Generator

Top 10 Reasons for Stopping the York Energy Centre (YEC)

Ontario's electricity grid doesn't need peaking capacity and power for future local growth won't come from a peaker plant.
The Province skirted the question of whether all types of infrastructure should be allowed in the protected countryside of the Greenbelt.
The Province didn't do an adequate site-specific assessment of the environmental impacts.
Province followed a faulty process to choose a proponent and location.
Province has underestimated the weather-related risks of placing a power generator in a low-lying flood plain.
The high pressure natural gas pipeline to fuel the plant has serious environmental and safety implications of its own.
Province gave false assurances to the Municipality that they would have a say in the approval process.
The Province did not do an adequate assessment of need for and the alternatives to a 400 MW gas-fired low efficiency power generator in NYR.
Province cancelled the Oakville plant, for reasons not dissimilar to YEC (need and safety issues).
Investment in energy generation could be better spent on more modern innovative technology.

Top 10 Reasons for Stopping the York Energy Centre (YEC) copy to print

Click here if you would like more information about these points.

Status

Two building permits have been issued enabling the building of footings for the smaller pads.

Fuel supply is not confirmed; see e-page on pipeline.

Ownership of YEC has changed; Pristine sold their 50% ownership to Fort Chicago.

Current Actions to Stop the YEC

Mayor-elect Pellegrini has issued two press statements articulating his intent to stop the generator.

Click here to read the statement issued November 5 2010

Click here to read the statement issued November 8 2010

Judicial Review

Local citizens, including Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green Party of Ontario and CCKT have launched a claim for a judicial review of the Province's processes associated with the York Energy Centre project. (This includes the selection of proponent through to implementing Regulation 301/05 to exempt the project from the Planning Act.) To see the claim click here.

The plaintiffs (as identified above) had hoped King Township would join the claim as demonstration of continuing support for the Holland Marsh Growers and to communicate to the Province the lack of respect for the public process. Further, by enacting this regulation the province is making municipal decision making irrelevant. The Township refused to join citing the legality of the regulation and fear of being awarded costs.

On September 20th, the claim was elevated to case management to ensure that it is dealt with in an expeditious manner. November 10th will be first session in court. A Judge should be assigned at this session.

Significant "Events" and Activites after the selection of the YEC

Regulation 305/10

The Province has exempted YEC from the Planning Act. The decision is very disappointing on many fronts. The speed with which it was enacted after the comment period closed demonstrates little respect for citizens and the municipality. The press release by the Province was only one more example of "spin" as there is now a new rationale for the plant, or at least the urgency of building it: 200 temporary jobs! (what about the 50,000 green energy jobs already promised). The media release also offers reassurance of stringent air emissions controls; but, ignores the fact that neither fine particulate matter or cumulative impacts are monitored or controlled. Finally, there continues to be no data to support the claims of urgency or need as energy consumption continues to decrease.

We are very distressed as it appears that the OMB decision on conformity to the Greenbelt is not going to be rendered. It would surely be of benefit to Ontarians to allow the OMB process to be completed and to have a ruling as there will undoubtedly be future efforts to build infrastructure in the Protected Countryside. Having a ruling from the OMB and then the likely subsequent legal review associated with an appeal at the Divisional Court would be of value.

From our perspective, the Ontario Power Authority, an agency of the Government originally made a poor decision in selecting the YEC site as it is not in conformity with the Greenbelt. We have been arguing this since its selection in December 2008. We asked the Ombudsman to investigate the procurement process. He responded that because the matter is before the courts i.e. the judicial review claim, no investigations will be launched at this time.

Overview of OMB Case

The hearing on the site plan application by York Energy Centre LP to build and operate a gas-fired generator (YEC) in protected countryside of Greenbelt closed April 21, 2010. This case is pivotal to future uses in the Greenbelt. It is is the first application to introduce and build heavy industry in the Protected Countryside.

The arguments by the two parties (YEC and King Township) focused on the Greenbelt Plan 2005, specifically 4.2.1 a and b. In this section the Plan defines that one of two prerequisites must be met for building infrastructure, such as YEC, in the Protected Countryside: either to support agriculture, rural settlement areas or the rural activity; or, to serve the growth expected in southern Ontario by "providing for the appropriate infrastructure connections." The Township-s expert witnesses, Mr. Dyment, reviewed population growth in the Service area (i.e. area served by Armitage transformer) to illustrate that new rural population growth in the Greenbelt represents ∼6% of total growth in the Service area. Mr. Kitchen (King Township Director of Planning), the second expert witness, focused on his interpretation that the YEC would not represent support to the agriculture and rural community; and he argued that the YEC is not an "infrastructure connection." One of the many arguments he presented when addressing the the latter was the comparison to the the Holland Junction Transformer which is part of the transmission corridor and accordingly does conform.

In summary King's argument is that the Greenbelt's vision is to protect agricultural lands and to protect natural heritage systems. In the Greenbelt Plan realizing this vision is paramount whereas the possibility to host various kinds of infrastructure is acknowledged and prerequisites for doing so are defined. YEC argued that in the Greenbelt Plan, infrastructure was not subordinate to agriculture land and natural heritage features.

A critical part of the OMB process is the participants who have the local knowledge. At this hearing neighbours of the proposed site, Holland Marsh farmers, Holland Marsh Growers Association, Concerned Citizens of King Township and other citizens reviewed their reasons for opposing the generator in the proposed location. Several challenged decisions by the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority that the YEC is not on the flood plain and that safe access has been achieved. A consistent theme voiced by the participants is that the proposed generator violates numerous sections of the Provincial Policy Statement and does not conform to the Greenbelt Plan. Also, very personal stories of the personal negative impact of the generator were heard which served to remind us that this is not an academic discussion. All argued that the reason to deny the application is the imperative to preserve green spaces and to ensure healthy agricultural lands for tomorrow's children.

Arguments against the above were presented by York Energy Centre. In addition Mr. Larry Clay of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was a witness. He testified that that it is his Ministry's opinion that the YEC does conform to the Greenbelt. Under cross examination he indicated that he had no evidence or documentation to support this position.

The OMB hearing reconvened June 4 to address some changes to the site plan. Given the strategic problem with the site plan (i.e. it is in violation of the Greenbelt Plan) the changes were minor with one exception. The latter was modification of grade to respond to LSRCA input.

YEC took advantage of the opportunity to request that the Chair delay rendering a decision until after the May 28 proposed regulation's comment period is closed and the anticipated likely speedy approval by the Government. The Township's lawyer argued equally strongly against this and requested a response as quickly as possible. The Chair did not make a decision.

King took advantage of the opportunity to request that the Chair delay the ICBL OMB hearing by 6-8 weeks. Rationale is the cost of preparation for a case which may be rendered obsolete by the May 28 regulation. YEC argued against this. Chair did not make a decision.

This second OMB hearing (i.e.for the interim control bylaw (ICBL)) was cancelled when the Regulation was enacted as the proponent. York Energy Centre withdrew its objection. The ICBL continues for it original purpose (i.e. to examine the issues associated with zoning energy infrastructure in King) except that now, the YEC site will not be included.

Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority

We are very disappointed that LSRCA has approved the development permit. Earlier we were shocked that LSRCA ruled on March 22nd that the proponent has achieved "safe access" by proposing to remove an existing laneway located along the northern property line. This laneway has acted as a barrier to flood flows in the area; by removing it the depth of flooding to the site as well as the depth of flooding to Dufferin Street will be reduced to levels that are considered to be safe i.e. less than 0.3 meters.

Application for License to Generate Electricity

Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its decision on March 23. OEB has decided to grant a license on two conditions: within three years (i.e. by March 23, 2013) proponent must receive site plan approval and provide proof of debt financing. The OEB's lengthy response makes it quite clear that the interrogatories raised some serious questions and issues. The OEB notes that the application was initiated in June 2009 and that it was an "unusually long proceeding."

Other Measures to protect our health, the environment that are under consideration

Private Memeber Bill 8
On March 23, 2010 Oakville MPP Kevin Flynn introduced a private members bill called the Separation Distances for Natural Gas Power Plants Act, 2010 into the Ontario Legislature. It was designed to protect the health and safety of Ontario residents. The Bill, if passed, would prohibit the construction of a natural gas power plant unless the plant is at least 1,500 meters from any land zoned for residential purposes or any land on which an educational facility, day nursery or health care facility is located.

To read more, visit:
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2283

The bill passed first reading and was debated April 22nd. It will be forwarded to a Standing Committee on General Government for review and comment. It is very disappointing to see that as of early November it has not been put on the agenda yet. Perhaps it not surprizing as MPP Flynn has achieved his desire to protect his Oakville constituents as the Oakville Transcanada plant has been cancelled.

CCKT did not support the bill as introduced as we forsaw that it would inevitably lead to an urban vs rural struggle as there is limited vacant/empty space in the urban environments of southern Ontario. If we want to preserve land for agriculture to grow our food, if we want to protect the aquifers which provide our drinking water we cannot for example be building heavy industry in the Greenbelt and on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Hopefully, the bill, if it is brought forward, will be modified in a manner reflective of our concerns.
Change the process for assessing environmental impact
The current legislative and/or regulatory environment is not protecting us as well as it should. We believe that there needs to be a significant intervention in how the demand for electricity is resolved. Currently, Electricity Projects Regulation (Ontario Regulation 116/01) "Electricity Projects Regulation" and its "Guide To Environmental Assessment For Electricity Projects" requires a gas-fired generator ≥5MW to be subject to only an Environmental Screening and Environmental Review Process. The latter are proponent driven; they do not include any assessment of need or a comparison of alternative solutions and they are not holistic.

Our position on this matter has been supported by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gordon Miller. In his recent report to the Province he declared, since gas has a considerable environmental impact, the environmental assessment rules need to be re-examined for large natural gas power plants. Areas of particular concern include the impact of high temperature emissions on the unique microclimate of the Holland Marsh; the impact on the muck soil of the surrounding farmland and safety risk associated with the location in a flood prone low lying area.

To see his comments, visit:
http://www.eco.on.ca/eng/index.php/pubs/eco-publications/2009-10-annual-report/more-scrutiny-needed-for-large-natural-gas-plants.php
Regulate Fine Particulate Matter in emissions
Following the example of Oakville, Councillor Underhill has proposed that there should be a bylaw to protect health of citizens by regulating facilities emitting fine particulate matter. Staff is assessing this proposal. Oakville Councils have been recorded; listening to them provides good insight into this bylaw opportunity: both how it works and why it is so important.

To find out more, visit:
http://www.towntv.ca/091222.htm

and

http://www.towntv.ca/100201.htm



		Join Us News & Alerts Generator & Pipeline Newsletters Poll
Home About Us Generator & Pipeline Pipeline Generator Media Coverage What You Can Do What's Happening? King Today News & Alerts Natural Heritage & Agriculture Transportation Communities: King City Nobleton Schomberg Hamlets King Speaks Poll Results King Tomorrow Sustainability Vision Resource Links Contact Us	Generator Top 10 Reasons for Stopping the York Energy Centre (YEC) Ontario's electricity grid doesn't need peaking capacity and power for future local growth won't come from a peaker plant. The Province skirted the question of whether all types of infrastructure should be allowed in the protected countryside of the Greenbelt. The Province didn't do an adequate site-specific assessment of the environmental impacts. Province followed a faulty process to choose a proponent and location. Province has underestimated the weather-related risks of placing a power generator in a low-lying flood plain. The high pressure natural gas pipeline to fuel the plant has serious environmental and safety implications of its own. Province gave false assurances to the Municipality that they would have a say in the approval process. The Province did not do an adequate assessment of need for and the alternatives to a 400 MW gas-fired low efficiency power generator in NYR. Province cancelled the Oakville plant, for reasons not dissimilar to YEC (need and safety issues). Investment in energy generation could be better spent on more modern innovative technology. Top 10 Reasons for Stopping the York Energy Centre (YEC) copy to print Click here if you would like more information about these points. Status Two building permits have been issued enabling the building of footings for the smaller pads. Fuel supply is not confirmed; see e-page on pipeline. Ownership of YEC has changed; Pristine sold their 50% ownership to Fort Chicago. Current Actions to Stop the YEC Mayor-elect Pellegrini has issued two press statements articulating his intent to stop the generator. Click here to read the statement issued November 5 2010 Click here to read the statement issued November 8 2010 Judicial Review Local citizens, including Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green Party of Ontario and CCKT have launched a claim for a judicial review of the Province's processes associated with the York Energy Centre project. (This includes the selection of proponent through to implementing Regulation 301/05 to exempt the project from the Planning Act.) To see the claim click here. The plaintiffs (as identified above) had hoped King Township would join the claim as demonstration of continuing support for the Holland Marsh Growers and to communicate to the Province the lack of respect for the public process. Further, by enacting this regulation the province is making municipal decision making irrelevant. The Township refused to join citing the legality of the regulation and fear of being awarded costs. On September 20th, the claim was elevated to case management to ensure that it is dealt with in an expeditious manner. November 10th will be first session in court. A Judge should be assigned at this session. Significant "Events" and Activites after the selection of the YEC Regulation 305/10 The Province has exempted YEC from the Planning Act. The decision is very disappointing on many fronts. The speed with which it was enacted after the comment period closed demonstrates little respect for citizens and the municipality. The press release by the Province was only one more example of "spin" as there is now a new rationale for the plant, or at least the urgency of building it: 200 temporary jobs! (what about the 50,000 green energy jobs already promised). The media release also offers reassurance of stringent air emissions controls; but, ignores the fact that neither fine particulate matter or cumulative impacts are monitored or controlled. Finally, there continues to be no data to support the claims of urgency or need as energy consumption continues to decrease. We are very distressed as it appears that the OMB decision on conformity to the Greenbelt is not going to be rendered. It would surely be of benefit to Ontarians to allow the OMB process to be completed and to have a ruling as there will undoubtedly be future efforts to build infrastructure in the Protected Countryside. Having a ruling from the OMB and then the likely subsequent legal review associated with an appeal at the Divisional Court would be of value. From our perspective, the Ontario Power Authority, an agency of the Government originally made a poor decision in selecting the YEC site as it is not in conformity with the Greenbelt. We have been arguing this since its selection in December 2008. We asked the Ombudsman to investigate the procurement process. He responded that because the matter is before the courts i.e. the judicial review claim, no investigations will be launched at this time. Overview of OMB Case The hearing on the site plan application by York Energy Centre LP to build and operate a gas-fired generator (YEC) in protected countryside of Greenbelt closed April 21, 2010. This case is pivotal to future uses in the Greenbelt. It is is the first application to introduce and build heavy industry in the Protected Countryside. The arguments by the two parties (YEC and King Township) focused on the Greenbelt Plan 2005, specifically 4.2.1 a and b. In this section the Plan defines that one of two prerequisites must be met for building infrastructure, such as YEC, in the Protected Countryside: either to support agriculture, rural settlement areas or the rural activity; or, to serve the growth expected in southern Ontario by "providing for the appropriate infrastructure connections." The Township-s expert witnesses, Mr. Dyment, reviewed population growth in the Service area (i.e. area served by Armitage transformer) to illustrate that new rural population growth in the Greenbelt represents ∼6% of total growth in the Service area. Mr. Kitchen (King Township Director of Planning), the second expert witness, focused on his interpretation that the YEC would not represent support to the agriculture and rural community; and he argued that the YEC is not an "infrastructure connection." One of the many arguments he presented when addressing the the latter was the comparison to the the Holland Junction Transformer which is part of the transmission corridor and accordingly does conform. In summary King's argument is that the Greenbelt's vision is to protect agricultural lands and to protect natural heritage systems. In the Greenbelt Plan realizing this vision is paramount whereas the possibility to host various kinds of infrastructure is acknowledged and prerequisites for doing so are defined. YEC argued that in the Greenbelt Plan, infrastructure was not subordinate to agriculture land and natural heritage features. A critical part of the OMB process is the participants who have the local knowledge. At this hearing neighbours of the proposed site, Holland Marsh farmers, Holland Marsh Growers Association, Concerned Citizens of King Township and other citizens reviewed their reasons for opposing the generator in the proposed location. Several challenged decisions by the Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority that the YEC is not on the flood plain and that safe access has been achieved. A consistent theme voiced by the participants is that the proposed generator violates numerous sections of the Provincial Policy Statement and does not conform to the Greenbelt Plan. Also, very personal stories of the personal negative impact of the generator were heard which served to remind us that this is not an academic discussion. All argued that the reason to deny the application is the imperative to preserve green spaces and to ensure healthy agricultural lands for tomorrow's children. Arguments against the above were presented by York Energy Centre. In addition Mr. Larry Clay of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was a witness. He testified that that it is his Ministry's opinion that the YEC does conform to the Greenbelt. Under cross examination he indicated that he had no evidence or documentation to support this position. The OMB hearing reconvened June 4 to address some changes to the site plan. Given the strategic problem with the site plan (i.e. it is in violation of the Greenbelt Plan) the changes were minor with one exception. The latter was modification of grade to respond to LSRCA input. YEC took advantage of the opportunity to request that the Chair delay rendering a decision until after the May 28 proposed regulation's comment period is closed and the anticipated likely speedy approval by the Government. The Township's lawyer argued equally strongly against this and requested a response as quickly as possible. The Chair did not make a decision. King took advantage of the opportunity to request that the Chair delay the ICBL OMB hearing by 6-8 weeks. Rationale is the cost of preparation for a case which may be rendered obsolete by the May 28 regulation. YEC argued against this. Chair did not make a decision. This second OMB hearing (i.e.for the interim control bylaw (ICBL)) was cancelled when the Regulation was enacted as the proponent. York Energy Centre withdrew its objection. The ICBL continues for it original purpose (i.e. to examine the issues associated with zoning energy infrastructure in King) except that now, the YEC site will not be included. Lake Simcoe Regional Conservation Authority We are very disappointed that LSRCA has approved the development permit. Earlier we were shocked that LSRCA ruled on March 22nd that the proponent has achieved "safe access" by proposing to remove an existing laneway located along the northern property line. This laneway has acted as a barrier to flood flows in the area; by removing it the depth of flooding to the site as well as the depth of flooding to Dufferin Street will be reduced to levels that are considered to be safe i.e. less than 0.3 meters. Application for License to Generate Electricity Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued its decision on March 23. OEB has decided to grant a license on two conditions: within three years (i.e. by March 23, 2013) proponent must receive site plan approval and provide proof of debt financing. The OEB's lengthy response makes it quite clear that the interrogatories raised some serious questions and issues. The OEB notes that the application was initiated in June 2009 and that it was an "unusually long proceeding." Other Measures to protect our health, the environment that are under consideration Private Memeber Bill 8 On March 23, 2010 Oakville MPP Kevin Flynn introduced a private members bill called the Separation Distances for Natural Gas Power Plants Act, 2010 into the Ontario Legislature. It was designed to protect the health and safety of Ontario residents. The Bill, if passed, would prohibit the construction of a natural gas power plant unless the plant is at least 1,500 meters from any land zoned for residential purposes or any land on which an educational facility, day nursery or health care facility is located. To read more, visit: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2283 The bill passed first reading and was debated April 22nd. It will be forwarded to a Standing Committee on General Government for review and comment. It is very disappointing to see that as of early November it has not been put on the agenda yet. Perhaps it not surprizing as MPP Flynn has achieved his desire to protect his Oakville constituents as the Oakville Transcanada plant has been cancelled. CCKT did not support the bill as introduced as we forsaw that it would inevitably lead to an urban vs rural struggle as there is limited vacant/empty space in the urban environments of southern Ontario. If we want to preserve land for agriculture to grow our food, if we want to protect the aquifers which provide our drinking water we cannot for example be building heavy industry in the Greenbelt and on the Oak Ridges Moraine. Hopefully, the bill, if it is brought forward, will be modified in a manner reflective of our concerns. Change the process for assessing environmental impact The current legislative and/or regulatory environment is not protecting us as well as it should. We believe that there needs to be a significant intervention in how the demand for electricity is resolved. Currently, Electricity Projects Regulation (Ontario Regulation 116/01) "Electricity Projects Regulation" and its "Guide To Environmental Assessment For Electricity Projects" requires a gas-fired generator ≥5MW to be subject to only an Environmental Screening and Environmental Review Process. The latter are proponent driven; they do not include any assessment of need or a comparison of alternative solutions and they are not holistic. Our position on this matter has been supported by the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Gordon Miller. In his recent report to the Province he declared, since gas has a considerable environmental impact, the environmental assessment rules need to be re-examined for large natural gas power plants. Areas of particular concern include the impact of high temperature emissions on the unique microclimate of the Holland Marsh; the impact on the muck soil of the surrounding farmland and safety risk associated with the location in a flood prone low lying area. To see his comments, visit: http://www.eco.on.ca/eng/index.php/pubs/eco-publications/2009-10-annual-report/more-scrutiny-needed-for-large-natural-gas-plants.php Regulate Fine Particulate Matter in emissions Following the example of Oakville, Councillor Underhill has proposed that there should be a bylaw to protect health of citizens by regulating facilities emitting fine particulate matter. Staff is assessing this proposal. Oakville Councils have been recorded; listening to them provides good insight into this bylaw opportunity: both how it works and why it is so important. To find out more, visit: http://www.towntv.ca/091222.htm and http://www.towntv.ca/100201.htm Home Contact Us back to top design partnership cm@filamentgraphics.ca and www.webertise.ca Contact Webmaster In order to view all site content, a recent version of the Flash player and Adobe Reader are required