December 6, 2025 – Vancouver / Vanderhoof, B.C.
BC Hydro has launched a court battle against a ranching family near Vanderhoof, B.C., accusing them of unlawfully blocking access to land the utility says it needs to build the $6‑billion North Coast Transmission Line — a project Ottawa and Victoria have branded a “nation‑building” pillar of Canada’s clean‑energy future. [1]
The case pits one family’s control over its multi‑generational ranch against government‑backed efforts to fast‑track high‑voltage infrastructure meant to power new mines, LNG projects, ports and data‑hungry industries across northern B.C. [2]
Key points
- BC Hydro has filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court alleging a Vanderhoof ranching family is wrongfully blocking access to lands needed for pre‑construction work on the North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL). [3]
- The respondents are the Fawcett family of Little Valley Farms, a multi‑generational beef operation. Court documents say the family has repeatedly refused access over existing rights‑of‑way since 2023. [4]
- The family alleges property damage, escaped livestock and dead horses linked to BC Hydro’s contractors, and is seeking stronger safeguards, infrastructure upgrades and better compensation. [5]
- The NCTL is a $6‑billion project to twin and extend BC’s northern transmission backbone, touted as a “nation‑building” line expected to support thousands of jobs and major investments in mining, LNG and hydrogen. [6]
- First Nations are being positioned as equity partners in the line, even as the case highlights tensions with non‑Indigenous landowners whose properties sit along the corridor. [7]
What BC Hydro is asking the court to do
In a petition filed in B.C. Supreme Court last week, BC Hydro says Kenneth and Carolyn Fawcett and their daughters are “wrongfully” preventing crews and contractors from accessing parcels on and around their ranch that are already subject to transmission rights‑of‑way. [8]
According to the filing, those rights‑of‑way allow the Crown utility to carry out maintenance and new construction on its infrastructure. Hydro argues that, before it can start building the first phase of the NCTL, crews must be able to get onto the land to conduct forestry work, archeological and environmental studies, and detailed surveying. [9]
The petition says BC Hydro has secured additional access agreements with other landowners along the route for work outside existing rights‑of‑way, but negotiations with the Fawcett family have dragged on since 2023 without a deal. [10]
Hydro warns that keeping crews off the property could delay the start of construction and trigger “broader implications,” including pressure for electricity rate increases, lost economic opportunities and higher greenhouse‑gas emissions if industrial projects are forced to rely on fossil fuels instead of grid power. [11]
Social‑media summaries of the lawsuit from outlets that have seen the petition say BC Hydro is seeking an injunction — enforceable by the RCMP — that would bar the family from blocking workers, vehicles or equipment on the right‑of‑way. [12]
None of the allegations have been proven in court. As of December 6, court reporting indicates the family has not yet filed a formal response to the petition. [13]
Who are the Fawcetts — and what do they say happened?
The respondents own Little Valley Farms, a long‑established beef ranch near Vanderhoof. Court documents and syndicated news reports identify Kenneth Fawcett as president of the BC Breeder and Feeder Association, making him an influential voice in the province’s cattle industry. [14]
Reporting that draws on the court record and the family’s correspondence paints a picture of a relationship with BC Hydro that has deteriorated over years: [15]
- The ranch alleges crop and field damage from heavy vehicles travelling across hay land.
- Fences were allegedly cut and gates left open, causing animals to escape.
- One section of the file describes four horses being killed on a nearby road after getting out, which the family links to contractor activity. [16]
The family also argues that repeated disturbances increase risks ranging from erosion and invasive weeds to animal welfare issues — concerns widely echoed by other ranchers when utility crews move through working farms. [17]
According to Skeena News’ review of the case, the Fawcetts pushed for: [18]
- stronger compensation than BC Hydro had offered,
- installation of cattle guards at key access points,
- infrastructure upgrades such as a bridge replacement to maintain safe ranch operations under and around the lines.
Coverage based on interviews with Kenneth Fawcett suggests the family is not opposed to the transmission project itself, but wants binding conditions to prevent a repeat of past problems and to ensure the layout of towers and access roads still allows them to ranch between the structures. [19]
After learning of the court filing from a reporter, the family released a brief statement saying their goal is to reach a “workable solution for all involved” — signalling they still hope to negotiate, even as the dispute moves into the courts. [20]
What is the North Coast Transmission Line — and why is it ‘nation‑building’?
The North Coast Transmission Line is one of the biggest pieces of energy infrastructure B.C. has proposed in decades.
Provincial briefing materials describe a project that will twin an existing 500‑kilovolt line from Prince George to Terrace and then push new high‑voltage infrastructure north to Aiyanish and Bob Quinn Lake, expanding grid reach toward the Alaska border. [21]
The line is planned in three stages: [22]
- Phase 1: Prince George to Fraser Lake (about 164 km)
- Phase 2: Fraser Lake to Terrace (about 275 km)
- Phase 3: New infrastructure north of Terrace to Aiyanish and Bob Quinn Lake (about 350 km)
According to the B.C. government, once operational the NCTL is expected to: [23]
- unlock “tens of billions” of dollars in industrial investment,
- support roughly 9,700 direct full‑time jobs,
- contribute nearly $10 billion per year to GDP,
- generate close to $950 million annually in public revenues for provincial and municipal governments.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has added the project to a shortlist of federally backed “nation‑building” major projects, calling the line a foundation for a cleaner and more connected economy that will deliver low‑cost power and better telecommunications to remote West Coast communities. [24]
Environmental reporting by The Narwhal notes that the NCTL is expected to feed electricity to proposed LNG projects like Ksi Lisims LNG, mining developments in B.C.’s “Golden Triangle,” hydrogen production and port expansions — none of which are guaranteed to proceed, but together could consume most of the line’s capacity if they do. [25]
First Nations equity — and who benefits from the line
While the Fawcett case centres on a non‑Indigenous ranch, the NCTL has been shaped heavily by negotiations with First Nations.
In July, K’uul Power, a coalition of northern First Nations, announced a “historic agreement” with B.C. and BC Hydro that sets the framework for co‑ownership of the NCTL. [26]
The province has since introduced legislation and policy changes that: [27]
- formalize equity pathways for participating First Nations,
- allow the project to be fast‑tracked through regulatory approvals,
- create new rules for allocating limited clean power, prioritizing sectors like mining, LNG and manufacturing over energy‑intensive data centres or cryptocurrency mining.
First Nations leaders have framed equity participation in the NCTL as a chance to move from being “stakeholders” to true owners in major resource‑linked projects, building long‑term revenues and decision‑making power into their traditional territories. [28]
At the same time, Indigenous advocates and environmental groups warn that rushing power infrastructure for LNG and mining projects risks locking in new fossil‑fuel emissions and cumulative impacts on land and waters, even if the electricity itself is low‑carbon. [29]
A test case for land rights in the clean‑energy build‑out
The lawsuit has quickly become a flashpoint in northern B.C. debates over what “nation‑building” actually means on the ground.
Online comments and local forum discussions reflect a sharp divide: some argue that a public utility should simply find work‑arounds — like helicopters — rather than trampling private land, while others say major utilities must have reliable, on‑the‑ground access to safely construct and maintain lines that serve millions of people. [30]
Legally, the case turns on a familiar tension in Canadian infrastructure projects:
- BC Hydro relies on statutory powers and registered rights‑of‑way under provincial legislation such as the Hydro and Power Authority Act, which allow it to build, operate and, where necessary, expropriate land for power lines. [31]
- Landowners, meanwhile, argue that those powers must be exercised with real regard for ongoing farm operations, safety and fair compensation — not just one‑time payments and promises. [32]
The dispute also echoes, but is distinct from, past conflicts over resource projects crossing Indigenous territories in northern B.C., such as the Coastal GasLink and Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipelines. In those cases, hereditary leadership and land defenders challenged projects on unceded lands; here, the fight is over a privately owned ranch, but many of the underlying questions about consent, enforcement and who bears the local risk remain familiar. [33]
What happens next?
Procedurally, the case is still at an early stage. The court will first have to decide whether to grant any interim orders that give BC Hydro access while the underlying dispute over compensation and conditions is litigated. In similar injunction applications, judges typically weigh:
- whether there is a serious issue to be tried,
- whether either side would suffer irreparable harm without an interim order,
- and where the balance of convenience lies — in this instance, between keeping a major public‑interest project on schedule and protecting a working ranch from further harm.
If the parties cannot reach a negotiated settlement, the litigation could eventually clarify how far utilities can go in asserting statutory access rights over working farms when pursuing climate‑aligned but disruptive infrastructure projects.
For now, the Fawcett family continues to run cattle beneath existing power lines while the future of the much larger project — and the role of one ranch in Canada’s clean‑energy ambitions — is left in the hands of the B.C. Supreme Court.
References
1. energeticcity.ca, 2. thenarwhal.ca, 3. energeticcity.ca, 4. energeticcity.ca, 5. skeenanews.ca, 6. archive.news.gov.bc.ca, 7. archive.news.gov.bc.ca, 8. energeticcity.ca, 9. energeticcity.ca, 10. energeticcity.ca, 11. energeticcity.ca, 12. www.facebook.com, 13. energeticcity.ca, 14. energeticcity.ca, 15. skeenanews.ca, 16. skeenanews.ca, 17. www.reddit.com, 18. skeenanews.ca, 19. www.reddit.com, 20. skeenanews.ca, 21. archive.news.gov.bc.ca, 22. archive.news.gov.bc.ca, 23. archive.news.gov.bc.ca, 24. www.pm.gc.ca, 25. thenarwhal.ca, 26. www.nisgaanation.ca, 27. archive.news.gov.bc.ca, 28. archive.news.gov.bc.ca, 29. thenarwhal.ca, 30. www.castanetkamloops.net, 31. www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca, 32. skeenanews.ca, 33. amnesty.ca
