribution to the B.C. economy.

“It’s clear that a cost-effective diversity of clean-energy projects situated throughout B.C. has a far greater positive impact on BC jobs and the economy, especially for First Nations than does B.C. Hydro’s Site C mega project up on the Peace River in northeastern B.C.,” Executive Director of Clean Energy B.C., Paul Kariya said in a written statement.

Taking the KPMG results, CEBC went on to make additional comparisons between a clean-energy portfolio and BC Hydro’s published Site C project benefits. CEBC found:
 

• Total contribution to B.C.’s GDP during construction would amount to approximately $4.3 billion (KPMG), compared with $3.2 billion from Site C.
   

• The contribution to B.C.’s economy during operations would be $90 million a year (KPMG) compared with $7 million from site C.
   

• Total labour income from construction of the clean-energy portfolio would come in at $2.9 billion (KPMG), compared with B.C. Hydro’s estimate of $2.2 billion for Site C.
   

• Total employment income from operations of the clean-energy projects would amount to $45 million a year (KPMG), compared with only $4.9 million at Site C.
   

• The clean-energy projects would rack up a total of 45,200 person-years of fulltime-equivalent employment during construction (KPMG), while Site C would offer 33,000.
   

• During operations, after construction, the clean-energy projects would mean 695 person-years of employment (KPMG), compared with only 160 from Site C.
   

• Over a 40-year time period, total employment from operations adds up to 27,800 FTE person-years from the smaller projects (KPMG), compared with 6,400 from Site C.
   

• Many of the economic impacts would be local in nature leading to widely distributed direct and indirect economic benefits. Jobs and incomes would support First Nations and a variety of rural and urban communities throughout B.C.

The unabridged article can be found here: https://energeticcity.ca/2014/11/clean-energy-projects-offer-more-than-site-c-according-to-clean-energy-b-c/

​
 

A copy of the Final Draft KPMG Report can be found here, or by clicking the image below:
 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The report was never finalized because KPMG terminated its relationship with Clean Energy BC.

​

Statement from Ken Boon, PVLA President:

“This 2014 Clean Energy BC and KPMG analysis of jobs and economic benefits from Site C vs. renewables like wind energy is just as true now as it was then. This is another BC Hydro promise that rings hollow - the truth is cancelling Site C and building more renewable energy will create many more, not less, well paid short and long term jobs for British Columbians.”

September 26, 2017

The PVLA and PVEA filed a report yesterday with the BCUC's Site C Inquiry from McCullough Research on export prices. In the report, energy expert Robert McCullough found that Site C will lose $376 million in its first year of operation alone. This is due to the fact that unneeded power will be sold at a loss to the USA. Losses in future years may be more or less depending on the demand for electricity.
 

“This new expert report only reinforces the already strong case for cancelling Site C,” said PVLA President Ken Boon. “Unlike big hydro dams, renewables like wind and solar can be deployed to meet existing demand - there is no need to sell unneeded power at a loss.”

Date:               September 24, 2017
 
To:                  British Columbia Utilities Commission
 
From:              Robert McCullough, Eric Shierman, Robby Gottesman
 
Subject:           Question 22: Export Sales


The following is an excerpt from the report, starting on page 2:

---

22.1 Please provide a breakdown of BC Hydro’s market price forecast for F2025 (US $36/MWh) and F2034 (US $46/MWh) showing (in Can $ and US $): Mid C price; wheeling costs; real power losses; other (please describe).
 
We cannot answer questions concerning British Columbia’s market forecast since details have not been made public.  We can observe that it is a relatively poor forecast since it diverges from actual market prices.
 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 1: BCH’s forecasted mid-c price and ICE forward price
 

The red line represents forward prices taken from the ICE MDC (on-peak) and OMC (off-peak) markets on September 22, 2017.
 
The differential between the LCOE of Site C and the forward Mid-C price is considerable.  In 2024, for example, selling the output at September 22nd prices on the Intercontinental Exchange would lead to a significant loss: 

($C31.25-C$105) x 5,100 GWh = - C$376.1 million[1]

September 23, 2017

Date:               September 23, 2017
 
To:                  McCullough Research Clients
 
From:             Robert McCullough
 
Subject:          Prepared Comments at the BCUC September 23, 2017 Public Session


I was the third presenter today following Vernon Ruskin and Rob Botterell to summarize our responses to three of the seventy-three questions posed by the BCUC to British Columbia Hydro. We plan to submit three expert reports to the BCUC this week.

Question 16: With regard to BC Hydro’s forecast for LNG load, please provide a more detailed justification for why it considers it appropriate to continue to include each of the three LNG projects (i.e. FortisBC Tilbury LNG Phase 2, Woodfibre LNG and LNG Canada) in its load forecast.

Answer: Extensive evidence exists that British Columbia and Oregon will continue to fall behind Cheniere in the race for firm contracts. Cheniere has the largest base of existing export contracts to Asia. Their lead is expanding due to several strategic factors:
 

1. They are very close to the natural gas sources in Texas and Louisiana; 


2. They can rely on existing infrastructure in terms of pipelines and access to the electric grid; 


3. They are expanding existing brownfield facilities utilizing nearby skilled labor and engineering support. 


Industry press puts the expansion cost per MTPA at between US$500/mtpa and US$600/mtpa.[1],[2]

Recent west coast projects have found it difficult to meet this challenge. For example, Jordan Cove’s recent FERC filing mentions a cost per mtpa of US$1,282.[3]

​

September 21, 2017

Date:               September 21, 2017
 
To:                  McCullough Research Clients
 
From:              Robert McCullough
 
Subject:           BCUC’s Preliminary Findings


Last night, the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) released its preliminary findings in the Site C inquiry.  The two hundred and five page preliminary findings are very direct about the many failings in BC Hydro’s continued support for Site C.
 
First and foremost, the document continuously criticized BC Hydro for failing to provide relevant and supportable materials. This was BC Hydro’s important opportunity to ‘show its work’ and demonstrate to the BCUC the detailed basis for the assertions BC Hydro has made in support of continuing Site C.

However, despite the 800-page BC Hydro submission, the lack of substantive content and transparency did not go unnoticed by BCUC. The gamble lost – the BCUC has responded with 73 official questions representing requests for hundreds of files, studies, and calculations.

September 20, 2017

Robert McCullough, energy expert and Principal of McCullough Research, spoke with CFAX's Pamela McCall today about the impending release of BCUC Preliminary Report on Site C. 

​

Listen to his full interview, below:

​

​

​

​

(Click the audio player above, or click here for interview)

​

Highlights:

​​

• (0:52) Deloitte Reports critical of BC Hydro

• (1:33) Deloitte Report outlined alternatives to Site C that meet environmental concerns and are less expensive than Site C

• (2:49) McCullough's expertise led to initiation of the Enron investigations

• (4:18) Quebec Premier stated in speech at the Climate Week in NYC: "The day of big dams is now over"

• (5:34) What about $1.8b already spent on Site C?

• (6:24) The cost of renewables have come down 50% over past 5 years - due to the economies of scale

• (10:29) Even if BCUC recommends going ahead with Site C, the economics still don't support it: there would be massive delays, cost overruns and rate increases

• (11:47) There was a serious error in process to move forward with Site C

• (13:16) Cost to the average household if Site C moves forward: 20% to taxpayers; 80% to ratepayers

• (14:28) Experience in other provinces is draconian: the utility in Manitoba is proposing a 50% rate increase for 2 dams and a transmission line being built on similar schedule as Site C. No question largest public investment in BC have a dramatic impact on the bottom line of consumers and tax payers.

• (15:45) "It's preposterous. It's incompetent. It's the wrong way to do business. Any corporation wouldn't dream of such a major investment with such a limited review."

• (17:30) "How does this stack up with the Enron trading investigations?" 

September 13, 2017

SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 - VANCOUVER, BC – Today the Peace Valley Landowner Association (PVLA) and the Peace Valley Environment Association (PVEA) released a report from McCullough Research, showing terminating Site C and building a renewable portfolio of wind and geothermal would save British Columbia $.7 to $1.6 Billion.

The McCullough Report responds to the BC Hydro Site C Submission and the Deloitte LLP Reports submitted to the BCUC Site C Inquiry.

“It is not financially prudent to finish the Site C project,” says Robert McCullough, Principal of McCullough Research. “The cost of building a renewable based portfolio excluding Site C will be much less costly, and still meets the province of BC’s clean energy goals.”

The findings of Deloitte LLP on Site C delays, cost overruns, and electricity demand and energy generation alternatives are consistent with McCullough Research’s findings and the findings of other acknowledged energy experts, although a number of Deloitte’s estimates are more favourable to Site C than official estimates from elsewhere in the U.S. and Canada.

Key findings can be summarized as follows:

The cost savings of terminating Site C and building a renewable portfolio will be in the billions of dollars.

• Terminating Site C and building a renewable portfolio of wind and geothermal would save BC ratepayers $.7 to $1.6 Billion.

• The savings would be even greater, from $1.5 to $5.9 Billion if Site C is not on time and on budget. Deloitte found this to be likely to occur given similar recent projects in Manitoba and Newfoundland which had cost overruns of 55% to 90%.

BC Hydro’s demand forecast is vastly overstated.

• Deloitte studied previous demand forecasts made by BC Hydro and found that they overestimated past forecasts for electricity by nearly 30.8%. Demand has been flat for many years and there is no basis for this sudden change in trend in the data or in the province of British Columbia’s industrial horizon.

• If Site C were completed, BC Hydro will almost certainly lose money on any exports of surplus electricity to the United States because of low export prices.

BC does not need Site C to act as a back-up battery for times when intermittent resources such as wind and solar are unavailable.

• The Williston reservoir already plays this role and has sufficient capacity to continue doing so for many decades to come.  In fact, it has approximately ten times the usable elevation and almost twenty times the usable area of Site C.

“The findings from the McCullough Report provide solid proof of what experts have being saying for years,” says Harry Swain, Former Chair Site C Joint Review Panel. “British Columbia does not need this power, and even if we did, we have lots of less expensive alternatives.”

“It’s time to put an end to this financially reckless spending,” says Ken Boon, PVLA President. “The McCullough Report provides all the information needed for the BCUC to recommend the NDP government halt Site C immediately. We call on the BCUC to consider the McCullough Report’s new findings in preparing its September 20th interim report and its November 1st final report.”

The full McCullough Report can be found here.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 ----

For further information please contact:

Ken Boon, President, PVLA - 250.262.9014 | pvla@xplornet.com

Robert McCullough, Principal, McCullough Research - 503.784.3758 | Robert@mresearch.com

Harry Swain, Former Chair, Site C Joint Review Panel - 250.882.3731 swain.h@telus.net

​

​

Additional reference documents:​
 

• Letter to BCUC Secretary Patrick Wruck on September 13, 2017

• Robert McCullough's full curriculum vitae

• Robert McCullough's PowerPoint slide deck from the September 13, 2017 news conference

​

​

September 11, 2017

What: The Peace Valley Landowner Association (PVLA) and the Peace Valley Environment Association (PVEA) will hold a press conference Wednesday, September 13, to release the reply from McCullough Research to the BC Hydro Submission and the Deloitte LLP Reports on Site C.
 
The McCullough Research reply submission demonstrates that there is sufficient information and analysis now on hand to justify an immediate suspension of construction of Site C, pending completion of the BCUC Site C Inquiry. The report provides unequivocal findings to support a BCUC recommendation to the BC Cabinet to permanently halt Site C.
 
Harry Swain, Former Chair Site C Joint Review Panel, will also provide expert commentary on Site C, and Rob Botterell will outline ways to enhance public confidence in the remainder of the Site C inquiry process.  
 
When:             Wednesday, September 13, 2017
                      12:30 pm
 
Where:            Oak Room (Third floor)
                      Four Seasons Hotel, Vancouver
                      791 W. Georgia St, Vancouver, B.C.
 
Who:              Robert McCullough, International Energy Expert
                      Harry Swain, Former Chair Site C Joint Review Panel
                      Rob Botterell, Legal Counsel, PVLA and PVEA
 
Everyone with an interest in the future of Site C, the largest capital expenditure in the history of BC, is welcome to attend.
 
Participation details:

• Call-in number: 1-866-252-1104 (no pin)

• Listen and ask questions online: www.uberconference.com/pvlanewsconference

• A live video stream will be on the Peace Valley Landowner Association’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/peacevalleylandownerassoc

• Audio, video and photos will be available upon request post news conference.

 
Robert McCullough, Harry Swain and Rob Botterell will be available for interviews following the press conference (in person, via teleconference and online).

The McCullough Research Report document will be publicly released at 1:00 pm (PST) on Wednesday, September 13, 2017.

September 11, 2017

SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 - VANCOUVER, BC – The Peace Valley Landowner Association (PVLA) and the Peace Valley Environment Association (PVEA) call on the BC Government to immediately suspend construction on Site C pending completion of the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) Site C Inquiry. 
 
The Deloitte LLP Reports on Site C, released by the BCUC on September 8, make several key findings that support an immediate suspension of construction.

Please click the link below for the full release.