'^^coUv^

^ JAN 29 2016

This is the 1st Affidavit

ofMichaelSavidant in this case

CTourt

made on January 28,2016

No. S-160488

Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

PLAINTIFF
AND:

KEN BOON, ARLENE BOON. VERENA HOFMANN, ESTHER

PEDERSEN also known as Rachel Blatt, HELEN KNOTT,
YVONNE TUPPER, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE and all other

persons unknown to the Plaintiff occupying, obstructing, blocking,

physically impeding or delaying access, at or in the vicinity of the
area in and around the south bank of the Peace River upstream
(west) of the Moberly River, including the area in and around the
heritage site known as Rocky Mountain Fort
DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT #1 OF MICHAEL SAVIDANT

I, Michael Savidant, Commercial Manager of the Site C Clean Energy Project, of Suite
600, Four Bentall Centre, 1055 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, AFFIRM THAT:
1

1.

1 am employed by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ("BC Hydro") as the

Commercial Manager, Site C Clean Energy Project (the "ProjecfO> and as such have personal

knowledge of the facts hereinafter deposed to except where stated to be on information and
belief, in wliich case I verily believe them to be true. My responsibilities under my present

position include management of the financial and commercial aspects of the Project and
economic evaluation of the Project compared to alternatives.

240150.00163/90624881.2

-2-

2.

In January 2015, BC Hydro applied for an expedited hearing schedule in three Federal

Court judicial reviews of the federal Minister of Environment and federal Cabinet's decisions
under CEAA 2012 related to the Project. The applicants that initiated those proceedings were (i)
Peace Valley Landowner Association, (ii) West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations, and
(iii) Mikisew Cree and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nations. The purpose of BC Hydro's motion
was to schedule the hearing of those proceedings prior to the start of construction. In support of
the motion, I affirmed an affidavit setting out what the costs of a one-year delay to the Project
would be at that time, estimating them to be approximately $175 million. Now produced and
shown to me and marked as Exhibit "A" is a copy ofmy affidavit affirmed on January 15,2015.
The facts in that affidavit were true at the time I affirmed them.

3.

In August 2015, West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation brought an

application in B.C. Supreme Court seeking to enjoin work on the Project pursuant to 36

authorizations issued by various provincial regulatory bodies. For .the purposes of that

application, I updated my estimate on the costs to BC Hydro if the Project in-service date was
delayed by one year now that construction was underway. At that time, I estimated the delay in
Project construction of one-year would result in an estimated $335 million of additional costs.

Now produced and shown to me and marked as Exhibit "B" is a copy of my affidavit filed in
that proceeding (without exhibits), affirmedon August 12,2015. The facts in that affidavit were

true at the time I affirmed them. The application brought by West Moberly First Nations and
Prophet River First Nation was dismissed. Now produced and shown to me and marked as

Exhibit "C" is a copy of the Oral Reasons for Judgment of Mr. Justice Sewell dismissing the
application, dated August 28,2015.
Cost of Delay

4.

In January 2016, when I leamed that a group of people were preventing clearing of an

area on the south bank of the Peace River, west of theMoberly River, I updated the analysis that
I conducted in August, 2015. My current analysis demonstrates that if Projectconstruction were
now delayed by one year, it would result in an estimated further increased costs of $85 million

beyond my August 2015 estimate of $335 million, for a total costimpact of approximately $420
million.

2401SO.00]63/9062488i.2

/
/

- 3 -

/
5.

This estimate of $420 million is broken down as follows:

(a)

$160 million ofdirect cost impacts, generally due to the following:

(i)

Project team costs for an additional year ofconstruction (including staff,

rent, supplies);

(ii)

Additional mitigation and compensation costs due to requirements stated

per year of construction;

(iii)

Cost of maintaining site services for an additional year (e.g., security,

medical, and the worker accommodation camp, the first phase of which is

expected to enter service at the end of February 2016);

(iv)

Cost of contractor overhead for an additional year for those contracts

where work would continue over an extended construction period;

(v)

Demobilization and remobilization costs for contracts where work would

be substantially disrupted by the period of delay.

(b)

$100 million of additional allowance for inflation due to shifting spending into
future periods, which are expected to have higher prices due to underlying
inflation.

(c)

$160 million of increased interest costs due to future higher rates and an
additional year of payments on costs already incurred or expected to incur in the
next year.

6.

The current estimate is larger than the estimate of $335 million provided in August 2015

for a nximber of reasons:

(a)

At the time of the previous estimate, construction had been ongoing for about
three weeks. Because constmction has now been ongoing for over five months, a

delay at this time is expected to result in approximately $50 million of additional

direct costs that did not exist in August 2015. In particular.

240150.00163/90624881.2

(i)

BC Hydro has ramped up capacity to manage the project and has

mobilized the construction management team to site; BC Hydro would
incurcosts in demobilizing some of its workforce andwould needto retain
a core level of staff to ensure the care and maintenance of the site and

management ofthe contracts while under suspension,

(ii)

A larger number of contracts are underway with a larger scale of scope

than in August 2015. This increases the cost of pausing contracts for any
period of time, which results in demobilization and remobilization costs as
well as the ongoing costs for services and maintenance over any period of
suspension. This is partially offset by avoiding disruption; costs for those
contracts where work has been substantially completed.

(iii)

BC Hydro awarded the contract for the Main Civil Works on December
18, 2015. The contractor has begun procuring major equipment and

project staff and expects to begin mobilizing to the work site in early
February 2016. These committedplans and procurement increase the cost
of a delay to this contract as it increases the cost of a disruption to the
project schedule and the fixed costs over any period of delay.

(iv)

BC Hydro received financial submissions for the Turbine Generator

contract on July 10, 2015 and plans to award this contract in February or
March 2016. A change in the project schedule after financial submissions
are receivedfor this procurement will disrupt the procurement process and
may affect the preferred proponent's proposed approach to delivering the
contract. This increasesthe cost ofa delay to this contract.

(b)

The allowance for inflation due to shifting spending into future periods is slightly
lower than estimated in August 2015 as a portion of work has been completed on

site to date and can no longer be delayed ifthe overall projectschedule is delayed.
Since this spending cannot be shifting into future periods, it does not attract an
inflation adjustment thus reducing the inflation impact of delay. The net
difference is small - less than one million dollars.

2401S0.00I63/9062488I.2

5-

(c)

Interest during construction costs are approximately $25 million higher due to a
hi^er amount of direct costs incurred to date ($695 million as of December 31,
2015), and costs that will be incurred in the next year (e.g., construction ofworker

accommodation campand upgrade to publicroads will continueas those contracts

liave been entered into and the work does not require permits). This increase is

partially but not fully offset by a decrease in the interest rates expected to be
charged to the project over the construction period due to decreases in market
interest rates.

Status of Contracts for Work on the Project

7.

Beginning in 2015, BC Hydro has entered into 15 contracts for site preparation and site

services work.

BC Hydro also has an agreement with the Ministry of Transportation and

Infrastructure ("MOTl") under which work for 4 site preparation and community infrastructure

projects have been procured. The total site preparation and site services work procured to date
has an aggregated value of approximately $130 million. Of these contracts, 10 are direct awards

to companies owned by First Nations, companies owned by members of First Nations, or joint
ventures involving companiesownedby First Nations.

8.

Work under 3 of the site preparation contracts is substantially complete. Workunder the

remaining 12 is ongoing or is expected to begin with the next three months. In addition, work

under2 of the MOTI sitepreparation andcommunity infrastructure projects is also ongoing.

9.

The existing contracts, including the MOTI contracts, for which work is ongoing are set

out below:

(a)

South Bank Site Clearing (not including Lower Reservoir Area) awarded to Paul
Paquette and Sons Contracting Ltd, on December 19,2014;

(b)

Temporary Peace River Construction Bridge awarded to a Joint Venture between

Ruskin Construction Ltd. and a Treaty 8 FirstNation-owned company on April 8,
2015:

240150.00163/90624881.2

6-

(c)

Perimeter Security Services awarded to a Joint Venture between Securiguaid

Services Ltd. and a Treaty 8 First Nation-owned company on June 15,2015

(d)

North Bank Site Preparation awarded to Morgan Construction and Environmental

Ltd. on July 23,2015.

(e)

South Bank Site Preparationawardedto Duz Cho Construction Ltd. on September

10,2015.

(i5

Security Trailers awarded to Paladin Security in October 2015.

(g)

Lower Reservoir Clearing awarded to a Treaty 8 First Nation-owned company on

October 30,2015;

(h)

North Bank Distribution Lines awarded to Arctic Arrow Powerline Group in

November, 2015;

(i)

Supply and Installation of Safety Buoys awarded to IDL Projects Inc. on

November 17, 2015, working under a Joint Venture with Halfway River First
Nation;

(j)

Security Infrastructure awarded to a Joint Venture between Securiguard Services

Ltd. and a Treaty 8 First Nation-owned company on November 17,2015;

(k)

Temporary Substation awarded to a Joint Venture between FMI Electrical

Construction Services and a Treaty 8 First Nation-owned company in November,

2015. Work under this contract is expected to begin around April 1,2016.
(1)

Telecommunications Cell Service awarded to Telus Conununications on

December 18,2015.

(m)

Upgrade to existing public roads awarded through contracts funded by BC Hydro

but entered into between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastmcture

("MOTI") and its contractors. This consists of road upgrade work done by A.L.
Sims and Sons Ltd. and work on Peace Island Park RV Sites done by Jacob Bros.

p-q

240150.00163/90624S81.2

-7-

Construction. This work is currently shut down for the winter season and is
expected to recommence in spring 2016.

10.

In addition, BC Hydro has entered intothe following major construction contracts:

(a)

In September 2015, BC Hydro entered into a contract with ATCO Two Rivers

Lodging Group for construction and operations of a worker accommodation

facility to house the majority of workers on Site C for the construction period.
The Worker Accommodation contract is valued at $470 million. Work is ongoing
imder this contract.

(b)

In December 2015, BC Hydro entered into a contract with Peace River Hydro
Partners for construction of the Main Civil Works for the Project. The Main Civil

Works contract is valued at $1.75 billion, and is the largest contract for the
Project, both in duration and value.

11.

In addition to the site preparation, site services, and major construction contracts, BC

Hydro has signed contracts for environmental mitigation work, including:

(a)

In August 2015 BC Hydro signed a contract with Spunky Ventures, a Mdtisowned company, for environmental mitigation work.

(b)

In October 2015 BC Hydro signed a contract with Twin Sisters Native Plants

Nursery, a company owned by two Treaty 8First Nations, for supply and delivery
of native plant seeds.

12.

BC Hydro continues to be in negotiations with respect to additional contracts and expects

it will be entering into several more contractsin the near future.

240150.00163/90624881.2

Undertaking as to Damages

13.

I have affirmed this affidavit in support of an application by BC Hydro for an

interlocutory injunction and other relief. I am authorized on behalf of BC Hydro to affirm that
m

BC Hydro will abide by any order concerning damages thatthisHonourable Court may make if
it is found that granting of the injunction order sought causes compensable damages to the
defendants.

AFFIRMED BEFORE ME at Vancouver,

British Columbia, on January 28,2016.

A Comn^ssiofiCTlbr takingAffidavits for

British Columbia

PATRICK HAYES
Barrister & Solicitor
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
2900- 550 Burrard Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 0A3
604 631 4971

240150.00163/90624881.2

Michael Savidant

001

<*!

No.T-1393-14

Vancouver Registry
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:

MTKISEW CREE FIRST NATION AND ATHABASCA CHIPEWYAN FIRST

NATION

APPLICANTS
AND:

MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA, ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF CANADA, MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND
POWER AUTHORITY

RESPONDENTS

No.T-2292-14
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:

DOIG RIVER FIRST NATION, PROPHET RIVER FIRST NATION,

WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS and McLEOD LAKE INDIAN
BAND

APPLICANTS

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. MINISTER OF THE

ENVIRONMENT, MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS,
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT and BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND
POWER AUTHORITY
A

This Is Exhibit

r\

RESPONDENTS

rofefisd to Inthi

affidavit of

made before mo on this

tfO

ACormifi^ner fortaking
Affidavits for British Columbto
DM VAN/240150.00142/8982425.4

002

-2-

No.T-2300-14
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:

PEACE VALLEY LANDOWNER ASSOCIATION

APPLICANT
AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and the

MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT, and

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
RESPONDENTS

No. T-2333-14
FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

MIKISEW CREE FIRST NATION and ATHABASCA CHIPEWYAN

FIRST NATION
APPLICANTS
AND:

MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA, ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF CANADA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND
POWER AUTHORITY
RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL SAVIDANT

I, Michael Savidant, of Suite 600,FourBentall Centre, 1055 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver

British Columbia, commercial manager of the Site C Clean Energy Project,AFFIRM THAT:
1.

1 am employed by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ("BC Hydro'*) as the

Commercial Manager, Site C Clean Energy Project (the "Project"), and as such have
personal knowledge of the facts hereinafter deposed to except where stated to be on
informationand belief, in whichcase I verilybelievethemto be true.

DM VANn40150.00142/8982425.4

P
i

TI03r

-3-

2.

BC Hydro plans to start construction ofthe Project onJime 21,2015.

3.

As I describe below, delays inthe start ofconstruction will result inincreased costs to BC
Hydro and the risk of indirect costs to BC Hydro's contractors and their employees.

4.

BC Hydro intends to award sixseparate contracts for clearing and site preparation work
in 2015. The totalvalueof those contracts is approximately $110 million.

5.

Of these contracts, up to five areexpected to be awarded directly to companies owned by

First Nations, companies owned by members ofFirst Nations, orjoint ventures involving

companies owned by First Nations. The sixth contract is subject to a competitive

procurement process.
r*t

6.

To date, BC Hydro has entered into a contract with a company owned by a member of
one of the First Nations that is a signatory to Treaty 8, for clearing. Negotiations with
four other contractors owned by First Nations, or joint ventures involving companies
owned by First Nations, including First Nations that are signatory to Treaty 8, are
underway. BC Hydro anticipates reaching agreements with these contractors vnthin the
next few months.

7.

BC Hydro is currently in a procurement process to select a contractor to buildand operate

a construction camp to house workers for the main civil works and other contracts. This

1^,.

contract is expected to be awarded in June 2015.

p-i

8.

" 1

In addition, BC Hydro intendsto award contracts for other components ofwork:

(a)

Construction power;

(b)

Site communications;

(c)

Upgrades to public roads;

(d)

Public safety booms;

(e)

Site security.

i
i

DM YAN/240l50.00i42/8982425.4

004

-49.

jm

Delays in constniction start will generally increase the construction costs to the project
due to some or all ofthe following:

(a)

Costs of acceleration of work to maintain the construction schedule, including

increased use of double-shifts, larger shift sizes, increased overlap between

'

contractors on site and more overtime requirements;

(b)

Reduction in efficiencies due to seasonal constraints or reduced access to site;

(c)

Potential loss of a construction season,with accompanying costsrelated to:

'

(i)

staff, supplies, and rent costs for the additional term of construction;

(ii)

financing costs (referred to as "interest during construction" or "IDC)

related to the additional term ofconstruction;

'

additional allowances for inflation.

(iii)

10.

Cost impacts increase with longer delays as acceleration options become less efficient,

more costly, and have higher risks associated with them.

11.

Based on previous experience with construction contracts, EC Hydro has developed

indicative estimates of the cost ofa one month and a two month delay to the construction
start date:

(a)

Adelay of 1month is forecast to result in additional costs of approximately $30

million, composed of:

(i)

a direct cost increase of approximately $10 million expected to result

because compressing the schedule for the 2015 work and pushing some
work intowinter increases costs andlowers productivity;
I

(ii)

an additional contingency requirement of approximately $20 million

would be required due to the higher risk associated with the compressed

schedule and movingmore activity to occm' under winter conditions;

n
DM VAN/240IS0.00142/89S242S.4

005

-5-

(b)

Adelay of2months is forecast to result in additional costs of approximately $90

million, composedof:

(i)

a direct cost increase of approximately $25 million expected to result

because compressing the schedule for the 2015 work and pushing some
work into winterincreases costs and lowers productivity;

(ii)

an additional contingency requirement of approximately $65 million

would be required due to the hi^er risk associated with the compressed
schedule and moving more activity tooccur under winter conditions.

12.

The actual costs of any delay will depend on several factors, including the timing of

precedent requirements (such as permits), the contractor's ability to execute the work, and
the actual weather conditions.

13.

Any delay of the construction start date increases the risk of missing a construction
season.

14.
r-v

BC Hydro currently estimates that a one year delay to the completion of the Project
would increase the costs of construction of the Project by approximately $175 million.
These costs would consist of:

(a)

$65 million in increased construction costs;

(b)

$60 million in increased financing costs; and,

(c)

$50million allowance forinflation andescalation.

DM VAN/240130.00142/8982425.4
p

006

jam,

-6-

15.

The number of persons expected to be employed during construction in 2015 is

approximately 500. The jobs required are primarily skilled and semi-skilled positions,
including equipment operators, drivers, labourers, trades, and site support and
supervision.
AFFIRMED, BEFORE ME at Vancouver.
British Columbia, on January 15,2015 .

A Commissioner for taking Affidavits for

British Columbia

ROB LONERGAN
Barrister & Solicitor
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
2900 - 550 Burrard Street

Vancouver, BC V6C0A3
004 6314718

DM VAN/240150.00142/8982425.4

MICHAEL SAVIDANT

1^

DM VANa401S0.00142/898242S.4

APPUCANTS

RESPONDENTS

Counsel: Chuck Willms

Matter No: 240150.00137

+1604 631 3131

Vancouver, BC, V6C OAS

Barristers and Solicitors

2900 - 550 Buirard Street

FASKENMARTINEAU DuMOOL|W LLP

AFFIDAVIT

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

ATTORNEY GENERAL OFCANADA, MINISTER OF

THEENVIRONMENT OFBRITISH COLUMBIA, HER
MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OFTHE PROVINCE
OFBRITISH COLUMBIA, AND BRITISH COLUMBIA

MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF CANADA,

AND:

CHIPEWYAN FIRST NATION

MIKISEW CREE FIRSTNATION AND ATHABASCA

BETWEEN:

FEDERAL COURT

No.T-1393-14

Vancouver Registry

O
o

p-^

008
VWII eBMB*ewiiiiewSPBIw

*iiii*wiiiii

ii^jg jg

jgf Affidavit

of Michael Savidant in this case

and was made on August 12,201S

A QefimMnar torttftfM
AffidsvittforBrttitii GoU&imto
No. 15 2987

Victoria Registry

(W;

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

In the Matter of the Judicial ReviewProcedure Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 241

BETWEEN:

PROPHET RIVER FIRST NATION and WEST MOBERLY FIRST NATIONS

PETITIONERS
AND:

MINISTER OF FORESTS, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCE

OPERATIONS, REGIONAL MANAGER, NORTHEAST REGION,

REGIONAL WATER MANAGER, NORTHEAST REGION & CHIEF
INSPECTOR OF MINES

RESPONDENTS
AND:

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Michael Savidant, of Suite 600, Four Bentall Centre, 1055 Dunsmuir Street, Vancouver

British Columbia, commercial managerofthe Site C CleanEnergy Project, AFFIRM THAT:

I.

I am employed by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ('*BC Hydro*') as the

Commercial Manager, Site C Clean Energy Project (the "Project"), and as such have
personal biowledge of the facts hereinafter deposed to except where stated to be on

information and belief, in which case I verily believe them to be true. My responsibilities

under my present position include management of the financial and commercial aspects

2<IOt50.00142/90392628.1

009

-2-

r
T

of the Project and economic evaluation of the Project compared to alternatives. Now

produced and shownto me and marked at Exhibit "I" to this my affidavit is a copyof my
curriculum vitae.

BC Hvdro

'

2.

BC Hydro is a Crown corporation continued under the Hydro and Power Authority Act,

RSBC 1996, c 212. BC Hydro's purposes are set out in section 12(1.1) of that Act, and

are to generate, manufacture, conserve, supply, acquire and dispose ofpower and related

^
I

products, and to supply and acquire services related to those activities.

*4

3.

BC Hydro operates an integrated electrical system delivering electricity to approximately

1.9 million customers, servicing 95% of British Columbia's population. BC Hydro's
system includes 31 hydroelectric generating facilities and 3 thermal generating facilities,
which total approximately 12,000 megawatts ofinstalled generating capacity. BC Hydro
delivers electricity to itscustomers through a network ofover 75,000 km oftransmission
and distribution lines.

4.

BC Hydro is a "public utility" as defmed by section 1ofthe Utilities Commission Act,

RSBC 1996, c 473, It has an obligation to provide adequate, safe, efficient, just and
reasonable service to the public within its service area in accordance with the standards

established by the British Columbia Utilities Commission. BC Hydro must meet its

obligation to serve within in a legal and policy context provided for in the Hydro and
Power Authority Act, the Utilities Commission Act and the Clean Energy Act SBC 2010,

c22.

The Project

5.

The Project is the third dam and hydroelectric generating facility on the Peace River,
downstream from tlie W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams and their respective
reservoirs, Williston and Dinosaur. The components ofthe Project are: anearthfill dam,
generating station, and spillways; substation and transmission lines; re-alignment of
Highway 29; quarried and excavated construction materials; worker accommodation;

road and rail access; and a reservoir. Now produced and shown to me and marked as

M
V

240150.00142A)0392628.1

010

Exhibit "2" is Section 4.3 to 4.5 of BC Hydrous Environmental Impact Statement,

Section 4.3 to 4.5 which provides a description of the Project This description has been
incorporated into the Environmental Assessment Certificate issued for the Project as
Schedule A.

T*V

6.

The Site C reservoir will be 83 km long and will extend firom the Peace Canyon dam to

the Site C dam site, whichwill be located approximately 7 km southwest ofFort St. John,

(s**

The reservoir will be, on average,two to three times the width ofthe existing river.

7.

The Project's earliest in-service date is F2024(i.e., fiscal 2024,whichis April 1,2023 to

March 31,2024). The Project is expected to last for more than 100 years.
8.

In the environmental assessment of the Project (described below), BC Hydro described

the benefits of the Projectas including the following:

(a)

The Project is a clean, renewable and reliable power resource that will provide

cost-effective long-term energy and dependable capacity to meet BC Hydro's

customers' growing electricity requirements.

(b)

The Project, being the third dam onthePeace River, optimizes existing resources
by taking advantage of water already stored in upstream reservoirs to generate
over 35% of tlie energy generated by W.A.C. Bennett dam and associated
generating facility, with only 5% of the reservoir area.

(c)

The Project would produce the lowest greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) per
gigawatt hour of any (non-nuclear) alternative. In addition, GHG emissions firom
hydroelectiic plants are not comparable to emissions from gas and coal-fired

electricity plants. Furtliermore, the specific geography of the Project site results in
lower emissions than even other Canadian boreal hydroelectric facilities, which

are already among the lowest GHG-emittersper unit energy.

(d)

The Project will improve the ability to integrate intermittent clean and renewable

energy resources into the provincial power grid. Power firom intermittent
resources such as wind and run-of-river is dictated by environmental conditions

240150.00142/90392628.1

oil

and therefore cannot be relied on to meet electricity needs when they are needed

(i.e., they have low dependable capacity), nor can they be economically
dispatched in response to changes in market prices. With the addition of the
Project to BC Hydro's system, EC Hydro is able to integrate more intermittent
resources while still beingable to reliably meetits service obligation.

(e)

The Project will create jobs, boost the provincial Gross Domestic Product
("GDP") and increase revenuesto local governments.

(f)

The Project will provide socio-economic benefits to local communities through

regional legacy benefit agreementsand other initiatives.

(g)

The Projectwill provide social, economic anddevelopment benefits to Aboriginal

groups, and BC Hydro has offered to enter impact benefit agreements with a

number of Aboriginal groups, including West Moberly FirstNations and Prophet

River First Nation.

Environmental Assessment of the Project

9.

The Project is a reviewable project pursuant to the Reviewable Projects Regulation, a

regulation created pursuant to BCEAA, as it is a hydroelectric power plant with a rated

nameplate capacity of more than 50 MW of electricity. As such, it is subject to review

under BCEAA, Other Project components also trigger review under BCEAA,
10.

In addition, the Project was subject to environmental assessment under tlie Canadian
Environmental Assessment Act. That assessment was continued under the Canadian

Environmental Assessment Act^ 2012, when that Act came into force inJuly 2012.
11.

On May 18, 2011, BC Hydro submitted a Project Description Report to the British
Columbia Environmental Assessment Office ("EAO") and the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency (the "Agency"), initiating the environmental assessment processes
both provinciaily and federally.

12.

On September 30, 2011, the Agency determined the requirements to commence an

enviromnental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, SC 1992,

240130.00142/90392628.1

f ^

012
-5-

c. 37, were met.

Also on that day, the Minister and the federal Minister of the

Environment announced the Project would undergo a cooperative environmental

assessment, including a joint review panel (the "Paner). The Ministers released a draft
agreement (the "BC/Canada Agreement") for conducting the cooperative environmental
assessment, which included draft terms of reference ("Terms of Reference") for tihe
Panel..

13.

From October 7 to November 7,2011, the BAG and the Agency sought comments from
Aboriginal groups and tlie public on the draft BC/Canada Agreement, including the
Terms of Reference. The comment period was extended for Aboriginal groups to
December 2,2011.

fS*

14.

On or about February 8, 2012, the provincial and federal Ministers of the Environment
entered into the BC/Canada Agreement. Appendix 1 ofthe BC/Canada Agreement set out
the Panel's Terms of Reference (the "Terms of Reference"). The BC/Canada Agreement

was amended in August 2012 to reflect the Canadian Emironmental Assessment Act,
2012.

15.

The BC/Canada Agreement set out the process for environmental assessment, dividing
the assessment into three components:

(a)

The "Pre-Panel Stage" in whichthe Agency and the EAO oversawthe production

of the environmental impactstatement guidelines (the"BISGuidelines"). The EIS

Guidelines were issued by the federal Minister and the Executive Director of the

EAO to BC Flydro and set out the issues to be addressed and the information to be
submitted by BC Hydro in the form of an Environmental Impact Statement

("EIS"). The Agency and the EAO were charged with determining when the EIS
was satisfactory and ready for reviewby the Panel.

(b)

Tlie "Joint Review Panel Stage" in which the Panel was appointed. The Panel
determined the sufficiency of the EIS, held public hearings, and produced the
Panel Report; and

240150.00142/90392628.1

r
013
-6\

(c)

The "Post-Panel Stage" in which the Agency and the EAG coordinated public

release of the Panel Report and coordinated referral documentation to federal and
provincial decision makers.

16.

Upon the commencement of the environmental assessment process, the EAG and the
Agency established a Working Group for the environmental assessment of the Project

composed of various local, provincial, federal and territorial government agencies, local

governments and Aboriginal groups, including West Moberly First Nations and Prophet
River First Nations. The Working Group's role was to provide advice to the EAG and

the Agency on issues related to the assessment ofthe Project. The advice was provided
through wntten comments and through meetings including Technical sub-Working
Group meetings.

17.

During the Pre-Panel Stage, which lasted from on or about the beginning of 2012 to
August 2013, the Agency and EAG undertook a consultative and iterative process to
determine the scope of the assessment (set out in the EIS Guidelines), and the adequacy
of the information submitted by BC Hydro in terms of meeting that scope and for
technical merit (set out in BC Hydro's Environmental Impact Statement or "EIS").

18.

The development of the EIS Guidelines took place from Januaiy to September, 2012.
This period included review by the Working Group, a public comment period on the
resulting draft, and another round of review by the Working Group on a further revised
draft. BC Hydro responded to all comments received, including anumber from Treaty 8

Tribal Association.
I

19.

In September, 2012, the federal Minister and the Executive Director ofthe EAG finalized

the EIS Guidelines, and issued them to BC Hydro. Now produced and shown to me and

marked as Exhibit 3"is a copy ofthe EIS Guidelines.

20.

On January 25, 2013, BC Hydro submitted the EIS to the Agency and EAG, who then
held a review period seeking feedback from the Working Group and the public. BC
Hydro again responded to all comments received including all of the comments fi:om

n
240150.00142/90392628.1

'

014

Treaty 8 Tribal Association, and prepared 29 Technical Memos responding to common

themes raised, which were incorporated into the amended EIS.

21.

Following the review period and several technical sub-Working group meetings, the

Agency and EAO directed BC Hydro to amend and supplement the EIS, which EC
Hydro did. On August 1,2013, the Agency and the EAO determined the amended EIS
^

was satisfactory and directed BC Hydro to submit the EIS to the Panel, which BC Hydro

rsfs

did. This commenced the Panel Stage of the environmental assessment. Now produced
and shown to me and marked as Exhibit ^4" is a USB stick that contains an electronic

copy of the amended EIS.

22.

From August to November, 2013, the Panel undertook a review of the EIS and made a

number of information requests to BC Hydro for supplemental information. BC Hydro

provided the requested information to the Panel from September to November,2013.

23.

On September 13, 2013, BC Hydro submitted an Evidentiary Update to the Panel

reflecting information contained in BC Hydro's Integrated Resource Plan that had been

submittedto the Minister of Energy and Mines in August 2013. This is discussed in more
detail below.

24.

On November 7, 2013, after receiving the additional information from BC Hydro, the
Panel determined tlie amended and supplemented EIS was sufficient to proceed to public

(a|

hearing.

25.

The Panel held public hearings spanning 26 days from December 9,2013 to January 23,
2014. The Panel held general sessions in different communities and community sessions

aimed at hearing directly from Aboriginal community members, including a day in the

West Moberly community (December 16). Theremaining hearing days were dedicated to
specific topics identified by the Panel.

26.

On May 1, 2014, the Panel issued the Panel Report. On May 8,2014, the EAO andthe
Agency released the Panel Report to the public.

240150.00142/90392628.1

015

27.

On October 14,2014, the Ministers issued the Certificate for the Project pursuant to s. 17
of BCEAA. Schedule Bto tlie Certificate isa list of77 conditions with which BC Hydro
must comply. Now produced and shown to me and marked as Exhibit "5** is a copy of
the Enviromnental Assessment Certificate issued to BC Hydro for the Project.

28.

Also on October 14, 2014, the federal Govemor-in-Council issued Order-in-Council

2014-1105 recording his decision under s. 52(4) of CEAA 2012, that "the significant
adverse environmental effects ofthe Site CClean Energy Project proposed by BC Hydro
in British Columbia is likely to cause are justified in the circumstances." The federal
Minister ofEnvironment also released her Decision Statement which included conditions

with which BC Hydro must comply. The Decision Statement was re-issued on November

25, 2014 due to an error establishing the date of the conditions. Now produced and
shown to me and marked as Exhibit "6" is acopy ofthe Decision Statement.
Assessment ofthe Need for the Proiect and Timing ofthe Need for the Project

29.

In Chapter 5of the EIS, BC Hydro described the need for the Project and presented a
comparative analysis of alternatives to the Project. Now produced and shown to me and
marked as Exhibit "7" is acopy ofChapter 5ofthe EIS.

30.

Beginning in January 2011, afew montlis prior to initiating the environmental assessment

of the Project, BC Hydro undertook aprovince-wide consultation process to develop an

integrated resource plan ("IRP") in accordance with section 3of the Clean Energy Act,
SBC 2010, c 22. Now produced and shown to me and marked as Exhibit "7" (noted
31.

above in paragraph 21) is aUSB key that contains an electronic copy ofthe IRP.

The IRP was prepared by a team of BC Hydro employees and consultants with

specialized knowledge in anumber of areas related to energy planning. I assisted in the

pieparation of the sections of the IRP that deal with the Project. It is an extensive

document encompassing thousands of pages that underwent thorough review from 2011
until its approval in November 2013.

32.

The IRP includes BC Hydro's long-term forecasts of its energy and capacity
requirements and BC Hydro's plans to meet those forecasts with new energy and capacity

2401 SO.OOI 42/90392628.1

016

resources. Energy is the amount of electrical energy that can be generated over a period
of time. Capacity is the rate at whichelectrical energy can be generated at any one time.

Dependable capacity is the capacity that can reliably be counted on during peak demand,
and firm energy is the energy that can reliably be counted on as being available &om a
facility over a one-year period. In order to meet its service obligation, BC Hydro must at
all times be able to reliably count upon a certain amount of energy and capacity, which
means a certain amount of firm energyand dependable capacity. The Project will provide
5,100 gigawatt hours of energy, over 90% of which is firm energy, and 1,100 megawatts
of dependable capacity.

33.

As required by the Clean Energy Act, the IRP addresses how muchcapacity and energy
will be required to meet future electricity needs of BC Hydro's customers while
achieving self-sufficiency, and what new resources should be advanced to meet those

needs. Now produced and shown to me and collectively marked as Exhibit "8" is a copy

of the following excerptsfrom the IRP: Chapter 6 ("ResourcePlanning Analysis"),pp. 6-

32 to 6-71 and 6-130 to 6-149, andChapter 9 ("Recommendations"), pages9-28to 9-39.

34.

The analysis in the IRP demonstrates that new capacity resources will be required by

F2019 and new energy resources will be required by F2027 when no demand (or load)
for liquid natural gas ("LNG")facilities is takeninto account Whentaking into account a
low-load arising from LNG facilities (800 GWh/year energy),capacity resourcesare still

required by F2019 and energy resources will be required by F2024. Under what BC
Hydropredicted to be the expected demand from LNG facilities (3,000 GWh/year energy

and 360 MW capacity), the analysis in the IRP demonstrates thatagain capacity resources
are required in F2019, and energy resources will be required by F2022.
r=n

35.

The IRP ultimately made a number of recommendations flowing from these analyses and

the otheranalyses found in the plan, including thatthe Project be advanced for its earliest
in-service date.

36.

A draftof the IRP was submitted to theMinister of Energy andMines pursuant to section

3 of tlie Clean Energy Act on August 2, 2013, who then sought further revisions. BC

Hydro revised the IRP, sought input on the revisions from the public and Aboriginal

240150.(10142/90392628.1

017
-10-

groups, and a final version of the IRP was submitted to the Minister in November, 2013.
On November 25, the Lieutenant Governor in Council issued Order in Council No. 514

approving tlie IRP pursuant to section 4(1 )(a) of the Clean Energy Act. Now produced
and shown to meand marked as Exhibit "9" is a copy of Order in Council No. 514.

37.

In September 2013, BC Hydro submitted anupdate totheEIS (the "Evidentiary Update")

to theEAO and the Agency that updated the EIS to reflect the analysis and conclusions in
the IRP. The Evidentiary Update also included a sensitivity analysis with respect to a
range of factors that influence BC Hydro's economic analysis. These factors included

lower and higher new electricity requirements, lower and higher electricity and gas
market prices, higher Project costs, reduced cost of capital of IPP resources, and lower

and higher costs associated witli integrating wind resources into the BC Hydro system.
Now produced and shown to me and marked as Exhibit "10** Is acopy ofthe Evidentiary
Update to the EIS that BC Hydro submitted to the EAO and Agency.

38.

In the EIS( and updated in the Evidentiary Update), BC Hydro conducted an analysis of
alternatives to the Project, and concluded the Project provides the best combination of

financial, teclmical, environmental and economic development attributes of the

alternatives, and is the most cost-effective way to meet the long-term energy and

dependable capacity requirements ofBC Hydro's customers.

39.

The Panel similarly concluded that B.C. will need new energy and new capacity at some

point, and that the Project would be the least expensive ofthe alternatives and that its cost
advantages would increase with passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more
costly (page 305 ofthe Panel Report).

40.

With respect to the timing oftlie need for the Project, the Panel concluded that "the

Proponent has not fully demonstrated the need for the Project on the timetable set forth"
(at page 306). This latter conclusion was based on a finding set out earlier in the Panel
Report, in which the Panel found "under the Low Liquefied Natural Gas case, available
resources could provide adequate energy and capacity until at least 2028" (page 304).

240150.00142/90392628.1

018
-11 -

41,

There are two things to note with respect to this conclusion of the Panel, one relating to
tlie Panel's conclusion on when new energy will be required, and one relating to the
Panel's conclusion when new capacity will be required.

42,

First, after reviewing the analysis of the Panel that led to the conclusion that available
resources could provide adequate energy until at least 2028, a numberof persons at BC
Hydro, includingmyself, identified an error in the Panel's calculations.

43,

On May 9,2014, Danielle Melchior, BC Hydro Director, Environmental Assessment and

Regulatory, wrote to the Panel Secretariat describing the errorBC Hydroidentified on the

issue ofthe timing ofneed for the Project. I assisted inthe preparation ofthat letter. Now

produced and shown to me and marked as Exhibit "11" is a copy of Ms. MelcWor's
letter dated May 9,2014.

44.

The letter identifies that, although the Panel's view was that the correct load forecast to
use was the low-LNG load scenario, it did not incorporate low-LNG load into its load
resource balance figures in its calculations (shown in Tables 16 and 18 of the Panel

Report). As a result of tliis exclusion, the Panel Reportshowsthat there is a need for new
energy resources in 2028. However, as shown by the revisedtables in BC Hydro's May 9

letter, when low-LNG load is incorporated tlie need for new energy resources is 2024.
Tliis is consistent with the IRP and tlie Evidentiary Update.

45.

On June 10, 2014, the Panel issued an errata to the Panel Report on a number of matters

including correcting the error identified by BC Hydro. The Panel's errata confirms the

calculation error in the Panel Report, but states, without explanation, its conclusions
remain the same. Nowproduced and shown to me and marked as Exhibit"12" is a copy
of the Errata issued the Panel on June 10,2014.

46.

The second point is with respect to the need for new capacity resources. The Panel's
reference to "available resources" includes two resources that it refers to as "capacity

additions" that are not yet in existence and that BC Hydro does not currently intend to
construct. Those are "Revelstoke 6" which is the addition of a new turbine in the

Revelstoke Dam, and upgrades to five of the turbines at GM Shrum power plant ("GM

240150.C0142y^0392628.I

019
-12-

Shrum upgrades"), which is the facility associated with the W.A,C. Bennett dam. While

each of these resources would provide additional edacity, they would provide littleto no

energy. Eachof these projects would require anenvironmental assessment certificate and

consultation witli any potentially impacted First Nations before they could proceed.
47.

In the IRP, advancing Revelstoke 6 and GM Shrum upgrades were considered in the
resource planning analysis. The IRP concluded tliat Revelstoke 6 and GM Shrum were

48.

best viewed as contingency resources (i.e., a potential future resource should the need
arise), and not asresources to actively pursue.

'

In contrast, with respect to the Project, the IRP stated: "The IRP analysis demonstrates

that, even in a no LNG load scenario, portfolios with Site Care more cost competitive

than portfolios without Site Cregardless of whether the 7 per cent natural gas-fired
generation headroom is used. Based on these results, it is prudent to continue with the
current regulatoiy window and maintain Site C's earliest ISD ofF2024, given that it is
cost-effective at its earliest ISD, and there is a need for capacity prior to and a need for
energy shortly after the earliest ISD." (p. 6-70)
Harm toBC Hydro and Others Arising from Delay in Construction

49.

Construction ofthe Project began on July 27,2015.

50.

As I describe below, delays in construction will result in considerable increased costs to

BC Hydro, and there is a significant risk of loss to third party contractors and their
employees.

51.

In this affidavit, Iexplain the cost ofpotential delay to construction activities of3months

and 6months, both ofwhich are expected to result in an overall project delay ofone year.
If the delay is longer than one year, the cost of delay would be substantially higher than
what is set out in this affidavit.

52.

BC Hydro has awarded or intends to award an estimated 22 contracts for site prqparation
and site services work in 2015, including for: clearing and other general site preparation
work; construction power; site communications; upgrades to public roads; public safety

240150.00142y110392628.1

020
-13-

buoys and booms; security and other site services. The total estimated value of diese

contracts is approximately $185 million. The total aggregated value of the contracts
entered into after January 2015 is approximately $100 million. These contracts were

vr?>

signedbetween April and July, 2015.

53.

Of these contracts, up to 14are expected to be awarded directly to companies owned by

FirstNations, companies owned bymembers ofFirst Nations, orjointventures involving

companies owned by First Nations. The remaining contracts are to be awarded through a
competitive procurement process.

54.
fSsj

To date, BC Hydro has entered into 4 contracts with 3 different companies either owned
by a member of one oftheFirst Nations that isa signatory to Treaty 8 or injointventures
>vith signatories to Treaty 8. These contracts are for clearing, construction ofa temporary
bridge, and security services. They are:

F\

(a)

North Bank Clearing awarded to Paul Paquette and Sons Contracting Ltd. on
December 19,2014;

(b)

Temporary Peace River Construction Bridge awarded to Ruskin-Saulteau First

Nation Joint Venture April 8,2015;

(c)

Perimeter Security Services awarded to Secmiguard-SFN Joint Venture June 15,

2015

(d)

SouthBankClearing awarded to Paul Paquette and Sons Contracting Ltd, on July

23,2015;

55.

BC Hydro has completed a procurement process to select a contractor to complete site

preparation work on the north bank of the Peace River, and in July 2015, awarded the
contract to Morgan Construction and Environmental Ltd. ("Morgan Construction").

Morgan Construction is expected to being on approximately August 14,2015.

56.

In addition to the site preparation and site services contracts, BC Hydro has completed a

procurement process to select a contractor to build and operate a construction camp to

house workers for the main civil works and other contracts. Through this process, BC

240150.00142/90392628.1

021

14 -

Hydro selected ATCO Two Rivers Lodging Group ("ATCO") as the preferred proponent.

BC Hydro has entered into an interim contractual secernent with ATCO, and the full
contract is expected to be awarded in September 2015.

57.

58.

BC Hydro has also funded a contract between the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure ("MOTr) and private contractor for upgrades to existing roads. This

contract has been awarded to a contractor selected by MOTI.

'

In addition to tlie contracts already siped, BC Hydro is in negotiations with respect to

the contracts listed below and expects it will be entering additional contracts in the near
future. In particular:

(a)

BC Hydro anticipates awardmg a contract to Duz Cho for site preparation

activities on the South Bank, including construction of site roads and the south

bank bridge approach as well as preparation for a temporary substation and

communications tower. Note that this is a direct award and is further to First

Nations commitments.

(b)

BC Hydro anticipates awarding a contract to a First Nations contractor for

upgrades to an existing public road. Note that this is a direct award for the 271
Road.

(c)

BC Hydro anticipates awarding a contract for erection and commissioning of a

temporary substation for use duringconstruction.

(d)

59.

BC Hydro anticipates awarding a contract for installation and commissioning of

site communications infrastructure, including a communications tower,

microwave station and two different radio systems.

In addition, BC Hydro is planning on entering additional contracts for the following

activities in 2015:

(a)

Constmction management and associated support;

(b)

Mitigation and compensation works;

240I50.00I42/90392628.

-I

022
-15-

(c)

60.

Environmental monitoring;

In the next 12 months, BC Hydro also intends toaward large contracts for thefollowing:

(a)

Construction and commissioning of the permanent substation (expected to be

awarded in or about August 2015);

(b)

Construction of the main civil works (expected to be awarded in or about

December 2015);

(c)

Fabrication, delivery and installation of turbines and generators (expected to be

frtV

awarded in or about March 2016);

(d)

Construction of the transmission line (expected to be awarded in or about July

2016).

61.

Delays in construction start will gaierally increase the cost of construction of theProject
There are several reasons why this is the case. The extent to which each may result in a
cost increase will vary witli the circumstances. The reason for increases in cost are as
follows:

(a)

Direct costs incuned because construction activities have commenced and costs
have been incurred, including demobilization and remobilization, standby costs,
additional management costs of contractors currently working on site, and costs
associated with tlie requirements to find new sources ofwater and site power that
will be required as the current sources of water and power rely on provincial
permits;

(b)

Costs of acceleration of work to maintain the construction schedule, including

increased use ofdouble-shifts, larger shift sizes, more overtime requirements, and
increased overlap between contractors on site and associated interfece costs;

F*!

(c)

Reduction in efficiencies due to seasonal constraints and \wnter work premiums

and reducedaccess to the site or portions of the site;

240150.00t42ffl0392628.1

023
-16-

(d)

Potential loss ofaconstruction season, with accompanying costs related to:

(i)

staff, supplies, and rent costs for the additional term ofconstruction;

(ii)

financing costs (referred to as "interest during construction" or IDC )

^ .

related to the additional term of construction;

(iii)

62.

additional allowances for inflation.

Longer delays will result in relatively greater cost increases because the options for
accelerating work become more constrained. They will be less efficient, require more
costly measures, and have higher risks associated with them.

63.

BC Hydro conducted an analysis of the consequences of adelay to the Project schedule

resulting from an injunction affecting provincial permits, including construction activities
requiring the provincial permits issued toBC Hydro inJuly, 2015, as well as the impact

64.

^
.a

on procurement processescurrentlyunderway.

BC Hydro currently plans toreceive technical and financial submissions from proponents
for the Main Civil Works contract on September 19and October 11,2015 respectively.
The anticipated value of this contract is greater than $I billion, and is the largest and

^
^

longest contract to be awarded as part of the Project. The procurement process has been
underway since April 2014.
I

65.

A 1 month, or longer, suspension of work pursuant to the provincial permits would result

in proponent submissions for tliis significant contract to be delivered while work on the

Project is largely stopped and would create uncertainty regarding the site conditions on
which the proponents based their bids. The inability to continue with work and the
1 *

uncertainty created by an interlocutory injunction would inhibit the proponents ability to

effectively design their construction schedule, and would almost certainly result in

significant risk premiums beingincorporated intotheir financial submissions.

m

66.

In these circumstances, it would not be prudent to close the bidding on the Main Civil
Works contract during aperiod ofwork suspension. BC Hydro would therefore delay the

delivery of the proponents' bids until such time as sufficient certainty existed, which

js

240150.00142/90392628.1

'

024
-17-

would not arise until any injunction was lifted. The delay in the delivery of bids would
subsequently delay the award of the contract and the date when the Main Civil Works
contractor can begin work.

67.

As a result, it is highly likely that an injunction of the provincially-permitted activity that

lasted for 1 or more months would cause the Main Civil Works procurement process to
be delayed for that same period of time until the process could be resumed. At thattime,
the proponents would require additional timeto revise their bids, which are almost final,

based on whatever changes incircumstances arose asa result of the delay (e.g, because a
number of activities, such as clearing, are constrained byseason, a 3-month delay would
involve re-consideration ofconstruction sequencing). For example, a 3-month injunction

at this point in tlie procurement process, therefore, at best is likely to result in a delay in
the procurement process of 4 to 5 montlis.

68.

Due to the delay in the procurement process, the Main Civil Works contractor selected
would also lose time from its construction schedule. A delay of this duration risks
missing critical deadlines for river diversion (fall 2019) and construction of the RCC

_
rss,

buttress (fall 2017). Construction ofthe RCC buttress, for example, requires the purchase
and delivery of an RCC batch plant, used to process the roller compacted cement This
plant require a long lead-time inthe vicinity of 12 months from ordering towhen they are
operational (for fabrication, delivery and trial placements). These batch plants must be
operational before the end of the 2016 construction season to meet the deadline for

^
^

constructing the RCC buttress.

69.

Given these ti^t schedules, an injimction of any length will potentially result in a one-

year delay to the overall project schedule due to the need toperform certain construction

within a single season and because of the limited diversion window. If a delay of more
than one montli results from the injunction, BC Hydro believes it highly likely that the

current project schedule could not be maintained, and there would likely be a one-year
delay in the overall project schedule and in-service date A longer delay of 6 months or
more would make a one-year delay to the project schedule virtually certain. The impact
pa,

of a delay of one month or less is uncertain; however the effect is expected to be

240I50.00I42/90392628.I

025

18-

70.

somewhere between $100 million of additional costs and a one year delay in the overall

projectschedule withresulting additional costsof $335 million.

BC Hydro is currently in the process of evaluating submissions received under the

procurement process for the Turbines and Generators, negotiating a final Project

Agreement for the Worker Accommodation contract, and conducting procurement

processes for the permanent substation and transmission lines. These contracts represent

approximately $1 billion in cost in total. A delay of one year to the project schedule

would require substantial changes to the schedule of this work while within the

71.

procurement process, would likely delay the finalization of these contracts by several

months, and would likely increase the costs of thesecontracts.

'

Aone year delay to die construction of the Project will significantly increase the capital

costs of the Project. In January and February 2015, BC Hydro provided affidavits swom

as part ofthe judicial review proceedings in Federal Court and B.C. Supreme Court

seeking to quash die Decision Statement and Environmental Assessment Certificate

respectively. BC Hydro estimated that the anticipated cost ofa one-year delay, effective

at that time, was $175 million. Now produced and shown to me and marked as Ebthibit

"13" is a copy ofmy affidavit (without exhibits) that 1affirmed on February 13, 2015,
filed by BC Hydro in British Columbia Supreme Court No. 14 4690 in the Victoria

^
'

Registry (moved to Vancouver Registry SI53242). The facts contained in that affidavit
were true at the date on which it was affirmed.

72.

After receiving West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation^s Notice of
Application, BC Hydro has updated its analysis ofthe capital cost impact ofa one-year
delay in Project construction based on the current stale of constmction. The analysis
demonstrates that a delay in the project completion date by one year would be expected
to result in further increased costs of $160 million beyond the original $175 million
estimate, for a total cost impact of$335 million. The $335 million cost impact is broken
down as follows:

(a)

$100 million ofdirect cost impacts, generally due to the following:

I

240I50.00I42/90392628.I

026
19

(i)

f=i

Project team costs for an additional year of construction (including staff,

rent, supplies);
%

(ii)

Additional mitigation costs due to requirements stated per year of

construction;

(iii)

Cost of maintaining site services for an additional year (e.g., camp,

security, medical)

(iv)

(b)

Demobilization and remobilization costs for contracts already underway

$100 million of additional allowance for inflation due to shifting spending into
future periods, which are expected to have higher prices due to und^lying

IpSfi

inflation.

(c)

$135 million of increased interest costs due to future higher rates and an

additional year of payments on costs already incurred or expected to incur in tlie

next year.
73,

This analysis assumes that a delay of one-year would be known by the end of August

2015, allowing BC Hydro to mitigate even further costs by rescheduling key work and
delay procurement of major contracts. If BC Hydro proceeds on the basis that it will be
subject to a shorterdelay that will not cause it to losea construction season,then a longer

delay occurs,this would have larger cost impacts.

74.

This estimate is substantially larger than the estimate of$175 million for a one-year delay

in construction that I provided in January and February 2015 in affidavits sworn as part
{ssl

of the judicial review proceedings in Federal Court and B.C. Supreme Court seeking to
quash the Decision Statement and Environmental Assessment Certificate respectively.
There are several reasons for the increased costs at this time:

(a)

At the time of the previous estimate, construction had not commenced. Because
construction has now commenced, a delay at this time will result in a number of
directcosts that did not existin January and February 2015. In particular,

240150,00142/90392628.1
Ml

027

-20

(i)

BC Hydro has ramped up capacity to manage the project and has

mobilized the construction management team to site;

(ii)

Several contracts are underway and pausing tliese contracts for any period
of time will result in demobilization and remobilization costs;

(iii)

Construction of the worker accommodation camp has begun and will be

maintained for an additional year if the Project were to be delayed by one
year.

(b)

Costs due to inflation are liigher based on current indicators than when the
analyses in January and February were conducted;

(c)

Interest once construction has commenced ishigher due todirect costs incurred to

date, and costs that will be incurred in the next year (e.g., construction of worker
accommodation camp and upgrade topublic roads will continue asthose contracts

have been entered into and the work does not require permits).
75.

The number of persons expected to be employed during construction in the next three
months that will be directly impacted due to a suspension of construction activities
requiring provincial permits isestimated to be 349 persons. This includes:

(a)

60 persons employed by Paul Paquette and Sons, who is conducting the North
Bank Clearing and South Bank Clearing work;

(b)

An average of 115 persons employed by Morgan Construction who is conducting

the North bank site preparation work;

(c)

An average of83 persons employed by the South bank site preparation contractor.
A contract for this work isanticipated to be signed later this week;

(d)

An average of 50 persons employed by the Ruskin-Saulteau First Nation Joint

Venture who isthe Peace River Temporary Construction Bridge contractor;

(e)

Anaverage of 16persons for the temporary Septimus Substation contractor;

2<tOfSO.OOI42/90392628.1

028
- 21 -

(f)

76.

An average of 25 persons for the distribution lines contractor;

In addition to the impact on individuals duectly employed at site, a delay will have a

corresponding reduction in economic benefits for persons employed in support services

such as lodging, catering, logistics and supplies, as well as a reduction in economic
benefits for communities in which work is underway.

77.

In addition, there are other contractors working on site conducting construction activities

that do not require provincial permits. An extended delay maymean BC Hydro will be
forced to suspend work on these contracts to avoid incurring additional costs to

ratepayers. Tliese include the construction of the worker accommodation camp, being
conducted by ATCO Two Rivers Lodging Group who employs an average of 133
persons for August to October 2015 under its contract with BC Hydro with respect to the
Project; security services conducted by Saulteau Securiguard Security who employs an

average of 27 persons, and contracts for construction power and telecommunications,

among others.

Overall Hann to Ratepayers

78.

I have reviewed the affidavit of Philip Raphals affirmed on July 7, 2015 filed in this
proceeding by West Moberly FirstNations and ProphetRiverFirst Nation, including the
report Mr. Raphals attached as Exhibit 2.

79.

The analysis set out in Mr. Raphals' report is fundamentally flawedthroughits assertion
that costs avoided in a specific year are costs that ratepayers will not ever pay. This is

incorrect as tlie costs are only deferred and not avoided. Mr. Raphals achieves this result

by limiting his analysis to a small period around the Project's in-service date ratherthan
looking at the full costs to ratepayers.

80.
~

Mr. Raphals asserts that bybuilding the Project oneyearlater, ratepayers will avoid $500
million in costs. He relies on the fact that when the Project enters service it will begin

recovering itsaimual costs offrom ratepayers, and asserts that ifthe project enters service
one year later this means that ratepayers will avoid paying the annual costs for this year

ofdelay. Delaying the Project by one year does not avoid costs. Itonly shifts the recovery

24OISO.O0M2/9O392628.I

t=

029

-22-

^
'i

of costs into the future by one year. At the same time such a delay will increase the

capital costs of the Project and require the purchase or construction of additional
electricity resources. All of these effects serveto increasethe overall cost to ratepayers,
n

81.

Mr. Raphals' analysis also assumes that dependable capacity can be found on the open

market In the electricity market that BC Hydro primarily trades with for imports and

exports (the Mid-C market), capacity is notgenerally found as a firm product similar to a

BC-based generation resource. The Mid-C market for capacity is an undeveloped and

illiquid market, and it would not be prudent for BC Hydro to rely on this market for a

substantial amount ofdependable capacity required to meet customer requirements. BC

Hydro would likely instead look to potential other generation options, such as
construction of Revelstoke 6 or the GM Shrum upgrades, either of whichhas capitalcosts

82.

and potential impacts.

If the Project is subject to a delay of one year beginning this month, capital costs of the

Project will increase by an estimated $335 million. In addition, BC Hydro will be

required to make additional electricity purchases through the market or through

additional independent power producer contracts that are not required if the in-service

date ofthe Project isnot delayed. Under BC Hydro's expected load forecast and mid-case

marketpricesthese costsareapproximately $200 million.

83.

The one mitigating factor of delaying by one year is that recovery of some of the capital
costs from ratepayers would also be delayed by one year. This later recovery has some

benefits because ofthe time value of money. BC Hydro undertook an analysis reflecting

the time value of money in thefall of 2014. Under its expected load forecast, the analysis
demonstrated that delay would result in harm to BC Hydro ratepayers. BC Hydro
reviewed the sensitivity of this result to low and high loadsand determined that, at best,
BC Hydro ratepayers would see no substantial costs or benefits in the low load scenarios

and significant costs in the expected and high load scenarios. This is consistent with the

conclusions in the IRP.

84.

n
i 1

Under Mr. Raphals' analysis, it would not be economical to build any new project of
significant size because in the first years of service it would result in a surplus of energy.
1^

240150.00142/90392628.1

030
23-

and based on current forecasts the spot market prices are cheaper than the cost of new
FH

resources. Such an approach would be directly contrary to BC Hydro's obligation to

achieve self-sufficiency set out in the Clean Energy Act and does not take restrictions on
tlie amount of electricity BC Hydro can reliably import.

85.

A two year delay would result in further increased costs to ratepayer as a result of
additional increases to the project capital costs as well as increased requirements
electricity purchases that would not otherwisebe required.

AFFIRMED, BEFORE ME at Vancouver,

British Columbia, on August 12,2015 .

^ACornmissioner forlaklHgAffidavits for'

^^tish Colurabi^

240150.00142/90392628.1

MICHAEL SAVIDANT

031

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20150828
Docket: 15-2987

Registry: Victoria
In the Matter of the Judicial Review Procedure Act,
R.S.B.C. 1998, c. 241
Between:
PS

Prophet River First Nation and West Moberiy First Nations

Petitioners
And

Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations,

Regional Manager, Northeast Region,
Regional Water Manager, Northeast Region

PS

and Chief Inspector of Mines

Respondents
f=S

And

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

Respondent
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Sewell

Oral Reasons for Judgment

J.W. Gailus
A.T. Rana
A.J. Russeil
M. Nefstead

Counsel for the Petitioners:

Counsel for the Provincial Respondents:

E.K. Christie

J.J. Oliphant
Counsel for the Respondent, BC Hydro:

C.F.WIIIms

M.D. Andrews, Q.C.

E.A.B. Gilbride

Victoria, B.C.

Place and Date of Hearing:

August 18-20,2015

Place and Date of Judgment: fninfitiittiiCM

iMSdl if

msdSbdWiiBMiieili

A CelwlitadofitriBrMdfiil
Mdtvlts for BrilMiColUfrM

Vancouver, B.C.

August 28, 2015

032

n
i

Prophet River First Nahon v. British Coiumbia (Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations)
[1]

Page 2

THE COURT: This is an application by the petitioners for an interlocutory

injunction restraining the respondent, BO Hydro, from carrying out any work

p(

pursuant to the permits listed atAppendix Ato the petition until the petition is

decided on its merits or further order of the court. As this is an urgent application that

seeks immediate relief, I have elected todeliver brief reasons today rather than take

a longer time to prepare reasons commenting fully on the lengthy arguments made
before me. In arriving at my decision Ihave, however, taken all of the submissions

^
i

made to me into account.

[2]

The petitioners are First Nations who are adherents to Treaty 8and have

traditional territories and treaty rights to hunt, trap, andfish in areas thatwill be
adversely affected by construction of the Site 0 dam on the Peace River. The

respondent, 80 Hydro, is proceeding with construction of the Site-C project pursuant

to permits issued to itby the Province of British Columbia. The permits authorize BO
Hydro to begin site preparation, theclearing ofsome areas, construction ofroads,
and begin construction oftheworks necessary to divert the Peace River to permit

construction of the Site-C dam itself.

[3]

The petitioners allege that the permits were issued without adequate
m

consultation and accommodation with respect to their Aboriginal and treaty rights

and that they should, accordingly, be quashed or suspended until the Government
and BC Hydro meet their constitutional obligations to them. BC Hydro submits that

the permits have been validly issued and that it is entitled to proceedwith the work
authorized by them. It, supported bythe Attorney General,submitsthat the
petitioners have had ample time to consult with respect to the permits and that the
petitioners' real objective is to stop the Site-C project from proceeding at all rather
than to be consulted about the merits of the permits in issue on this application.

[4]
The petitioners submit that they will suffer irreparable harm if the work
continues until a hearing ofthispetition from the destruction of habitat necessaryfor

the carrying outoftheir traditional activities and from the very fact ofbeing deprived

r?

033

Prophet River First Nation v, British Coiumbia (Forests, Lands and Naturai

Resource Operations)

Page 3

of their constitutionai rightto be consulted and, ifpossible, accommodated against

the effect of the permits.

[5]

BC Hydro submits that it will suffer irreparable harm ifthe work is delayed for

any significant period because it has already mobilized the resources necessary to

construct the massive project involved and has, in fact, commenced with
construction of the project and that itwili cause serious damage to its construction
schedule ifwork is halted even for a short time pending a decision in this case.

[6]
r

The hearing of the injunction application occupied three days. In their able

submissions, counsel for all parties raised many interesting arguments both factual
and legal. In these reasons, as I have already indicated, I do not find it necessary to

refer to most of the submissions, particularly those dealing with the merits of the
underlying petition. In my view, the outcome of this application turns on the

r=^

questions of irreparable harm and balance of convenience. In particular in this case,

as in many such cases involving injunctions, I must decide which party will suffer the
greater harm from any decision I make in this case.

[7]

The petitioners submit that the Government engaged in no meaningful

consultation with respect to the permits in issue in this case. Their position is that the
parties agreed from an early stage that consultation with respect to the permits
would be complex. They submit that the Government and, in this context, I include

BC Hydro, agreed that previously existing consultation agreements consisting of

H

economic benefit agreements and collaborative management agreements were not

well suited or appropriate for consultation on something as complex as the Site-C

p-t

project.

[8]

The petitioners say that the Government agreed that consultation with respect

fn

to the permits would be conducted pursuant to a custom agreement to be negotiated

specifically for Site-C. However, the only process agreement that was concluded
was an agreement known as the Site-C custom consultation process negotiation

agreement, which I will refer to as the negotiation agreement, which was signed on

April 14,2015. This agreement was intended to guide the negotiation of a further

034

Prophet River First Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations)

Page 4

agreement, the custom consultation agreement, which Iwill refer to as the

consultation agreement, as well as deal with limited interim permit consultation.

H
(B)
'

[9]

The petitioners rely on the terms ofthe negotiation agreement in support of

theirposition that the parties only intended to conduct limited consultation prior to
execution of the consultation agreement. Theysay they were handicapped even in
that limited scope of consultation by the failure of the Government to provide
$350,000 in capacity funding that itagreed to pay in the negotiation agreement until

fim

one month after the execution of the negotiation agreement. They say that the

Government breached the negotiation agreement by including permitsoutside of the

agreed limited scope of consultation inthe first group of permits supplied to them for
consultation. The petitioners say that, despite the terms of the negotiation

agreement, the late payment ofcapacity funding and the increased scope ofpermits

under consideration by BC Hydro and the Government, the Government issued the

permits in July2015 before there was an opportunity for anymeaningful consultation

to take place.

^
^

[10]

'

The petitioners submit that the loss of any meaningful opportunity to be

consulted is in and of itself irreparable harm that must be remedied by injunctive

relief. They also submit that the loss of habitat for the species they rely upon and the
potential destruction of important archeological artifacts and historical sites and the

disruption of water quality from the clearing operations in which BC Hydro will be

/H

engaged will cause irreparable harm to the exercise of their treaty and constitutional

rights.

[11 ] The petitioners are not in a position to offer the usual undertaking as to

damages in this case, but submit that this is an exceptional case in which the court
can and should exercise its discretion to dispense with the undertaking.

[12]

The respondents submit that the petitioners have had adequate time to

consult on the permits and have known since 2014 that BC Hydro intended to
proceed with preliminary work on the project beginning in the summer of 2015. The
respondents say that the petitioners have not pursued consultation with respect to

n
p

p-1

035

Prophet River First Nation v. British Coiumbia (Forests, Lands and Naturai

Resource Operations)

Page 5

the permits diligently or in good faith. The implication that I took from submissions on
behalf of BC Hydro, in particular, is that this application is part of a Fabian tactic on
the part of the petitioners to delay the project from proceeding until circumstances
change and the project may be permanently shelved.

[13]

On the view I take of the dispositive issue on this application, 1do not find it

necessary to explore the merits of the parties' positions any further. I am, however,
satisfied that the petitioners have raised a fair question with respect to the adequacy

of consultation and as to whether the Government has complied with the terms of

the negotiation agreement and the other understandings with respect to consultation
with respect to the permits.

[14]

The parties agree on the essential test for the granting of interlocutory

injunctive relief. The test has been described as having either two elements in
Attorney General v. Wale (1986), 9 B.C.L.R. (2d) 333, or three elements in RJR"
MacDonald Inc. v. the Attorney General of Canada, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311. The

difference between the two formulations of the test is over whether the questions of
irreparable harm and balance of convenience are elements to be considered

separately by the court or whether they should be considered together under the

heading of balance of convenience. However expressed, on an application for an

interlocutory injunction, the factors the court must consider are;

1.

Has the applicant raised a fair question for trial or, in this case,
disposition at the hearing of the petition;

2.

If the injunction is not granted, will the applicant suffer irreparable

harm, that is, harm that cannot adequately be compensated for in
damages; and

3.

[15]

Does the balance of convenience favour the granting of the injunction?

These factors must be considered in reaching the ultimate decision as to

whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the injunction in the circumstances of

the case before the court. It is also important to remember that on this application,

036

Prophet River FirstNation v. British Coiumbia (Forests, Landsand Naturai

Resource Operations)

Page 6

as in any otherapptication, the onusis on the applicant to establish thatthe grounds

for granting the relief it seeks have been established on the evidence.

[16] In this case, as I have already indicated, I am satisfied thatthe petitioners

have raised a fair question to be tried with respectto the adequacyofconsultation
over the permits. The jurisprudence with respect to a fair question has made itclear
that this is a low threshold and, in my view, the applicants have met that threshold.
In this case, as t will be the judge who will hear the petition, I consider it
inappropriate to say anything further about this element of the test at this time.
[17]

Turning to the balance of convenience and irreparable harm, I will consider

these two elements together because, in this case, there is evidence from both

parties indicating that a decision adverse to them would cause them irreparable

harm. In this case, however, I am satisfied that the balance of convenience weighs

'

strongly against granting the relief sought against BC Hydro.

^
r
/

[18]

In considering whether a party will suffer irreparable harm, it is the type of

harm rather than the magnitude of harm that must be considered. However, in

p,

assessing the balance of convenience, the magnitude of harm to both parties is of

great importance. I am simply not satisfied that the petitioners have shown that any
serious long-term harm will be caused to their interests ifthe work contemplated
over the next three months proceeds pending the hearing of the petition in this case.

^
fn

In the course of argument, Iwas struck by the lack of specificity in the evidence

about harm to the petitioners' interest. Iwas presented with no evidence of any

actual activities of actual members of either petitioner whose ability to earn a

livelihood or pursue traditional hunting, fishing, ortrapping would be seriously

impacted in the three months between this hearing and the date set forthe hearing
of the petition.
i

[19]

When petitioners* counselwas speaking in reply, Iasked ifshe could point me

to any such evidence. She referred me to certain information contained in the

Govemment's own documentation including certain conditions attached to permits.

However, despite the Government's recognition that there would be some adverse

037

Prophet River FirstNation v, British Coiumbia (Forests, Landsand Naturai

Resource Operations)

effects if the work proceeds, it nevertheless issued the permits. In my view, the
information referred to bycounsel did not provide an adequate basis on which I
could conclude that serious long-term harm will be suffered bythe petitioners if the
works proceed pending the resolution ofthe issues raised in this petition.

[20] The most serious harm addressed in the petitioners' evidence related to the
loss ofold growth ornear-old-growth forest that would result from the clearing of
forests in preparation for an inundation by the reservoir. However, almost all of that
evidence related to clear-cutting along the Moberly River in the area to be inundated
ifthe reservoir is created. In the course of the hearing, BC Hydro gave a formal

undertaking to thecourt that no such clearing would be done until thewinter of

2016/2017, thereby removing that potential source of irreparable harm in the
interlocutory phase of this proceeding.

[21] In my view, the other examples of harm relied upon by the petitioners were
largely theoretical and speculative. In addition, the evidence thatwas before the
court seemed generally to support the submissions of BC Hydro that there would be
a relatively minor impact on important values from the activities that will be
undertaken between now and the end of the year.

p-r,

1*1

[22] I also accept the submission of BC Hydro that the loss ofan adequate
opportunity to be consulted is not in and ofitself irreparable harm. This is particularly
so In a case such as this when the adequacy of consultation is the very issue that

the court will be asked to decide at the petition hearing and when the court is not in a

position to make any finding with respect tothat question on the application for the
injunction. In this regard, Irespectfully adopt the analysis ofWilcock J., as he then
was, of this court in Sunshine Logging v. Prior, 2011 BCSC 1044, at paragraphs 30
to 34.

[23]

On the other hand, BC Hydro has satisfied me that both itand its contractors

and suppliers will suffer considerable harm from even a relatively short disruption of
the construction schedule. I need not recite the evidence in detail with respect to this

question in these reasons. However, Idogenerally accept theevidence ofMr.

038

Prophet River First Nation v. British Coiumbia (Forests, Lands and Natural

Resource Operations)

Pag 8

Watson that a delay ofthree months would result in a serious risk that the project will
be delayed for a full year and the evidence of Mr. Savldantthat a one-year delay on
the duration of the project will result In very substantial Increases In project costs,

likely In excess of $250 million. If the petitioners succeed In obtaining an Injunction,

but are ultimately unsuccessful In this litigation, BC Hydro and Its suppliers will have
no recourse to recover these additional costs because, as I have already Indicated,
the petitioners are neither willing nor able to offer an undertaking to pay any
damages arising from the injunction.

[24]

The authorities cited by BC Hydro confirmthat there Is no special rule In

cases Involving Aboriginal rights with respect to the requirement for an undertaking

in support of an application for interlocutory relief. In my view, that Is particularlyso

In a case such as this where there Is strong evidence that the party being enjoined
will suffer substantial damages from the granting of the Injunction.

[25]

I am aware that the petitioners have tendered evidence from Mr. Raphals to

the effect that there will be no net loss to the petitioners or the public from a oneyear delay In the completion of the project. However, I have decided that I cannot

receive that evidence because Iam notsatisfied that Mr. Raphals has the necessary
qualifications to give theopinion relied upon by the petitioners. The opinion given by
Mr. Raphals Involves sophisticated financial analysis offuture costs and the
availability of future alternative sources of power as well as future demand. There is

n
n
11

nothing In Mr. Raphals resume, hiseducation, or his otherqualifications sufficient to

persuade me that he Is qualified to give that opinion evidence and I, therefore, reject
It.

[26] I am, therefore, left with theonly evidence ofthefinancial Impact ofthe delay
and disruption ofthe construction schedule coming from BC Hydro's witnesses.
While I appreciate that that evidence Isdesigned to showthe worst case scenario for
BC Hydro, I am satisfied that, even viewed conservatively. It shows that serious

harm will be suffered by BC Hydro and Its suppliers and subcontractors Ifwork Is

enjoined for the three to five months necessary to hear and decide the petition.

039

Prophet River First Nation v. British Coiumbia (Forests, Lands and Naturai

Resource Operations)

Page 9

[27] Finally, with regard to the balance ofconvenience, I take into accountthe
impact of the order sought on BC Hydro's suppliers and the public in general as well
as theiremployees. As in the case of BC Hydro, the persons in this category will
have no remedy for any losses theysuffer as a result ofthe granting ofthe relief
sought by the petitioners.

[28]

Forall of the above reasons, I have decided that the application for injunctive

relief must be dismissed.

[29]

There will be no costs of the application.

The Honourable Mr. Justice Seweir

No. S-160488.

Vancouver Registry
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN;

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY
PLAINTIFF
AND:

KEN BOON, ARLENE BOON, VERENA

HOFMANN, ESTHER PEDERSEN also Icnown
as Rachel Blatt, HELEN KNOTT, YVONNE
TUPPER, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE and all other

persons unknown to the Plaintiff occupjdng,

obstructing, blocking, physically impeding or
delaying access, at or in the vicinity of the area in
and around the south bank of the Peace River

upstream (west) of the Moberly River, including

the area in and around the heritage site known as
Rocky Moimtain Fort
DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

FASKEN MARTINEAU DuMOULIN LLP

Barristers and Solicitors
2900 - 550 Burrard Street

Vancouver, BC, V6C 0A3

+1604631 3131

Counsel: Charles F. Willms

Matter No: 240150.00163

240150.00163/90624881.2