MINUTES - General Committee - 20080430
TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
NO. 08-21
Council Chambers
Aurora Town Hall
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
ATTENDANCE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS Mayor Morris in the Chair; Councillors Buck, Collins-
Mrakas, Granger, MacEachern, McRoberts and
Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT Councillor Gaertner was absent and one vacant office
OTHER ATTENDEES Chief Administrative Officer, Executive Assistant to
the CAO, Administrative Co-ordinator/Deputy Clerk
and Council/Committee Secretary
Mayor Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
II APPROVAL OF AGENDA
General Committee recommends:
THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department,
with the following additional item, be approved:
Correspondence from Mr. Leonard Chen, resident
Re: Proposed Power Generation in northern York Region
CARRIED
III BRIEFING AND INTRODUCTIONS
Mayor Morris provided a brief over view of the matters under discussion, and
introduced the moderator, Mr. Geoffrey Dawe of Quality Integrators Corporation,
and each of the following Panel Members:
▪ Mr. Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA)
▪ Mr. Ted Wojcinski, Director Engineering Planning, PowerStream
▪ Mr. David Butters, President, Association of Power Producers of Ontario
(APPrO)
▪ Ms JoAnne C. Butler, Vice-President, Electricity Resources Ontario Power
Authority (OPA)
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 2 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
IV SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Mr. Jim Baird, Commissioner of Development Services for the Town of Markham,
addressed the Committee on behalf of the Markham/Aurora Hydro One Task
Force. Mr. Baird advised that Markham and Aurora have been working together
on this issue since 2004 and that the Markham/Aurora Hydro One Task Force
was pivotal in stopping the proposed expansion of Hydro transmission lines
through residential neighbourhoods. Mr. Baird provided a detailed history of the
background of this issue and advised that the Task Force supported the 2005
OPA “Integrated Solution”, and continues to support local generation, rather than
to fall back to upgrading the transmission lines. Mr. Baird advised that the Task
Force fully supports the OPA process to implement an integrated solution.
V PANEL DISCUSSION
The moderator, Mr. Geoffrey Dawe of the Quality Integrators Corporation,
advised that each of the panellists will be permitted 10 minutes to deliver their
opening statements, with an additional five minutes at the end to give each
panellist an opportunity for a rebuttal.
Mr. Dawe introduced the panellists and they each presented their opening
comments:
Mr. Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA)
Mr. Gibbons advised that the highest peak times for power generation would
most likely be during the hottest still days during the summertime. Mr.
Gibbons advised that there are three options available to the residents of
Aurora, to address the need for electricity during these peak times, which
would be:
(a) upgrading the transmission lines from Markham to Newmarket to address
the current power generation needs, for which the impacted residents
have already firmly expressed their opposition;
(b) building a large simple-cycle gas fired power plant in northern York
Region, which would be immensely costly and inefficient; which is the
current proposal from the Minister of Energy;
(c) initiating a balanced combination between energy conservation and
demand management, new renewables located in York Region and a
high efficiency small-scale natural gas fired power generation plant.
Mr. Gibbons advised that a gas fired power plant would be expensive,
inefficient and would emit greenhouse gasses.
Mr. Gibbons advised that he strongly supports option (c) which would step up
conservation strategies, initiatives and programs, such as the Peak Saver
program offered by PowerStream or the Demand Response Program that is
run by Rodan Energy for large businesses and corporations, in conjunction
with the construction of a high efficiency small-scale natural gas fired
generation plant. Mr. Gibbons suggested that, through conservation
education and incentive programs, people would be able to re-think the way
they consume energy and shift toward combined heat and power as well as
renewable energy sources such as geothermal technology, solar power,
hybrid furnaces and wind-farm resources among others, some of which may
yet be discovered as research in this field improves.
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 3 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Mr. Ted Wojcinski, Director Engineering Planning, PowerStream
Mr. Wojcinski advised that PowerStream is the local electricity distributer
supplying energy to Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill and Aurora, planning
and constructing the distribution infrastructure providing power from the bulk
transmission system to the end user. Mr. Wojcinski provided an outline of
what PowerStream is doing to address Conservation Demand Management,
transformer station capacity and load growth in Aurora. Mr. Wojcinski outlined
various conservation programs such as the peak saver program, the “Great
Refrigerator Round-up”, Electricity Retrofit Incentive Program for large
businesses, Summer Savings program for residential users, as well as many
public awareness and education programs.
Mr. Wojcinski advised that these programs in 2007 resulted in a savings of
approximately 650 kW of peak demand energy and it is anticipated that with
the same programs and incentives there will be a savings, this year, of 2.5 to
3 mw of energy conservation. Mr. Wojcinski advised that the Holland
Transformer Station is anticipated to be operational in the spring of 2009, and
he advised that PowerStream will not be taking feeders from that station
directly, however two feeders will be taken from the Armitage Transformer
Station as a result of Hydro One and Newmarket Hydro receiving some of
their supply from Holland Junction. Mr. Wojcinski outlined typical contribution
to the peak demand and advised of the projected load growth potential as a
result of the anticipated industrial and commercial growth in Aurora over the
next nine years resulting in an annual growth rate of approximately 3.6%.
Mr. Wojcinski concluded by advising that growth is continuing and must be
managed responsibly noting that Conservation Demand Management can
only be part of the solution and that the northern York Region Supply Study
recommended a comprehensive solution to the growth and reliability issues in
northern York Region.
Mr. David Butters, President, Association of Power Producers of Ontario
(APPrO)
Mr. David Butters thanked Mayor Morris, Council and staff for setting up this
public forum to allow the residents to ask questions and gain a better
understanding of these complex and significant issues in the fullest context.
Mr. Butters advised that the Association of Power Producers of Ontario
(APPrO) is a trade association that represents virtually all of the power
generation companies across Ontario, and its members produce electricity
using every type and size of power plant generating every source of electricity
available on the market today.
Mr. Butters advised that the key issue being discussed at this meeting is the
need to provide reliable, uninterrupted power for northern York Region. Mr.
Butters explained that the demand on power is increasing across the province
and it is an ongoing challenge for municipalities to meet the mandated
standards for peak demand and avoid the high cost of adding new
infrastructure. Mr. Butters advised that northern York Region is growing at a
much higher rate than the rest of the Greater Toronto Area, at a rate of at
least 3% per year. Mr. Butters advised that APPrO supports the construction
and management of the proposed peaking generation plant, simply because
the current level of power generation in York Region is not meeting the
existing peak demand levels for the area and as the Region continues to grow
the strain on the existing inadequate system is excessive and there is a
already serious risk of power outages. Mr. Butters advised that it is the
educated opinion of APPrO, that the most appropriate option to address this
situation would be through Conservation and Demand Management and to
construct a peaking facility in northern York Region, which will only be
operational during the highest power consumption “peak-periods” of the year
producing clean energy at a reasonable cost.
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 4 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Mr. Butters advised that this is a very real issue and must be addressed now,
and the size of the proposed peaking generation plant is appropriate and
necessary to be able to handle the load, at those peak times, responsibly and
reliably. Mr. Butters concluded by advising that the proposal for this plant is
the result of community consultation which involved residents, staff, local
utilities, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Town Officials and experts of the ISO and
OPA who manage Aurora’s power every day.
Ms JoAnne C. Butler, Vice-President, Electricity Resources Ontario Power
Authority (OPA)
Ms Butler advised that, on behalf of the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), she
would do her best to address all of the issues and outstanding concerns and
questions pertaining to this important matter. Ms. Butler advised that northern
York Region is currently well below the performance standards set by the
North American Operability Councils, and the proposed limited use facility is
the best facility to provide what is needed when it is needed for the most
competitive price with the smallest overall impact. Ms. Butler advised that of
the many types of power generation available, the proposal on the table is the
most appropriate and applicable to this situation. Ms. Butler advised that the
OPA is currently considering 5 different proponents who are all very highly
regarded in the industry and very qualified for this project.
Ms. Butler advised that the consultative process, which was conducted to
address the clear need for improved power supply in northern York Region,
resulted in a four pronged solution which includes:
1) stronger energy conservation and demand management strategies which
have been implemented and have resulted in a savings of 17 mw of power
in 2007 and the OPA hopes to increase that savings by an additional 11
mw this year, and next
2) the installation of capacitors which has been implemented and has
alleviated stress on the system,
3) the construction of a new transformer station which is being built at
theHolland Junction, and
4) the construction of a new power generation station which is being
discussed at this forum.
Ms. Butler reviewed the procurement process for the proposed peaking plant
which involved the issuing of a Request for Qualifications, which has now
closed and resulted in the selection of 5 qualified proponents to compete in
the next phase. Ms. Butler advised a Request for Proposals will be issued in
May, 2008 and will required from each of the proponents, detailed design
work, engagement with the community (planning, environmental assessment
and public meetings), site finalization and details and finally the proposals
must be submitted in October of 2008. Ms. Butler advised that the stack
heights would range from 50 ft to 200 ft, likely 100 ft or less depending on the
site selected. Ms. Butler advised that if water is used at the peaking plant it
would mainly be used for emissions control during operation of the plant
which would be approximately 10% of the time, and the plant would be fuelled
by natural gas which is one of the cleanest fossil fuels for power generation,
adding that the types of emissions would be similar to an average home
furnace, and cleaner than a car.
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 5 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
VI FACILITATED DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE DELEGATION/PANEL
MEMBERS - REBUTTALS
Mr. Gibbons advised, in response to the comments made by the other panellists,
that the demand for energy in Ontario has fallen in the last year and is expected
to fall again this year because the conservation programs are working. Mr.
Gibbons suggested that the demand will continue to fall as these programs are
intensified. Mr. Gibbons advised the existing power supply in northern York
Region meets the Independent Electricity System Operator’s Standards of
Reliability. Mr. Gibbons advised that, rather than choose a large inefficient power
plant, Aurora should go with a balanced combination of energy conservation,
renewables and a small scale high efficiency gas generation plant.
Mr. Wojcinski advised that Conservation Demand Management can only be part
of the solution to address the continuing growth in northern York Region and that
it is crucial that the energy demand must be managed responsibly and with full
reliability.
Mr. Butters advised that the decision to go to tender for this power plant was not
a choice made by Energy Minister Gerry Phillips. Rather, it is the result of the
work done by the Ontario Power Authority in the community which led the
Minister of Energy to issue the directive to go ahead with this project. Mr. Butters
advised that renewable power is a great new direction and is being used more
and more, however it is not reliable power because the sun and the wind are not
consistent resources. Mr. Butters advised that it is important when planning a
system which must be reliable, that the source of energy is always available,
even if the use is infrequent. A peaking facility which will only be running 10% of
the time is the most efficient, reliable and emission friendly option to address the
needs of this community.
Ms Butler concluded by expressing the fundamental need to address the demand
and it must be completely reliable, and this plant will be only used when it is
absolutely needed. All of the other times it will be dormant.
VII QUESTIONS FROM PUBLIC
A summary of the questions and responses from panellists is provided below:
QUESTION #1- Mr. Richard Johnson
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about possible inaccuracies of some information that
Mr. Gibbons has been circulating through various interest groups, with respect to
proposed stack heights being exaggerated, water use being exaggerated and
reference to the emissions from the proposed plant as being “dirty“.
RESPONSE:
Mr. Gibbons advised that energy efficiency should come first and that there are cleaner
options at a lower cost available.
QUESTION #2- Mr. Denis Heng
It has been stated that the emissions and cost of the peaking facility are reasonable
because the proposed facility is intended to operate less than 10% of the time, however
would it possible that down the road, the facility may be used for extended periods of
time to address an unforeseen higher demand? If this were to happen what would the
economic and environmental impact be?
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 6 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that the proposed peaking facility is designed and intended to
always serve as a back-up power source for short-periods of time in extreme weather or
high-peak-demand circumstances. The plant will be built under a strict contract with the
OPA, which will dictate the terms of operation of this facility. If the proponent wished to
increase the use of the plant it `would become economically unviable and it would not
be in the best interest of the proponent to change the conditions of the contract and
incur such a large expense. It was also advised that there is no law dictating the amount
of time for running a peaking facility, therefore it is not impossible that the facility could
be used for extended periods of time to address an unforeseen higher demand.
QUESTION #3- Chaissarov Radi
Not present when name was called.
QUESTION #4- Ms Josée Pirri
If the proposed facility is built on Bloomington Road, how excessive will the carbon
dioxide emissions be, and considering the tendency for air to hover on hot, windless
days, when this plant will be likely used, what are the health impacts on the residents in
the immediate vicinity of the facility? What is the kv transmission capacity for the cables
in the existing transmission corridor? Can the existing transmission lines handle the
350 mw current which would be coming from the proposed plant, or would they have to
be upgraded?
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that, with respect to the emissions, the Ministry of Environment will
dictate and monitor the emissions dispersion models and levels coming from the facility
when in use and that their health standards must be adhered to at all times or the plant
will not be permitted to run. With regard to the power lines, the existing lines within the
York Region Corridor do not have the capacity to transmit the level of power necessary
to meet the existing demand. Therefore, it will be necessary to build an additional set of
“redundant” power lines, or upgrade the current lines in order to carry the additional
power from the peaking facility to the existing power grid when the additional power is
necessary.
QUESTION #5 - Mr. Henry Chiang
Why would Aurora be considered for the proposed plant?
It is assumed that small gas generated peak station would be used for a small
percentage of the time, can it be guaranteed that the station will never be upgraded to a
larger full-scale 724 mw power facility?
Who monitors the levels of pollutants emitted from the peak station?
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that the OPA has just concluded the qualifications phase and that
there are 5 companies currently being considered for the project, of those five
companies, there are numerous sites proposed throughout York Region, therefore it is
not necessarily going to be in Aurora. The proponents are going to be required to work
with the municipalities to determine site selection, zoning and interconnections, permits
and licenses.
This contract proposal is for a small scale peaking plant, in order to upgrade to a large
scale power facility, the proponent would need to incur enormous cost to the proponent
and to the consumer, and enter into a completely new contract with the OPA. The
pollution emissions will be monitored continuously by the Ministry of Environment who
have very strict and specific standards that must be adhered to.
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 7 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Conservation is the lowest cost option. With respect to the certificate of approval from
the Ministry of Environment, there are many heavy polluters in Ontario which have a
certificate of approval from the Ministry of Environment.
QUESTION #6 - Mr. John Green
If a 350 mw plant is going to be built near a residential area, how large will the footprint
be? How loud will the noise emissions be?
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that the actual footprint of the plant will be around 2 to 4 hectares,
approximately the same as an average warehouse box type store with parking lot
included. It was noted that the amount of land purchased for this facility, and how the
land is designed or used is up to the proponent.
Residents were invited to visit an existing plant of this nature, such as the Portland
Energy Centre in Toronto or the Markham District Energy Plant located in the heart of
Markham, to become more aware of the size and atmosphere of such a plant.
Pertaining to the noise emissions, there are strict guidelines imposed by the Ministry of
Environment and there are insulation standards which will minimize the sound
frequency and levels to comply with Ministry standards as well as adhere to provincial
health and safety standards.
QUESTION #7 - Mr. Peter Piersol
With the impending effects of global warming on the environment, it is anticipated that
future generations will be functioning in a “carbon constrained society”, and therefore
meeting the current or proposed peak demand energy levels could become an
impractical luxury, considering the resulting additional carbon emissions from the
peaking plant. How is this being taken into consideration while considering the
installation of this facility?
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that Ontario has taken the lead as the first province to mandate the
phasing out and eventual elimination of the use of dirty coal, which currently represents
a large percentage of power generation in Ontario. Therefore it is crucial that power
generation companies in Ontario find alternative sources of energy production that are
financially viable and feasibly attainable, such as wind and water. It was also
speculated that as trends continue, a carbon management tax may be implemented to
address the way energy is priced and used, as a means to reduce wastage of electricity
and help fund research for alternate renewable power sources. It was also explained
that conservation is the best way to save on carbon emissions and wasted energy,
reducing greenhouse gas emission, and saving costs for the end users.
QUESTION #8 - Mr. Steve Sutherland
Mr. Sutherland suggested that the Mayor insist that half ownership of the plant should
belong to the Town of Aurora, in order to prevent any possibility of the plant being used
on a full-time basis. Mr. Sutherland also suggested that the demand on hydro will
intensify with the high cost of peak oil resulting in the increased use of rechargeable
electric alternatives.
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that the demand will increase on electricity as a result of the need to
move away from the use of crude oil, such as the use of electricity to crack water to
create hydrogen power. It was advised that fossil fuels are non-renewable, therefore
this type of peaking plant would not be a financial or environmental benefit if it were to
run for any significant period of time.
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 8 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
QUESTION #9 - Mr. Michael Evans
If the residents don’t want the plant, what happens then?
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that if the residents don’t want the plant, they should make that
message very clear to the Minister of Energy, Gerry Phillips, who is the authority who
gave the direction to construct this plant. The panel also advised that the current system
in this area is not meeting the minimum reliability standards for electricity supply
systems in North America. It was advised that it would be hard to say what would
happen if opposition is too strong to have the plant constructed in Aurora, however the
mandate exists that it must be built, or transmission lines will have to be upgraded.
QUESTION #10 - Mr. Jim Harris
With the existing power lines being low capacity and outdated, how will they be able to
carry the new current from the proposed peaking plant to the main line and what are the
chances of serious damage from extreme weather conditions.
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that the transmission lines linking the proposed peaking plant to the
main power lines at the Armitage Transfer Station will be regularly maintained, and the
likelihood of any weather damage happening simultaneously with the activation of the
peaking plant is not very strong.
QUESTION #11 - Mr. Tom Martin
If it is necessary to build a peaking plant, that is half the size of a nuclear power plant,
and to upgrade some of the transmission lines, why is it necessary to make it so big?
And why would it be in Aurora.
RESPONSE:
The Panel advised that the proposed peaking plant cannot be compared to a nuclear
power facility as they work in completely different ways. A nuclear power plant uses
nuclear fuel to heat water which moves turbines to generate power and they are
operational on a full-time basis. The panel also reiterated that there are 5 companies
currently being considered for the project, of those five companies, there are numerous
sites proposed throughout York Region, therefore it is not necessarily going to be in
Aurora.
Mr. Gibbon advised that in a 2005 the OPA submitted a report to the Ontario Energy
Board. Mr. Gibbon explained that within this report it was stated that the maximum
amount of power needed will be 140 mw, if it is connected to the high-voltage
transmission system.
SUMMATIONS
Each of the panellists provided closing comments which summarized various key points
from their opening comments and from the question period.
In summary, Mayor Morris advised that the final location of the proposed power
generation facility is still undetermined, therefore it is unknown whether the proposed
facility will be located in Aurora.
Mayor Morris suggested that Council direct staff to prepare a summary of the questions
and answers posed this evening; and that the e-mail addresses of the OPA be posted
on the Town’s website, to allow residents to send in their questions and obtain answers.
General Committee Report No. 08-21 Page 9 of 9
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Mayor Morris requested that the PowerPoint Presentations shown at this meeting be
made available to Council and to the public, and Mayor Morris also suggested that
Council direct staff to bring back this information in the form of a report for Council
consideration.
The CAO advised that the Town of Aurora website has a page dedicated to the OPA
Power Generation issue, and further advised that on that site there are links to
background reports, extracts of Council decisions, contact information for the OPA and
background information posted, as well as a forum for residents to send in their
questions, which would be directed to the appropriate people to follow-up. Mr. Rogers
advised that the PowerPoint presentations from this meeting and follow up information
will be posted on this site.
General Committee recommends:
THAT the questions and answers be summarized by staff and brought
back to a Council or General Committee meeting; and
THAT the questions which were not asked also be provided to Council so
that answers may be obtained and provided under separate cover.
CARRIED
VIII ADJOURNMENT
General Committee recommends:
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
CARRIED
THE REPORT OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING 08-21 WAS CONSIDERED
AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 13,
2008.
_______________________________ ________________________________
PHYLLIS M. MORRIS, MAYOR KAREN EWART, DEPUTY CLERK