In 1989, the largest earthquake in eight decades hit California. Damage was deadly and extensive, including partial collapse of the vital San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge.
UC Berkeley scholar Karen Trapenberg Frick wrote of the 25 years it took for Californians to build a bridge replacement. Dr. Frick said the project was “a cautionary tale to which any governing authority embarking on a megaproject should pay heed.”
British Columbia’s highly paid bureaucrats and political leaders were not paying heed.
BC Hydro first announced plans for a $2 billion hydro-electric power project at Site C on the Peace River in 1979. Premier Bill Bennett’s cabinet shelved the project in 1983, but BC Hydro had it rise from the dead in 1989. Two years later, Premier-for-Seven-Months Rita Johnston agreed BC was overdue for a concrete fix. Two years after that, the project was dead again as BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen concluded the dam was too costly and environmentally unacceptable…
The above is from Survival of the unfittest… megaproject written here in the summer of 2021.
Many people are to blame for Site C, a facility that will produce electricity at a multiple of the cost of other clean power systems.
Politicians didn’t want to oppose large-scale developments, or they owed favours to affluent trade unions. BC Hydro executives enjoyed highly paid jobs doing what the company had been doing for decades. Emasculated regulators lacked the ability or the will to challenge those who appointed them.
No persons in positions of authority were willing to listen to cautionary tales, particularly reports that warned about megaproject madness.
“Money often costs too much.”
– Ralph Waldo Emerson
Categories: Site C
in-sights.ca 
Hello Norm I agree. Site C is a “good” poster child of literally everything that can go wrong with megaprojects. The opinion piece below is what I wrote on that earlier this winter. https://energeticcity.ca/2025/11/26/opinion-bear-flat-dispatch-what-lesson-should-we-learn-from-site-c/ Cheers, Ken
LikeLiked by 1 person
No question the government was heavily influenced politically to push ahead with the Site C dam project. Dam projects in other parts of Canada were running massively over budget and BC refused to heed the warning. Manitoba’s Keeyask dam and Newfoundland Labrador’s Muskrat Falls dam should have raised red flags. The BC government turned the other way.
I’m not sure what role consultants (so-called experts) played in the cost overruns on this project, but they have a track record of inflating costs combined with minimal productivity.
LikeLike
Economic Hitmen.
LikeLike
BC Hydro? A wonder isn’t it?
Consider certain Policy Implications.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/9-0-quake-in-bc-could-kill-thousands-and-cost-128-billion-report-foresees/ar-AA1TeOHc?ocid=BingHp01&cvid=0f9bf3557b824abdbb93b22a1aca98b9&ei=19
“9.0 quake in BC could kill thousands and cost $128 billion, report foresees”
“The analysis is part of the B.C. disaster and climate risk assessment, dated October 2025, which also outlines several other “extreme event” scenarios — severe flooding in the Fraser Valley, high-tide flooding on the southwest coast following a winter storm, an urban interface fire, and a drought that last years. “
Since the expected quake is merely hypothetical (it hasn’t happened) why rush to prepare the province to adapt to its downsides in advance? Beyond promoting the Duck and Cover panacea?
In the southern US where several catastrophic environmental events simply wiped out entire statewide energy grids embarrassed politicians have realized that Micro Grids make sense.
“Microgrids typically consist of”
“Distrirubuted Energy Resources (DERs). These can include solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and other renewable energy sources.”
“Energy Storage Systems: Batteries and other storage technologies help manage energy supply and demand.”
“Control systems: Advanced control technologies manage the flow of electricty, ensuring stablity and reliability within the microgrid.”
https://renewablesadvice.com/energy/microgrids/
“Microgrids are localised energy systems that can operate either independently or in conjunction with the larger electrical grid. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), a microgrid is “a group of interconnected loads and distributed energy resources within clearly defined electrical boundaries that acts as a single controllable entity with respect to the grid. A microgrid can connect and disconnect from the grid to enable it to operate in both grid-connected or island mode””.
“Microgrids are localised energy systems that can operate independently or alongside the main grid, providing a flexible and efficient solution for energy distribution. They are designed to improve energy resilience and can switch to “island mode” during grid failures, ensuring continuous power for critical services.”
“Microgrids integrate renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and hydro, significantly reducing carbon footprints and supporting sustainability. Their decentralized nature allows for more efficient energy production and usage, particularly in areas where connecting to the main grid is challenging.”
“Microgrids are essential for disaster recovery and energy security. They ensure power remains available during natural disasters, serving critical infrastructure such as hospitals and emergency services. With growing adoption, microgrids are playing a pivotal role in shaping a more resilient and eco-friendly energy future.”
Has BC begun to construct a Microgrid system? If not, why not? Why wait? Why shouldn’t such a plan already be embedded within a Disaster Readiness Agenda?
From a slightly different angle, there’s LNG and Mr Carney’s glorious dreams of Canada getting disturbingly rich by shipping LNG to a “desperate” Asia. From where? From a BC coast soon to be chock full of enormous tankers and huge storage units at the end of vast pipelines.
Because our pols insist everything will work just beautifully that’s where the thinking ceases?
Yes, as if by magic none of BC’s LNG infrastructure will be affected by the Big One or any of the other “extreme event” assessments. At this time all of that possible risk is not a real risk. Not if you’re Danielle Smith, Mark Carney or David Eby. All of whom are in a hurry.
If during a quake a hydro dam or two fail? If an oil or LNG pipeline bursts? What could that change?
As Condoleezza Rice said to explain the limits of Executive Cognition, “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.”
Despite assessments that did predict this possibility since it hadn’t happened that meant it wouldn’t.
That’s Politics.
LikeLike