Stop the Approval of TCE’s Meaford Pumped Storage Project

image of Stop the Approval of TCE’s Meaford Pumped Storage Project

TC Energy (TCE) is proposing to construct a large pumped storage facility just north of Meaford on land owned by the Department of National Defence. The facility will occupy approximately 500 acres of land, include a man-made 375-acre reservoir carved out of the Niagara escarpment, and extend 650 metres out into Georgian Bay. Over 6 billion gallons of water will be pumped approximately 150m up the escarpment through intake turbines to the reservoir/dam to be temporarily stored. It will then be released back into Georgian Bay to generate electricity which will be transferred to the power grid near Barrie ...

TC Energy (TCE) is proposing to construct a large pumped storage facility just north of Meaford on land owned by the Department of National Defence. The facility will occupy approximately 500 acres of land, include a man-made 375-acre reservoir carved out of the Niagara escarpment, and extend 650 metres out into Georgian Bay. Over 6 billion gallons of water will be pumped approximately 150m up the escarpment through intake turbines to the reservoir/dam to be temporarily stored. It will then be released back into Georgian Bay to generate electricity which will be transferred to the power grid near Barrie.

This project will have Georgian Bay-wide impacts on water quality and biodiversity and the pumped storage technology is old and only ~67% efficient.

There is an opportunity to persuade the Ontario Minister of Energy to drop his support for this project. Please consider sending an email to point out why this proposed project is a bad deal for Ontario.

+

Send an Email to Your MPP

A Pumped Storage Project at Meaford will have Georgian Bay-wide environmental implications without providing any benefit for Ontario tax payers.

Please send an email to your MPP asking them to request that the Ontario Ministry of Energy withdraw their support for this project. In addition to your MPP, your email will copied to:

Premier Doug Ford
Todd Smith, Ontario Minister of Energy
Gautam Jindal, Ministry of Energy Senior Policy Advisor
Lesley Gallinger, IESO President
Chief Gregory Nadjiwon, Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation
The Honorable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada

Find your local rep

Subject:

I am writing with regard to the upcoming decision by the Ontario Ministry of Energy (MoE) whether or not to support the proposal by TCE Energy to construct a pumped (electricity) storage project on land owned by the Department of National Defence at Meaford (“the Project) and would ask you to consider expressing your opposition to approval of this Project and instead request an examination of alternative methods for energy storage.

At this stage in the Project approval process, the MoE is asking for the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to continue to move the Project through the approval process, despite the fact that the IESO has rejected the proposal as being a bad financial deal for Ontario. This rejection was confirmed in an IESO Gate 1 report that the local Meaford opposition group Save Georgian Bay (SGB) obtained through a Freedom of Information (FoI) request. No Gate 2 approval has been confirmed, so it looks as if this was also rejected by IESO, and the MoE has continued to override their rejections.

Specifically, MoE has initiated two concurrent processes:

- a life-cycle analysis requested by the IESO, and

- a request to amend the regulations (Ontario Regulation 53/05 plus the creation of regulations under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 to “rate regulate” the Project

This action by MoE is a departure from the standard protocol and is concerning. The conventional approach would involve completing the life-cycle analysis before considering the regulation amendment, contingent upon a favorable outcome. This implies that MoE is aiming for a positive result without adequate documentation to support a decision to proceed.

These process changes appear designed to bypass the usual evaluation process, thereby limiting the potential for significant community and provincial input from the citizens of Ontario and their elected representatives.

It is surprising that the Ontario government would support this energy storage project which, when compared to the alternatives, such as an Oneida battery storage facility, has the following major shortcomings:

- is highly inefficient (~67% vs ~87% for battery storage – see below);

- uses old technology (at least 50 years old vs new high tech battery storage technology);

- will inevitably cause significantly more environmental harm (battery storage has almost no local environmental impact, whereas this Project will cause extensive environmental harm, see: https://savegeorgianbay.ca/ and, most importantly

- is much more expensive per MW of peak power delivered (the estimate is double the capital cost) thereby offering a bad deal for Ontario taxpayers.

* It is also important to note that TCE has never built a pumped storage plant before and there is a generally poor track record (globally) of building similar (hydro) projects on budget (see below). There is therefore a risk that project cost overruns will push the cost per MWh much higher, whereas battery storage is a lower, known, proven cost structure. Also see comments below in this respect.

Other comments and concerns are as follows:

Generally:

The brevity of the comment solicitation period for the above processes initiated by MoE raised concerns as it did not allow for a thorough study and comprehensive comments on the matter. Additionally, the comment process lacked widespread publicity and accessibility, which is troubling.

Specifically with regard to TC Energy’s proposal:

Project Cost Dynamics: An empirical study by Oxford University has illuminated a disconcerting trend where hydro projects exceed their initial cost estimates by a substantial margin (source: https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/news/should-we-build-more-large-dams ). It is prudent to note that TC Energy's preliminary projection of $4.3 billion may not reflect the actual costs, which could potentially escalate to as much as $10 billion. It is therefore worth evaluating the predictability of on-grid alternatives.

Sustainability of Maintenance Expenses: A comparative analysis of pumped storage facilities, exemplified by the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, emphasizes the recurring and hefty maintenance and upgrade costs incurred over its operating life 
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludington_Pumped_Storage_Power_Plant ). 
These expenses, occurring every decade or so, warrant thorough consideration due to their potential financial implications.

Efficiency Metrics: The differential energy efficiency of pumped storage (around 70%) and alternative storage technologies (as high as 95-98%) is significant and merits contemplation (source: https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/8/9/124 ). The proposal's projected energy loss during conversion must be weighed against the performance of on-grid counterparts.

Unquantified Externalities: The budgeting of TC Energy's proposal at $4.3 billion appears to lack adequate provision for addressing environmental concerns and potential disruptions to the Department of National Defence. In particular, it does not include the undertaking by TCE to construct a new military base for the Department of National Defence, which implies that the province will be paying for this, adding to the mounting evidence that this is a costly and ill-advised financial deal for Ontario.

The cumulative impact of all these factors will influence the overall capital cost of the Project, and increase the subsidies required from Ontario to ensure the project’s financial viability. Why should Ontario pay for an expensive, inefficient, environmentally damaging project, when viable alternatives exist to achieve the same benefit that are financially prudent and will not damage the environment?

Given the previous IESO rejections of the Project and the above information, please support either:

- Cancelling approval of the Project; or

- Carrying out a thorough examination of the pros and cons of the Project to determine whether or not it is a good deal for Ontario, including a comparison to alternative energy storage solutions, before proceeding any further with Project approvals.

There are other far better alternatives that can be utilized to achieve the energy storage that Ontario needs.

How we use the data you enter on this form

Do Gooder (the advocacy platform powering this online action) processes personal information from you that you enter on this form so that we can provide the functions and related services to you and The Campaigner (the organisation responsible for this online action) for their legitimate purposes, including possibly exporting it to other systems, and to effectively respond to enquiries and communications related to those services.

Specifically when you enter:

Your location data (residential address or postcode) it is used to locate your elected representative, to pre-populate your email signature and to provide The Campaigner with a visualisation of the location of the support for this campaign.
All other data you may enter, including your email address, name, telephone number, commentary and so on is used by The Campaigner to advocate for the campaign’s goals and where required may be sent to the target of the campaign.

The data collected by Do Gooder is also used by us in aggregate form to improve the service and may be held on your behalf outside your country of residence by our third party service providers. These providers are bound by contract to only use personal information on our behalf, in accordance with agreed terms. While the privacy laws of the country in which personal information is stored or transferred may be different from those in your country, we will always have safeguards in place when storing or transferring personal information. We will never sell, rent, loan or in any other way pass your information on to other parties other than to provide this service to you and The Campaigner.

The personal information collected by Do Gooder is held subject to a Data Processing Agreement between Do Gooder and The Campaigner in compliance with the EU's GDPR and Australian law.

Learn more about our privacy policy here

How is my data used?