Big industry in BC is stating that Site C is going to adversely affect their bottom line. They don’t want it and neither do we. Let’s build on their voices by submitting the letter below to the decision-makers on this project.

I encourage you to modify it slightly to make it your own.

Thank you so much for helping to save BC citizens from a white elephant and for protecting the Peace River Valley.

Dear Honorable Member,

I hope you’re seriously rethinking your support for the Site C dam. As you may have noticed, not only are thousands of citizens across BC against Site C, but major industrial and business interests are now expressing serious concern about the project as well.

The Association of Major Power Customers of BC has stated that Site C is not the right project now; citing additional concerns regarding recent rate increases and the accuracy of BC Hydro’s energy forecasts.

Even the BC Chamber of Commerce is recommending that BC Hydro maximize power generation from existing infrastructure, improve demand-side management and address workforce efficiency and cost controls before building Site C. The Chamber states that with regard to Site C, “…the payoff for the province and its taxpaying citizens won’t justify the huge investment required.” (Business Vancouver, editorial, June 3-9, 2014)

I would encourage you to read the comprehensive report commissioned by Treaty 8 which provides a detailed and comprehensive assessment of viable alternatives to Site C. The report demonstrates that even if BC Hydro’s greatest energy predictions are realized, Site C is still more expensive than a combined range of alternatives.

Economics expert Dr. Marvin Shaffer has also conducted significant research on the viability of Site C and has concluded that there are far less expensive alternatives to Site C. He also cautions that projected growth by industrial sectors is based on existing pricing which is far less than the costs will be once Site C is commissioned.

BC Hydro itself has stated that over 700 Mw of power exists in the vast geothermal stores throughout the province. Wouldn’t it make more sense to explore and capitalize on this opportunity, where facilities and jobs can be created in various locations throughout the province and more, longer term jobs would be created that would be by Site C?

It simply doesn’t make sense to pursue Site C when multiple energy experts have stated that it’s not the best option for meeting future power needs for BC based on economic, environmental, social and cultural analysis.

Let’s show the world that we can be world leaders in implementing and optimizing truly ‘clean’ energy solutions for our province by saying “No” to Site C and “Yes” to cleaner, less expensive and far less destructive energy options.


Suggested recipients:

(Always helpful if letters such as these are sent to the press as well!)

Hon. Christy Clark
Premier of British Columbia
Room 156
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, B.C.
PO Box 9041
Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC
V8W 9E1

Honorable Bill Bennett
BC Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister Responsible for Core Review
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4

Honorable Mary Polak
BC Minister of Environment
Parliament Buildings
Victoria, BC
V8V 1X4

THANK YOU so much for being the change! 🙂