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.
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.”

For more information, including all past reports go to
PVLA Site C Inquiry Reports