Quote:
Originally Posted by RedArbutus
IIRC It looks worse in hindsight because electricity demand in BC has since increased at rates that were not (and, debatably, could not have been) predicted, namely due to LNG/heavy industry, consumer electrical increase through channels like BEV adoption, and finally the rise of data center demand. Site C was in the wings for decades and the Libs elected to move forward despite at the time projected falling per capita electricity demand. The section of the Peace River selected was also highly agrarian and it was controversial that it was being chosen as the site for flooding. This is putting aside any of the indigenous treaty stuff.
|
That's not what I remember; I remember environmentalists being up in arms about site C because it was
for LNG development. Let's not forget the BCNDP has also lead the charge when it came to BEV adoption in Canada and electrification of residential energy and certainly hasn't put any pause on LNG development. I think you've being overly charitable to the government here.
Threaded Mode