Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
AGENDA - Special General Committee - 20070716
SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE AGENDA No 07-30 MONDAY, JULY 1612007 Immoo P.M. NOLLAND ROOM AURORA TOWN NALL PUBLIC RELEASE 13/07/07 AURORA TOWN OF AURORA SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO, 07-30 Monday, July 16, 2007 7:00 p.m. Holland Room Mayor Morris in the Chair I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 11 APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved. 111 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IV CLOSED SESSION Property/Legal/Personal Matters RECOMMENDED: THAT General Committee resolve into a Closed Session consider property matters, solicitor -client matters, and a personal matter about identifiable individual. V ADJOURNMENT Special General Committee Meeting No. 07-30 Page 2 of 2 Monday, July 16, 2007 AGENDA ITEMS 1. Review of Background Information Regarding York Region and the the Town of Aurora Hydro Supply RECOMMENDED: THAT the background documents be received for information. Background Information SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 "TOWN OF AURORA ` GENERAL COMMITTEE No. ADM05-018 SUBJECT: Ontario Power Authority -York Region Electrical Supply Project 11 FROM: John S. Rogers, CAO DATE: September 20, 2005 RECOMMENDATIONS That the Town of Aurora support the integrated solution to the York Region electrical supply problem proposed by the Ontario PowerAuthority (OPA) on September 9t' and 14"', 2005 including 1) Demand Reduction, 2) Transformation and 3) Additional Supply, and That the support for the integrated solution be conditional upon the following concerns being addressed to the satisfaction of the Town of Aurora: a) the location of any of the facilities (transformation or generation) be in accordance with the Town of Aurora regulations including but not limited to, zoning, site plan, building and safety regulations b) the lands needed be acquired by Hydro One or the appropriate entity as soon as possible so that all necessary approval processes may be carried out in as thorough and complete a manner as possible c) the transformer station be limited to 150 MW d) the transformerstation not be constructed unless a local generation plant is constructed in advance e) any new 230 W feeders be underground through any urban designated lands tj the existing single circuit 115 W system be replaced as soon as possible g) the Town receive quarterly reports from the appropriate agency showing power consumption and extrapolations required to determine the need for the second transformer station h) OPA fund with significant amounts of money for the necessary research and development of methods to reduce the cost of placing transmission lines underground; and That the Town of Aurora strive to be a leader by example of energy conservation; and _1- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 September 20, 2005 -2- Report No. ADM05-018 That the Town of Aurora actively pursue opportunities to share energy conservation projects with its residents, businesses and other governments and agencies; and „ That the Town of Aurora request the Province of Ontario to enact the appropriate legislation to facilitate and require energy conservation in new construction. BACKGROUND The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) was formed in late 2004 by the Province to fill a gap in electricity planning. OPA's mandate is to: 1. Address supply adequacy by preparing plans 2. Contract for new generation and conservation if required 3. Oversee the development of conservation programs in Ontario One of their first projects is the planning for supply of electricity to the Aurora/Newmarket areas and as part of the public consultation process, OPA has a established working group to provide advice related to; 1. Finding feasible options 2. Evaluation criteria 3. Evaluation options 4. Focusing on recommendations The Ontario Energy Board (OEB) by letter dated July 25th 2005 directed the OPA to file evidence to assist the board in determining whether and how it maybe necessary for the board to exercise its regulatory authority to address the growing demand of electricity in York Region. The letter is attached as item 1 to this report. The OEB required the OPA to submit its evidence by September 5th, 2006. The OPA undertook the York Region Electrical supply issue as it's first public consultation project and starting in May of 2005. There have been a series of meetings both as open public meetings and also as working group meetings. The Town of Aurora appointed its Chief Administrative Officer as its representative on the working group and the OPA appointed Ian Munro as the Aurora resident representative on the working group. Five, day long meetings were held during June and July and a final briefing meeting was held in September 2005, The OPA also held two Elected Official Forums In July and August and also had a briefing session with the Elected Official's in September. The OPA released a summary of its recommendations on Septemberthe 91h and has given any persons or organizations until September 23`d to make comments on its proposed recommendations. Attachment 2 to this report contains the slides presented to the September 14th Public meeting summarizing the OPA recommendations to the OEB. -2- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 September 20, 2005 .3. Report No. ADM05-018 COMMENTS There is no doubt that there is a looming electrical reliability and supply problem in northern York Region including the Town of Aurora. It is also clear that there is no one solution that will resolve the issue of finding a sufficient and reliable supply of electricity. The OPA is recommending an integrated solution that consists of the following components as set out on page 8 of their September 29rh presentation: 1. Demand Reduction Targeted Demand Response Conservation and efficiency improvement 2. Transformation Holland Junction Transformer Station plus Capacitors & Feeders 2°d Transformer Station 3. Additional Local Supply Local Generation Demand Reduction Avery important part of the solution is an aggressive program of demand reduction as the target is set at 20 mega watts by 2011 but as much as possible by the summer of 2006. It is important that Council as a group and Councillors as individuals be the leaders in demand reduction. Currently Aurora Hydro and eventually PowerStream are being funded specifically for the purposes of finding ways to reduce demand in the entire local hydro system. Staff is currently investigating the possibility of using the services of the Town of Markham's Energy Conservation Office to assist in energy conservation programs. Transformation It would appear that one of the first projects to be pursued, afterthe demand management programs, is the construction of a new Holland Junction Transformer Station and the related capacitors and feeders. This project is slated for the years 2006/2007. There is a second transformer station recommended in the event that the existing Armitage Transformer Station and the Holland Junction Station reach their capacity. The preferred location for this transformer station is in northern Aurora at a site yet to be determined, however, the closer it can be located to the existing hydro right of way the better. It would be appropriate to recommend that the site selection process commence as soon as possible, even though the earliest date for this transformer station is indicated as 2011, By undertaking the site selection process now, it would provide significant lead time for proper consideration and proper approvals being obtained. It is also important to note that this transformer station is not required if the third element of the solution, being generation, is not completed. —3— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 September 20 2005 -4- Report No. ADM05-018 Local Supply Generation The OPA has clearly stated that generation in northern York Region is preferred over transmission and generation elsewhere. As part of its mandate the OPA issued a request for Expressions of Interest related to local generation and the working group was advised that there were a number of submissions made to the OPA. The type of generation that is being recommended is only operational when there is a high demand on the overall system and is not a continuously operated generation plant. These plants are termed "Peak Generation Plants". Council may be aware of the Northland peak generation proposal and may have seen the reports that Newmarket Council has decided not to continue with an option to sell its property on Steven Court to Northlands. As much as this was a highly publicized proposal that had actually started the environmental approval process this is not the only local generation solution before the OPA. There is a possibility that the proponents for the local generation options may be investigating locating such a plant in the Aurora area and if such a proposal is made there will be the normal approval process required to be followed. Public Reaction A public open house and two public presentation sessions were held on September 141h at the Newmarket Theatre and on the whole the recommendations were well received. The Stop Transmission Lines Over People (STOP) have been generally supportive of the recommendations with the proviso that there should be constant monitoring of progress and continuing efforts to reduce the need for overhead transmission lines. Attached as item 3 is a flyer distributed by STOP. The Ontario Clear Air Alliance has also issued a Press Release with respect to the OPA recommendations and it is attached as item 4 to this report together with an email that was sent to the Town of Newmarket endorsing a peak generation plant. Ian Munro who represented the Town of Aurora citizens on the working group has been a tremendous asset not only to the working group but also to the Town of Aurora and should be congratulated and thanked for the excellent insight that he has provided throughout the process. Attached as item 5 is an email from Mr. Munro setting out the cost implications and in particular a chart showing the average household cost per month for the various alternatives proposed. Also attached as item 6 is a chart illustrating a proposal made by Mr. Munro to the OPA that is very close to what the OPA has actually recommended. The major difference in the chart is that the OPA has not recommended undertaking any study to reduce the cost of under grounding however our recommendations include the suggestion. There is also illustrated on the chart the continuous need for monitoring of demand so that the effectiveness of the conservation demand management programs can be properly measured. OPTIONS Council could refuse to comment on the recommendations of the OPA or Council may wish to modify the recommendations set out in this report. —4— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 September 20, 2006 - 5 - Report No ADM_ 05 018 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no direct expenditures related to the recommendations in this report, however, the cost of hydro is an important aspect of the operations of the municipality and there may be future impacts on rates depending on the solutions put into place. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN A reliable supply of hydro is essential to a number of the goals of the strategic plan, however, the primary goals that are met are: 1. Maintaining a well managed and fiscally responsible municipality to supporting a healthy business environment that attracts new business and is responsive to the needs of our current business community. 2. Continuing controlled well planned growth. CONCLUSIONS A reliable and sufficient supply of electricity to the Town of Aurora is essential forthe future of the Town of Aurora and the Ontario Power Authority has provided a well thought out and multi faceted solution to the pending crisis in the electrical supply to Aurora. Council must continue to be leaders in the community by promoting realistic and manageable solutions to the electricity supply and reliability issue for the Town. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 — Correspondence from the Ontario Energy Board, dated July 25, 2005 Attachment 2 — Slide show summarizing the Ontario Power Authority Attachment 3 — Flyer distributed by Stop Transmission Lines Over People (STOP) Attachment 4 — Press Release from The Ontario Clear Air Alliance and email sent to Newmarket, re: Peak Generation Plant Attachment 5 — Email from Mr. Ian Munro, re: Cost Implications and charts Attachment 6 — Chart illustrating a proposal made by Mr. Ian Munro to the Ontario Power Authority PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW N/A Prepared by. John S. Rogers CAO John S. Rogers Chief Administrative Officer —6— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board P.O. Box 2319 261h. Floor 2300 Yonge Street Toronto ON M4P 1 E4 Telephone: 416. 481.1967 Facsimile: 416-440-7656 Toll free: 1-888-632.6273 July 25, 2005 Mr. Jan Carr Chair Ontario Power Authority 176 Bloor Street East North Tower, Suite 606 Toronto, Ontario M4W 3R8 Dear Mr. Carr: Re: York Region Supply Commission de ritnergle de POntario C.P. 2319 26e stage 2300, me Yonge Toronto ON M4P 1 E4 Telephone; 416.481.1967 Tetecopieur. 416- 440-7656 Numero sans (rats: 1-888-632-6273 ATTACHMENT #1 BY PRIORITY POST This letter is written pursuant to s. 21 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, which authorizes the OEB to direct parties to file evidence to assist the Board in its determination of an issue and s. 25.27 of the Electricity Act, which requires the OPA to provide the Board with such information as the Board may require from time to time. The issue that the Board is considering is whether and how it may be necessary for the Board to exercise its regulatory authority to address the growing demand for electricity in York Region. The options that the Board will consider in making this determination are directing or authorizing one or more of the following options': 1. The Transmission Option: Rebuilding the existing above ground transmission facilities between Parkway TS in Markham and Armitage TS in Newmarket. All or these options are described in considerable detail in the reports provided to the Board (with a copy to the OPA) on April 15, 2005 and June 29, 2005. These documents are described in greater detail below. SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board -2- 2. The Buttonville Option: Building a 230/44 KV transformer station (TS) at the site of Buttonviile TS in the Town of Markham and constructing 44 KV feeders to the Aurora/Newmarket/Stoufville area. 3. The Holland Junction Option: Building a 230/44kV TS on the Claireville TS to Brown Hill TS right of way at the Holland Marsh Junction. 4. The Supply/Demand Reduction Option: A contract between the OPA and a generator or a consumer for new supply, capacity or demand reduction, the costs of which will be recovered from OPA customers if approved by the Board. The evidence that the Board directs the OPA to provide is as follows: 1. An opinion on the need for new supply in York Region with specific reference to a timeline that sets out an estimate of when demand growth in York Region will cause supply reliability to be adversely impacted and the consequences of such impacts. 2. An opinion on which of the above four options (or, in the alternative to options 1- 3, a refined or different transmission and/or distribution option that is acceptable to the implementing transmitter or distributor) is the optimal way to serve this new demand by reference to price and the reliability and quality of electricity service. The opinion should compare the alternatives as proposed by Hydro One and the York Region LDCs and provide reasons why the OPA considers that its proposed option is preferable to the alternatives. Upon considering the OPA's evidence, the Board may determine that one or more of the options are necessary. If so, there will be a subsequent regulatory process to direct or authorize the preferred option. The Board requests the OPA to provide this evidence by September 30, 2005. The context for this direction is set out below. -7- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board -3- York Region Demand Growth The IESO Outlooks and the Joint Response Meeting demand growth in York Region has been identified as a cause for concern by the IESO in its 10-Year Outlooks. In the 2003 10-Year Outlook, the IESO stated that the high rate of load growth in the municipalities of Newmarket, Aurora, Markham, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan requires that "necessary transmission reinforcements be placed in-service as soon as possible beginning no later than April 2005."2 In its 2004 10-Year Outlook, the IESO confirmed that "the ability of the existing transmission facilities to supply the rapidly growing load in the Newmarket and Aurora areas" was still an issue of immediate concern.3 More recently, the IESO's 2005 10-Year Outlook stated that "The rapid increases in the load within the Newmarket— Aurora area that have been experienced are taxing the capability of the existing double -circuit line between Ciaireville TS and Armitage TS."^ The 2004 10-Year Outlook noted that, in 2003, the York Region LDCs (Newmarket, Aurora, Markham, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan and Hydro One Networks — Distribution) and Hydro One Networks — Transmission, jointly prepared a report entitled the "York Region Supply Study: Adequacy of Transmission Facilities and Transmission Supply Plan, 2003-2013" (the "Joint York Region Study"). The participants in the Joint York Region Study unanimously concluded that the failure to take steps to increase supply "is not acceptable." According to the Joint York Region Study, failing to act "will aggravate the existing overload situation. Equipment loading will continue to increase and supply reliability will be adversely impacted in case of a contingency."5 1Eh10 104ear• Outlook: An A.rscssnrenf of the Adeguacp of Generation and Transmission Facilities 10 ilhet Future Clectricify Needs in Owario•from Jonnat0y 2004 to December 2013, p. iii. ' 1EMO 104ear• Outlook.- An Assessmenf of the Adequacy ofGeireration and Transmission Facilities to Meet Future Veclricity Needs in Ontario from January, 2005 to December 2014, p. 25. " IESO 10-}ear Outlook: .dn Assessmeni oflhe AdagtLagj! of Generation and Transmission Facilities 1. Meet Frrtrtre Clecn•icity rVeeds hn Onrarlo,fronr Jarrrtmp 2006 to December 2015, p. 25. ' York Region supply Study: Adequacy of Transmission Facilities and Transmission Supply plan, 2003-2013, p. 22. Q�Z SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board _4_ To address this, all of the York Region LDCs and Hydro One jointly recommended a transmission solution, namely, to rebuild the existing transmission facilities between Parkway TS in Markham and Armitage TS in Newmarket (the "Transmission Proposal"), The detailed components of the Transmission Proposal are set out in the Joint York Region Study.6 On October 21, 2004, Hydro One provided the Minister of the Environment with a Draft Environmental Study Report for the Transmission Proposal (the "Draft EA Report"), The Draft EA Report was prepared in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment for Minor Transmission Facilities approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. Upon receiving this Report, the options for the Minister of the Environment were to (i) grant the authority to proceed with the Transmission Proposal with or without conditions, such as further study on specified areas; or (ii) require Hydro One to proceed to a full environmental assessment. Hydro One requested the Minister of the Environment to proceed with option (i); other parties requested the Minister of the Environment to proceed with option (ii), The decision of which option to order proceed with is entirely at the discretion of the Minister of the Environment in accordance with the Environmental Assessment Act. On March 8, 2005, prior to the Minister exercising her discretion under the Environmental Assessment Act to either approve the Transmission Proposal (with or without conditions) or order a full Environmental Assessment, Hydro One withdrew its Draft Environmental Study Report. As a result, the environmental review issues respecting the Transmission Project have not yet been reviewed by the Ministry of Environment. Given the uncertainty of Hydro One's voluntary pursuit of the Transmission Option, and given the need to address the supply issue identified by the IESO in the forecasts described earlier, the Board determined that it should move forward to ensure that concerns respecting adequacy, reliability and quality of service in York Region are A copy of this document is included in the package described at footnote 12. �]0 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board adequately addressed. The Board's powers and obligations with respect to the price, , adequacy, reliability and quality of electricity service are set out in several statutory provisions. The Board's Responsibility and Authority: Transmission and Distribution The Board's statutory objectives include protecting "the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the adequacy, reliability and quality of electricity service."7 Similarly, its statutory grant of power with respect to transmission and distribution licences includes the authority to impose licence conditions requiring a transmitter or distributor "to expand or reinforce its transmission or distribution system in accordance with the market rules in such a manner as the IMO or the Board may determine." it In accordance with these provisions, the licences that the Board issued to Hydro One and the York Region LDCs all include provisions that the Board may require them to "expand or reinforce" their transmission and distribution systems "in order to ensure and maintain system integrity or reliable and adequate capacity and supply of electricity."g Any such expansion or reinforcement must be carried out in accordance with the Act, and the regulations, including the requirement that expansions of transmission lines longer than two kilometres may only be carried out if the Board grants leave to construct.10 In determining whether leave should be granted, the Act provides that "the Board shall only consider the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the reliability and quality of electricity service."11 The Board therefore has the responsibility and the power to require that expansions and reinforcements are made to protect consumer interests in price, reliability and supply of electricity. Ontario Energy Board : I m, s. 1(1).1 s Ontario Energy Board Acl, ss. 70 (2)0) _ See: Hydro One Transmission Licence, S. 12.2 ; and distribution licences, s. 13.2 �e Ornario Energy Board Act, ss. 92 (1) Onlarlo Energy Board Act, ss. 96(1) -10- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board mom Accordingly, on February 18, 2005, the Board directed Hydro One to advice of its plans to address transmission reinforcement requirements in, among other places, York Region. On April 16, 2005, Hydro One responded with a report that identified two potential options: the Transmission Proposal (described above); and an option that involved the use of distribution facilities of the York Region LDCs. Board Staff met with Hydro One and the York Region LDCs with respect to these proposals and, by letter dated June 8, 2005, the Board directed the York Region LDCs and Hydro One Distribution to identify the optimal distribution solution to the York Region Supply Issue. These LDCs provided a joint response on June 29, 2005. This response provided an assessment of two potential distribution options: "The Buttonville Option" and the "Holland Junction TS Option". The Buttonville Option involves building a 230/44 KV transformer station at the site of Buttonville TS in the Town of Markham and constructing 44 KV feeders to the Aurora/ Newmarket/ Stoufville area. The Holland Junction Option involves building a 230/44kV TS on the Claireville TS to Brown Hill TS right of way at the Holland Marsh Junction.' As a result, there are currently three potential options to address the issue of security and reliability of supply in York Region: Transmission Option, the Buttonville Option and the Holland Junction Option. These options contain a combination of transmission and distribution. The Board has the power to order that anyone of these options be implemented (subject to any necessary regulatory approvals, including environmental approvals)13 if it determines that doing so is in the interests of consumers with respect to prices and the reliability and quality of electricity service. '' Copies of the Hydra One and the York Region LDCs' responses, which contain detailed descriptions of all of these options, have been provided to the OPA by the authors, and additional copies are available at the Board. The Board does not have the legal authority to review environmental issues in considering the approval of projects. The environmental issues are entirely within the authority of the Ministry of Environment under the Environmental Assessmenl:Ici. Section 12.2(2) of that Act provides that "No person shall issue a document evidencing that an authorization required at law to proceed with the undertaking has been given until the proponent receives approval under this Act to proceed with the undertaking." As a result, any approval granted by the Board does not authorize leave to construct until all necessary environmental approvals have been obtained. -11- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board The Board's Responsibility and Authority: Generation and Demand Reduction The Board recognizes that its statutory mandate in this regard is limited to 4tdering that solutions to the York Region supply issues be met by distribution and transmission. It does not have the authority to order solutions to the York Region supply issue be met by either generation or demand reduction. However, the Board believes that the alternatives of generation and demand reduction should also be considered as part of the solution to the York Region supply issue so that the Board may determine and approve an optimal solution in terms of price and reliability and quality of electricity service. The OPA is uniquely positioned to provide the Board assistance in this regard. First, one of the OPA's statutory objects is "to engage in activities in support of the goal of ensuring adequate, reliable and secure electricity supply and resources in Ontario.i14 Second, in support of this and other objects, the OPA has the statutory power to enter into contracts relating to the "adequacy and reliability of electricity supply", the "procurement of electricity supply and capacity" and the "procurement of reductions in electricity demand and the management of electricity demand"." As a consequence, the OPA has both the mandate to support adequacy, reliability and security of supply and the ability to enter into contracts to support new supply or demand reduction. The Board therefore requests the OPA to provide its opinion on the need for new supply in York Region and on the relative merits of the Transmission Option, the Buttonvilie Option and the Holland Junction Option (or a refined or different transmission and/or distribution option that Is endorsed by Hydro One and/or the York Region LDCs) in light ''� L•lccn•icirpricr, s.25 �(1). �.. Eleco-Wirpact, s. 25.2(5). -12- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board _$. of the interests of customers in price, reliability and quality of electricity services. Further, the Board would benefit from the OPA's views on whether the goals would be better served by additional supply, capacity or demand reduction. If the OPA is of the opinion that supply, capacity or demand reduction are preferable solutions, the Board is prepared to entertain an application by the OPA to recover the costs of a contract to provide those solutions. In other words, the OPA may apply for approval of its expenditures in relation to purchasing supply, capacity or demand management if it is of the opinion that this is preferable to any of the options currently considered by the Board. The Board will consider that application by reference to its statutory objectives. In proceeding in this manner, the Board recognizes that, in the longer term, the Board's role in reviewing the OPA's system planning and procurement will be different than it is today. Specifically, under Part 11.2 of the Electricity Act, the Minister of Energy will provide the OPA with directives on the goals to be achieved during a period covered by an integrated power system plan (the "IPSP"). The OPA will develop an IPSP that is designed to achieve the Government's goals relating to, among other things, the adequacy and reliability of electricity supply and demand management.'s The Board will review the IPSP to ensure that it complies with the Minister's directions and is economically prudent and cost effective, The OPA will also develop "Procurement Processes" for "managing electricity supply, capacity and demand in accordance with its approved integrated power system plan.'17 The proposed Procurement Processes will also be reviewed by the Board. After the Board has approved Procurement Processes, the OPA may enter into "Procurement Contracts" in accordance with the approved Procurement Process. Procurement Contracts are contracts for the procurement of electricity capacity, supply Electricity Act, s. 2531)(1), (2). Eleciriciry act, s. 25.31(1). -13- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board -9-1 . and demand management.18 Costs relating to Procurement Contracts entered into in accordance with the Board approved Procurement Process will be recovered by electricity customers without further review by the Board; these costs are effectively sheltered from regulatory review. This makes the recovery of these costs different than other OPA expenditures because OPA expenditures other than those incurred from Procurement Contracts require approval of the Board.79 As a result, in the future, after the IPSP and Procurement Processes are considered and approved by the Board, the OPA will have the independent authority to recover the costs of Procurement Contracts without OEB approval. Unless and until the OPA enters into Procurement Contracts in accordance with a Board -approved Procurement Process, the recovery of all OPA expenditures — including those related to contracts for supply, capacity and demand management outside of the Procurement Contract process — require Board approval. As a result, if the OPA is of the opinion that contracts for electricity supply, capacity or demand reduction are preferable to the transmission and distribution options that have been presented to the Board, then it may apply to the Board for approval to recover the costs of its expenditures for these contracts. Summary and Conclusion In light of all of the above, the Board seeks the OPA's assistance in addressing the most preferable way to address the York Region supply situation by providing the Board with evidence for the Board to consider. The evidence that the Board directs the OPA to provide is as follows: " ElecU•icity if ct, s. 25.32(1 J 19 Eleco•tcliy acr, s. 25.21 -14- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ontario Energy Board _10- 1. An opinion on the need for new supply in York Region with specific reference to a timeline that sets out an estimate of when demand growth in York Region will cause supply reliability to be adversely impacted and the consequenges of such impacts. 2. An opinion on which of the above four options (or, in the alternative to options 1- 3, a refined or different transmission and/or distribution option that is acceptable to the implementing transmitter or distributor) is the optimal way to serve this new demand by reference to price and the reliability and quality of electricity service. The opinion should compare the alternatives as proposed by Hydro One and the York Region LDCs and provide reasons why the OPA considers that its proposed option is preferable to the alternatives. Upon considering the OPA's evidence, the Board may determine that one or more of the options are necessary. if so, there will be a subsequent regulatory process to direct or authorize the preferred option. The Board requests the OPA to provide this evidence by September 30, 2005. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours truly, Original Signed by John Zych Board Secretary cc: Paula Conboy, PowerStream Mary Anne Aldred, Hydro One Joe Toneguzzo, Hydro One John Sanderson, Aurora Hydro Gaye -Donna Young, Newmarket Hydro —15— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Em- ow r� ri a O r rrir 4� OG m Lm O a O r rrrt E E O t� 0! Lo 0 0 N i E a) U) ATTACHMENT-2 -16- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 W E W 0 E E 0 U a) cn (n E CL ..... . ■ O a) •U . _. cm O cm c: isa� ._ tU U U E N •} E •c: U to Q O O p a. U w CL ml -17- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 -18- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 -19- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 Ca 0 co Eu 9 0) CL) (D Z 0 cl co d m 11 a) Lr) —20— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 w E 0 � � � cn � � � c: � � 0 � � � � � � § m /\\ \aoC) =a\CLc 0770k \ » c * m U) S � R y t \ ^ �( \§/Lo 75 MV) 0 » > *af2� $\@4- /±g \ c r \ f c� 02-0 =3 E _ 2 E R §/ «_ o = ® ) o E\m g E \ 04 §7 c _» §a \�\\k } /Z G222/ . 22n@o �. § e e\ 2 -21- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 O �N E 0 V'" ) \ W (D 4- 0 ■m� 4-j p .lam W O ■ rw� t�a .lam �r rn ......... . cc rn oel C O N M E i � J C : : 53 � E o N m Gf? N ti N O C C M U N 1 � r+ y to O M o m cl m UU)i C c Y ` N o`_ 0. N Co L CD� O t� O LCl o O T o It C7 M N N -22- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 s.. cu tll N '-j Lo 4 E U.�N 0 -, o 06 � N L i m Oco O ._ v U)> 0- u U L u) .0 + O VJ • • a O +=' F— v _ CL -a a) .�. p ;�:+ v E E p tCf O cU q C -'v N O c m 0 N N 01 .i� U) vww N co) 0 —23— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 co._ v acuu E O N o 21 v co •co .Noo •� w W . _ ..... f, — .o cu n cL O L. a v L -24- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 c: 0 ry er to E j. CL ........ . —25— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 0 v W ry IN U E r N 0 4-1 0)0 N 0 u.. E . va U) 0 CI 0 E 0 0 0 0 E 0 L CL 5... 0 }ter c cm 0 21 0 a) cn E �1 0 CL a) \ram/ co 0 cu Q. m cu (ll cu CL 0 0 E O 0 W 0 0 L 0 0 a ui 4) r4111M ui E E 12 L cm (> V `JL' e (n 0 0 cu 00 � c IN cT O L cm cno U � O � N 0CD �N uj � d-a —26— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 N r -27- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 VJ f O qj •, � . O cn N .cn E sa cu N o N .. j 07 � m m ® E cn p E tCi O ; a) Q N :.1 U Y ••"IY I E c i Q) � _ 6 i" -28- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 -29- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Lo -30- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 S WAY Alwn.� F M or, .2 . ... .... .. LU x 99 -31- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 r- t- O Y I.IIYY C O co c/) ca _0 Q E N = o O cu c � o � c� 4-j .> co °c a U '� .c: � �C a. --n -� -32- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 19 —33— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 u CL Q. U) c: o� 0 a� � L. .C: � 4- Cll � cn C� sz cu S. cu 0 m cm 4.00 >1 > : 3 c� 0 s� 0 0� a 00a �� a �0 c:00.. wz 4- 0 U) �0 ._ E L. o° >� 0 oU) 4- 0 a� 0 ••" 0 E .� 0 � CD U 0 0 0 0 N O -34- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 -tom C- CU Cucu Q o ._ -0 � . o a�4-0 cL � cn c: Eo o �� c� c p cn C E o m o U Y c o 0-t Qo m c- 0 0 ca U •� c • _ .,E © � . >m cA A � N •(� m o c o 7 � C 4.0 ov o - � Cl,} cu 4-5° cud a) .� -a a.0 CID a' Q o -�- Q 0 c6 •-- x c� o U E w 40. z Ll I -35- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 0 Lm � 0 U O N V �. :.� 0 C� 0 o N a (D 0 .. o 0 -- CL C 4 0 CL .— > •— O Lcr cf) v o CZ C) 0M >1Ca -1-•+ � mot—+ .� X UJ.:- wU) 0 0�� • 0 0 L. CL 0 L C7 0 CL m CD 9 0 U CD co 0 E 0 5.. c W N —36— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 _0 N wo W .� U _ U O Q CL 0. oo ®'c Im � .� 6 U Q a c: v • Q — Q O a)� Q .rr.r -� . E (n L U ++ E 0 4q? N U E N Q m .o N%.� O ommom NWCL� cz cu N N� - L. U) O Q �,. N � Ur U -O t N E - = a) O Q 4.Q., ,,_O � � � � U N *-a 6 c 4 -37- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 cn N a �{ t s- n f F. h u SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 ATTACHMENT-3 r.a(. STAR (Stop Transmission lines Over People) WE ARE ALMOST THERE, BUT WE NEED YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT! BIG NEWS: The Ontario Power Authority released its draft recommendations. It is critical that the public become informed and offers their input into these recommendations before September 23rd. The final OPA recommendation will be delivered to the Ontario Energy Board on September 30tn The draft recommendation consists of the following elements: 1. Demand Reduction, Conservation 2. Transformation: a new transformer station located on the existing power line at Holland Junction in a rural area of King Township & potentially a second transformer station within a few kilometers of the Armitage station in 2011 3. Local Generation in the form of a gas powered peaking plant that is designed to run only during peak load periods. * Some experts feel that the above solution would result in a 25 to 30 year solution and the STOP Committee is In full support of this recommendations however we will continue to advocate for future improvements to the power planning process and for new environmental standards to be set for the long term. PLEASE ATTEND OPA OPEN HOUSE on Wednesday September 14th Newmarket Theatre 505 Pickering Crescent Newmarket, ON L3Y 8H1 3:00 PM — 9:00 PM Open house with displays. Please note that there will be OPA representatives available to answer specific questions and solicit feed back. 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM Presentation and Q&A Session 8:00 PM — 9:00 PM Presentation and Q&A Session (repeat presentation) The Newmarket Theatre is located in Newmarket, Ontario next door to Newmarket High School just off Mulock Drive between Bayview Avenue and Leslie Street. Coming from the east (Leslie Street) you may access the theatre We Mulock Drive. If you era coming from the west (SayviewAvenue), you can only access the theatre via Pickering Crescent. Drive west from the Mulock exit If you are coming from highway 404, For more information please see the OPA website at www.00werauthoritv.on.ca or www.stop-emf.ca —39— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Page I of 2 ATTACHMENT-4 Richard Johnson (TOR) From: Richard Johnson (TOR) Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:26 PM To: The CreeJohnsons' Subject: FW: [cleanair-1] Ontario Power Authority opts for energy conservationand local generation From: cleanair-I-bounces@list.web.net [mailto:cleanair-I-bounces@list.web.net] On Behalf of Ontario Clean Air Alliance Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:13 PM To: cleanair-I@list.web.net Subject: [cleanair-1] Ontario Power Authority opts for energy conservationand local generation September 12, 2005 - Last Friday, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) released its proposal to meet the incremental electricity needs of northern York Region (Aurora, Newmarket, King Township, Whitchurch-Stouffville and East and West Gwillimbury) through a combination of energy conservation and a new, small-scale natural gas -fired power plant in Newmarket instead of building a new Hydro One transmission line. This landmark proposal by the OPA is a bold departure from Ontario's 100-year tradition of meeting electricity needs primarily by building large centralized power plants (e.g., Darlington nuclear station, Nanticoke coal plant) and delivering the electricity to consumers via high -voltage transmission lines. However, the OPA's conservation strategy will depend on strong and effective leadership from local elected officials and the local electric utilities (Newmarket Hydro, PowerStream and Hydro One). For example, the local municipalities and developers should ensure that all new homes in York Region meet the ENERGY STAR standard for new homes, which would make them 40% more energy efficient than those built to minimum Ontario building code standards. `ENERGY STAR is just what Ontario homebuilders have been searching for," according to Dan Gabriele, President of the Ontario Homebuilders' Association. "The ENERGY STAR label helps home builders show their clients that they are getting a comfortable, well-built, energy -efficient home that will protect them from rising energy costs." In addition, Newmarket Hydro, PowerStream and Hydro One should implement programs to encourage residential and small commercial customers to exchange their old air conditioners and refrigerators for new ENERGY STAR models. New ENERGY STAR air conditioners and refrigerators use approximately 50% less electricity than 10-year old models. The OPA will be holding a public open house about its energy conservation and local generation proposal on Wednesday, September 14t" at the Newmarket Theatre. For more information, please visit www.powerauthorit, .oy wear and scroll down to "York Region Electricity Supply". Please pass this message on to your friends. Thank you. Jessica Fraeassi 9/12/2005 —40— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Communications & Membership Coordinator Ontario Clean Air Alliance 402-625 Church St, Toronto M4Y 2G1 Phone: 416-926-1907 ext. 245 Fax: 416-926-1601 Email: contact@cleanairalliance.ore Website: www.cleanairalliance org The Ontario Clean Air Alliance is a coalition of health, environmental and consumer organizations, faith communities, unions, utilities, municipalities and individuals working for cleaner air through a coal phase -out and the shift to a renewable electricity future. Our partner organizations represent more than six million Ontarians. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this list please visit www.cleanair.w&ca/ggL For more on how you can contribute to clearing Ontario's air through your electricity purchases, please see our consumer -advice website: www_electriciiyclloices.org. 9/12/2005 —41— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 FW: Proposed small-scale, natural gas power plant for Newmarket Page 1 of 1 From: Jack Gibbons[mallto:laibbons@aollutionprobe.orgl Sent: September 12, 2005 3:07 PM - To: 'nmayor@town.nmmarket.on.w';'Mnbynen@newmarket.ca';'cmcdeave@newmarketca';'dkerwin@newmarketca'; 'dspringstein@newmarketca'; 'dspringsteln@sprint.ca'; '1arryblight-ward4@sympatico.m'; 'jsponga@newmarket.m'; 'dramsarran@newmarket.ca; 'chrisemanuel@rogers.com' ' Subject: Proposed small-scale, natural gas power plant for Newmarket I am writing to express the Ontario Clean Air Alliance's support for the Ontario Power Authority's (OPA's) proposal to finance the development of a small-scale, natural gas -fired power plant in Newmarket. We believe that this proposal is in the best interest of the people of Newmarket and Ontario for the following reasons. 1. It will lead to a net reduction in air pollution in Ontario and Newmarket by facilitating the phase -out of Ontario's dirty coal-fired power plants. 2. It will dramatically reduce the probability of an electricity brownout or blackout in Newmarket, 3. It is a lower cost option to meet Newmarket's electricity needs than importing electricity from outside of 'York Region by a new or upgraded electricity transmission line. If you require any additional information, I would be pleased to attend a Newmarket Town Council meeting to answer your questions. Jack Gibbons Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance 625 Church Street, Suite 402 Toronto M4Y 2G1 Tel: 416-926-1907 ext, 240 Fax: 416-926-1601 Email: info@cleanairallianoe.org Web sties: www.cleanairalliance.org _ www.electricitycholces.o rq 9/12/2005 -42- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 ATTACHMENT 5 Rogers, John From. an Munro Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:49 AM To: Rogers, John; Morris, Phyllis (External Mail); Gaertner, Wendy (External Mail) Subject: Latest Costs Alternative Hydro Costs.xis (2... Attached is an Excel spreadsheet c\w charts outlining the cost of the various alternatives. The data comes from the latest costs given to us by the OPA consultants. I believe that the under -grounding costs are still overstated but it is the best data we have! The "household" cost is based on the average household consumption of 1000 kW per month. The Holland Junction solution saves the ratepayer's about $47 Million as compared to the original Hydro One proposal. In addition, the Gormley transmission option is the least costly of the transmission alternatives. Partial under -grounding of the Gormley transmission line costs the same as the overhead Buttonville to Aurora alternative. Ian Munro P.Eng 1 -43- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Ot O r 00 O O CD 0 O O O R O O O O O C Cl O O O CDO O CD O O `• 1 �1 -44- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 0 8\ƒ >ƒ(E f �. \ gƒE ° Vim( §?0 7a[ E 0 0 §0 \k7 E- $Mmbn« o Q a § a k § k k w 0 E n 2 k n k -45- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Q < r 0 o <. R co o. E; , 0 c -D 1 D C o O h� ➢1 < X' W 0 Q O 0 3 _ C• 0 .D K@O � O 7 ID < p iD 5 00 r 3 0 o 4 0 +� O �= o fT� Cents © O O O O C O 4 O O O O O O O O O O Q O -46- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 C O O O O O O O O1 C q A7 O 03 ? 0 CD $ per Month a cn rn ;v no (a O O O O G O O O O O O O -47- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 ATTACHMENT i? � : y s e e w w w o a: e : u w ti a -- e o 80 i G y i O D 9 b 9 a m G 0 R Q h O P =yr a =aasv O gym D 1> ❑ 1. HE PJ 3 � W ii-> + 0 o 2. os0 9 Ica F a p p� w a � C N N '3 o m in a p p0 E ��'i j °a on D a3 0n °a �m2 Elr7 'c,�,' •< m h 3 m C E N a°� o. 3 0 m N n n G e C O e a p z Q ? M p o N a I C � 7 N b n T- p�p O p A � C p Illul�� u ....... S sa �y § ......._..................................... ........... .............................. .... ......_... - `E F� .................................. ................... ....... ... ................................... e 9 F� G 3 ....:............ ......::..................... .... ....................................... ...... ...... F ................ ,........................................... E iu LY Oy ........... ..... ...................... .............. ...... . .........�......... ................�... FaE og u ................. ....... ............._........... -................................... ...... ...... . ................ ............................................ Px P� ............................................................................ .' ...... ...... . ................ ............................................ - 6 .. ..................................................... . ...... ...... ................ ............................................ F� ................. .............................. ................... ..... ...._ ................ ........ ................... - ............. .. e� �a fr= om SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Alternative Power Transformer Capacitors Distribution Transmission Station Line MW ($M) ($M) ($M) (sM). Overhead - Buttonville to Aurora 150 15 15 50 Partial (14 km) U/G Buttonville to Aurora 150 15 15.1 109 Overhead - Buttonville to Gormley 150 15 22 23 Underground line Buttonville to Gormley 150 15 22 65 Partial (5 km) UIG Buttonville to Gormley 150 15 22 44 Holland Junction (Distribution) 140 15 4 14 mom SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Total Cost I MW Cost JkW-hr Average Household ($M) ($) (Cents) $1 Month 80 533,333 0.49 4.87 139 926,667 0.85 8.46 60 400,000 0.37 3.65 102 680,000 0.62 6.21 81 540,000 0.49 4.93 33 235,714 0.22 2.15 -50- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 t a 2 (D c L O 0) a> ry, 0 c 0 C P Q A N N IT Q -51- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 0 0^l — I U � ® .0 E I o- O 0 C Q o c� 0 0- a� E � n to Q Q U ♦ 'O N a 5 0 L_ 0 0 N 0 N :4 ,j' ti -52- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 O L. n 0. 9 4-0 U) c: c: U m O O •� E + s- U c U E CD a .N 00 U) �., p 0. O (a � U co O Co .EO E N cn-- N— cm O •> `�CO a O O O N — N �+� O a)o N U .V � Q. a)Lo O � �� N co-0 .c:co C C co OU N cn 0) O O O � .O � ' 3 a)O O 0 Co 4 cn E O a)E L N— O O y-- V O a)E N .C -0 E '— L : O O O) a) O O Z a r- N -r- U (D. :> M ti -53- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 oqe r0 V U) 0 c: L c` _>1 U Q" Q. U� � > U) F:+ cn Q= U E 'D O 'a Oo 70 (� V C O N cu -O C c6 Q cOn N O O C �, •co (o a) cn =3 p fn 0)•— cn cn c O.o as c O C O Q 0- ':3 U) U) U) .Q cv O C O O "0 7 CU C. cv � C O Q. O. N (6 Y N� L c6 O O p > L a) cn C cu O �-' O cm C 0) A t�6 O O U O O -I--r (a L .0 i. _O a) M C Ncn U � N a 0) Q A O C O N a N -70M O O N cn c: a) coQ O co N C 0 L O O� N O Q- 'a cn E C m m C O•V 0 p a) v— C cn cn C cuO c�6 N 4� a) 0-`5 Cc:O 1 Ei -54- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 ILa 'yn^R „&4 SAQ r_ • L_J ^E W n U cn c Q •�O .Q " co cn 0 c� ��� 1 a) "C) tm 0=U (D -F' 1 o >, O)N N> a)�N a) cu �� �E NN�,•��0 OWN 4— O O X X O }. 4-1 >, �' I N 41)Lf NNE CI3^= C O C 4-1C oo� (E�mcLa�CLC c��o_ �Oo�m>�E� V U ca co 4— m U S O Y fn `' C C >N0 0.2 co L L CL 0- U c� a)cy),0 O cn 0- " " O c_n a) + (D O W N i O1 cmX N Y - a) Q.N .—:L- a >�---U fnp VF> O= a) O O - 'C -0 ca C -0 QN U ���n0 N 00 cp 0 .— E� 0 4— � O -070 �0 odj ���aU 0000 N�>-a0c ��ccnnc: ca O E I I I I �0 Q.E in ti -55- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 OOA cz 4-j V O U Z . J Q Q h- Q C �" W W U) Chi ❑ Z o i ❑ W O 00E- z 4I11 a 00 O O O O 10C1 d0' 'Od' M M N O N O O N O O N O ! O N O O O O Y09 [T R7 -56- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JUG 16, 2007 . .� & « ;|! R; 0. co (D > � � � � � . | \ $ % - ' ) � 2 ƒ , ! ) � | � � 2 • $!5� 0\« \| � �a\ § oLu , . , 2m \�k . � • 7 \ I \ 7 § & » kk o r-- \ � � -s7- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 0 O N O O N O O N Co 0 Cl Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 00 �O 7 N !" T /4l0edeo polle}sul 9m 0 C) K• SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 1� o i u E W U lcu i cu 0 CD (Mw) Puewap lenuuy 013MOAV 0 0 0 o a o o p (Mph) lyioedeo alge1jeny S N 0 N 0 Vl 0 N 0 N ti -59- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 U L0 a) L. ._0 N a) AM }' O 4-0 • i_ N o ., N a) O (� � O C O O — E (I3 O •> •N t6 cn .> O � a) p O O. 'p �, •E c: O 1_ 1_E Oco-) O O E (UD) (51), � (n L_ U L co (�(D .. � Nam-+ O NV a)� ,-cO 4�- C N cn L U O O vi �— ca U) O O O O �2-Op-O >,_N-0 ry 4) m -� a) -C ,� O co 0) a) SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 E W O CD W 70 N � 0 � U C O CD co (L) t 7 L o }o- o N L C 7C) oco c O cn os(n N� C .c: c: Ca L- 0a)a) = L -0 N U 0 0 a) m: .� I>v— � Boa) Q o)E W ''W^ E vJ co c: U� a) �� O�0q-jc: i- N :�• a) c>3 (1) 7 cn a)O_aE O c N LO 00ca— 2 - 0 0 E•-� uS c .U' a� a)oE� �c))�Cc 4-0 cu -0 c X O O N o � NAY a)V. mcuE -00)()� :3 N a) U) Fnn Z cu c: (D O 0 cn -W '.�-j 0 0 O O U) (� co =o� 0-0 cn cn N — -`n co U)) � 0 � o L cli L a) o .- .Q to Oco co Q, V a) Q N N : I c�0.� O-0 U)� p v W(D -0 =�F-c W •H� Al 0 E � O 4-1 >. Cal)) L. O U () o.� L N Q O� 0-O a.I.' Q•c: 0--o a) L U N N Os Q. a)a) � a) > L 0 N U) �:6 00 ti -61- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Cs[ a'm pD <nh 4-j vle (n cm NO U VO U L -� a) 0).� N N O O > a) -0 cu NO U) cn L +r N c r-.O (u i-=� .L a � C O 0 cn (o 0) U�� Ni0 a) a) L _0 a O� O <C O e O �n:3 >} mac_ +-. O a.NOfn �NN.� aE N cn c O II II T N I-0c ccoc cu O-c: Nff N�> O'er O cn 05 O�Nccn 0a Ocn cc 0 NNn 00 >+"O (0�CO�' .cacnocn cn Cp O 0-._ =na)Q O1 o E �'N U ) o M cn cm a) N NN .� c N N - o NLC) +Cn. O U)�-5;U) 0- �1I I I I ���cuLc CCC "(D I N r� -62- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 c O O 4-1 O U c � � O' T U) �� �E c: Uo CD.( c: N N c[s °' cn cu nC �CD 0)��Oo vo0 O a U)U) O cn n NEAO O U N CD L ca M � a� •L .i.� (n co 0 L U �� c O N N E E�c� N� O 0-0 .� c � a �N 0 moo co .� oo c: ui•�a) � v c N U O N -+--� ��_�o �E�N cnNO(D a) � C a) >�4-U -0 (U O o E m�N N^` N Q mH o cn:QT o •� N o Z (� (li �•�•� N -63- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 p O3 et. iL x 4 c0 a) 0 O — >+ a) cn --- c A'O O c c — � N O cn 0 V co co L- a) to (� t6 O O N m O O Y O V C 0 a) E o +, M >,a) a) c 70 a) .- -O 0O (6 0 c +r i :oOo E E oO �O a) a) U) c c-a c a) �c c o a . O O O O O OO_.= E -O > i O (n (6 (n c m tea) U, tea) L- U z0 cC �Q— N M o M (6 -0 ai)' .Q : cua)0 > (n-c O.OE u -0=n a) M O o n ) a > O-0 O O s ��C °ca)cO �o �N>:�UO-O��O0) csOa 4-1:�_(00E 0UcNcn0 a��'�anE al +-, c a) O (6 �— cn E M a)lp c M >, � c — -a c >, cn L c c )'�.9 cM �0 � cu a) m i (D O c0 'y= a) O ca 0 N a) -64- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 d Q' ill3 '#° 4R8 ^ ' V+ U N O -O =3 O c co o E Lf N 4-0 o o > 0- CL c co o E (� N In .� a c — o U a U) c� O O _I N U L O ° 2 N ® CL m a n Fn N (o cn U o .cn U j •E L E > 0) 0O N c : • U co > OQ�= N Q W I I C Am .(D LL • • • 0 N U` _0 N a� c 0 o � � > cn .Q �� O o � ccn > cn E_ i � ca -. N 0 4-0c� ,4-1 N :N _U E r- 3-0 L (3) Al V! N O v •> � U W —I h ti ti -65- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 4— W co • _I a� E 0- Q -1 c� U) N •� O U .O i_ 0 ,c: N `� C 0 a N N 4'° (a 0 4-0 _ to N , C (n N O 0 : E 0 U cn N 0) o � E 0 '5 o cu -0° •> can co a) , u� cu � `�' O 4-0 cn c = ---j N cq U 0 CL c� 0 }' § N tn a)a) c: U Li 0 c O 0 > cu a) a) cu 0. N U) 0.� U)Ocu o00O.s� 9 Ln 0 0 N 0 N ti SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 M C �} A 6D0 cu c s O p cu �O O >> E O O y- U 0 C4-0 cu cu Q c- � N N -0 cu Q - N U N +� � � a) � ca . can O N s_ O > N N }' O '� .Q N -�--+ tu U O O .� N L. O N cn L. Cu0 � _ 0 0 E 0 c c� Cn to U) -L 0 I ti -67- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 0 o� oe8 a 00 A iaP c O O O U) co (n O O co .� o cn '(n i N > V N N -0 a) E c m Q O M a O (n y- +� a) O > a) a� 'o CD 0 a) (n � 'X cn 0) a, (n a) c cn 0).L y= c: co a� (D co O a LI Q I I I I a) c U .cr O CD 0 m I 9 W' SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 C L. 4-4 _W O cn cu cu U �� cu Cu v cu E cu cn m O (6 O U 2� N � N cn N � >, O �c6 4— (n N cu O O � cu cu L W (D U +1 L ca U O O E -0O co '+ O cn M cn � N U CL U) Q. "O N � c �U) W E rO i 4--- O N N E .E c� U Cl� .E cn 0) U -r- J W cn N N co U N � U O Q .(n N .E -o co � O)� O U) � O � c6 c ti SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 � W_< w=x SAQ }r Z 4-- U) .L U U 75 a) O .c: W m CD co Lu co co () X N•� :3 O c CV3 � Q U U p o 0 � � O �C U U) N N U) QCN cn CD O O _ O m Lu W � N �, >,.cn .- U co +� -O F= .o cp fn E N U O O Q • — O u. •- N cn ch •X ._ .— .Q cm N N E5 9 ti -70- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 o sa o "'s c 72 - r11 l..L O c: Ocu �' L O N= i O :c p p 3 Lua�O cLf = m O X W O O O ca � o �- OQ- a) = Q p v (O ? cL E ��—�cl 0 0 cu ca 0 '— I—.�.�U O -cn I N -71- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 d ;} IL aao 0. VrF O cll*-. Efin •� a� a� CL 4-0 U) O 70 O a � v V J+ N_ O O-0 O cn Q. O_ U a--� - O � .— > -CL C: N tq M -� t� C O Q O fA - O N O _0 w tCi cn 1 U -0 �, V N �, 0 � (li N Q n� ) � a) -m � +' C � � a)+' > G7 co a)-� .0 0) O � _N a)ZNJc� Zs 0 Z0- • N -72- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 561 u co O V N �o _0 E lq U a) a) 0 , •> . a)cn a)O (U Q O U c .L .> •N .cn 4— E.O O cn u) O c: a) a) c a) a) 0 a).� a-C L- '� O� L��— �o O a)O m � '— O oa) �-,C a) O Cn OO cn LO� �O cmm-0E �� ico L L N M H O i —a) E a)Oco a)Q caa)c a) a) N Q�1-(DE.LC�OU-ca)�� N -73- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY l& 2007 § k 2 .? 2 CD %� ab: o \ Q % / ƒ E� cm4: ¥ o \ 0 o � \ E § £ q c.s -0 E o a E o % 3 Z- 2 2 / 0 $ \ § ) g o m E _ ) f �5 2 (D o § 2 o � y ® / § E 2 + 7 u / ° ° q § " o 4- % \ c: G 2 § @ cn & \ 2 - q k ®� Q ° E » 2 / m @ 022@2CL E0]co f a) \ ƒ / 2 \ § (D e / � E o c § k E co E C) ° / °\4 ■ \ 4 � / -74- SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 TOWNSHIP OF KING DATE: July 9th, 2007 TO: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Economic Development Officer Report EDO-2007-02 Re: Energy Generation Potential (Peaker Station) in NE Quadrant of Township 1. RECOMMENDATIONS - The Economic Development Advisory Committee recommends that: (a) Report EDO-2007-02 be received as inforniation. (b) Township Council direct staff: to establish a proactive process and procedure for evaluating the ,private energy company submissions, .in advance of the anticipated Ontario Power Authority's RFP call for power generation proposals. Further, the evaluation system should be based on "What's Best for the Township" in terms of environmental, social and economic benefits and impacts that foster sustainable economic and community development. An adequate, reliable, dependable energy supply is essential to existing industry and business and paramount to attracting future commercial and industrial investment that will broaden the Township tax base. 2. PURPOSE This Report is to provide Committee with general information and a recommendation from the Township's Economic Development Advisory Committee relating to the energy generation (Peaker Station) potentialin the NE Quadrant of the Township. BACKGROUND A letter to the Township Clerk from the Ontario Minister of the Environment dated June 6'h responds to the Township's request for an individual environmental assessment request on the Hydro One Holland Junction Transformer Station (Project). The Minister states, "I am satisfied with Hydro One's justification for the Project, such that a transformer station is required to provide a reliable source of electricity to the residents of York Region. Hydro One has indicated that the transformer station will free up a distribution feed line from the Annitage Transformer Station in Newmarket that can supply future needs of King Township and will reduce the risk of power disruption." Over the course of the last year and as most recently as two weeks ago senior township staff have met with several private energy companies that are assessing all aspects of the Township as a willing host for a peaker generating station. The NE quadrant of the Township has significant advantages that make it the location of choice for such a station. Two advantages would be the CoW-9/0,7 —75— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 Report: EDO 2007-02 Page 2 Re:.Energy Generation Potential in NE Quadrant of Township proximity to both the existing 230KV transmission line and the proximity to the Enbridge Natural Gas Line that runs along the Highway 9 corridor. These companies are conducting their preliminary due diligence with municipalities in anticipation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) from the Ontario Power Authority for the provision of a generation peaker station within northern York Region or southern Simcoe County. 4. ANALYSIS & PROPOSALS The Township's Economic Development Advisory Committee was briefed on opportunities at both their May and June .meetings and as a result of thei S. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications. 6. CONCLUSIONS r In light of the Minister's conditional approval for Hydro One to proceed with the Holland Junction Transformer Station Project coupled with an anticipated Request for Proposal (RFP) for the provision of a generation peaker station, the Economic Development Advisory Committee recommends the following action be taken by the Township: Township Council direct staff: to establish a proactive process and procedure for evaluating the private energy company submissions, in advance of the anticipated Ontario Power Authority's RFP .call for power generation proposals. Further, the evaluation system should be based on "What's Best for the Township" in terms of environmental, social and economic benefits and impacts that foster sustainable economic and community development. An adequate, reliable, dependable energy supply is essential to existing industry and business and paramount to attracting future commercial and industrial investment that will broaden the Township tax base. Prepared & Submitted by Jamie Smyth Economic Development Officer —76— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Page 1 of 10 Panizza, Bob From: The Johnson's Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:09 PM To: Morris, Phyllis Cc: Panizza, Bob; Panizza, Bob Subject: Fw: RTs overview on power supply issue --- for your consideration Importance: High Dear Mayor Morris: I've have had a tough time figuring out how to condense such a big issue into an executive summary. This is a complex issue and if Councillors do not have the time to delve in this issue then there is not much that I can do to effect the dialog. The good news is that we may now be in a better position than we have been in for years with regards to the power supply issue facing our community and northern York Region in general. As you know, since 2002 the Armitage Transformer Station (TS) was past its designed capacity during peak demand periods during typically hot summer days and with every new development approval the risk of rolling black outs increased. As the risk increased, some planners and politicians appeared to feel that it was reasonable to ask residents to forgo their rights under the Environmental Assessment (EA) Act in order to expedite the construction of proposed transmission lines from Parkway Transformer located in Markham to Armitage Transformer located in Newmarket. The problem prom the perspective of thousands of concerned residents lay in the fact the environmental and socio-economic impacts where not adequately factored into the planning process and given due weight. Furthermore, the process itself was clearly flawed as a result of the splintering of the planning rolls formerly handled under Ontario Hydro and the lack of consideration for environmental and socio-economic considerations at the start of the planning process. Despite the obvious and apparent flaws identified in the process some elected officials chose to ignore or did not choose to actively represent the concerns of their communities while others thankfully stepped to the plate and tried to address the serious planning issues identified more proactively. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and more than three years of effort on the part of countless people has been committed in an effort to address our long term power supply needs responsibly. This has also been the recent and ongoing experience of other communities across Canada, including Alberta, BC as well as numerous communities in the GTA. Residents where told by Hydro One and the LDCs in the period from 2004 through 2005 that conservation and demand management (CDM) programs would have no material impact on our long term needs analysis. We were told that building code changes, conservation policies and programs combined with alternative power alternatives would not meet the need for our long term power supply needs given the approximate 3.5% annual increase in demand over the next ten years. At the same time, other people such as Jack Gibbons from the Clean Air Alliance as well as many other environmental groups and examples from other jurisdictions such as California demonstrated that CDM efforts we not only possible, but they were also the most cost effective way to address our long term power supply needs in a sustainable fashion. California cut is consumption by 10% in one year and York Region, by comparison did not even have a CDM plan in place. Furthermore, Hydro One did not adequately explore local generation or conservation and demand management programs because they clearly felt that it was not their mandate. When in fact a broader range of alternatives was eventually explored by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), as "their first and highest priority" as a new power planning entity, during the summer of 2005 a working group comprised of town and citizen representatives from all of the municipalities in York Region as well as various industry experts identified over 40 alternatives to what residents were told was the only viable alternative by Hydro One and LDCs such as the former Aurora Hydro. In fact that list of alternatives did not even specifically outline the many different CDM programs available 7/4/2007 -7 7 Page 2 of 10 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 to us. While there was no "silver bullet" solution, it became abundantly clear that a combination of solutions appeared to be not only more economic and more timely but also, most importantly more environmentally sustainable. Many gaps in the planning and EA process remain and a great deal of potential action on the part of Aurora Council remains unexplored, however this whole exercise has given us the opportunity to learn a great deal if we choose to do so. Conservation and demand management (CDM) programs have been developed by PowerS,tream and Aurora Council has a roll to play in ensuring their success. The new transformer that was called for in the fall of 2005, that was "urgently needed" by no later than the summer of 2007 has recently been approved for construction for delivery by the summer of 2009. New distribution lines from the south (not to be confused with transmission lines which are larger and carry more voltage) have delivered a new power supply to Aurora, buying us much needed time to plan for the future. The end impact of CDM programs, new distribution lines and the recently approved Holland Junction TS remain undisclosed, but must bode well for the reliability of our supply, despite the recent doubling of Stouffville's growth projections for this year and the recent development seen in both Aurora and Newmarket, keeping in mind that all three communities share the same over -taxed Armitage TS capacity, It appears to some, that the disconnect between municipal development approvals and the ability of our provincially controlled power supply infrastructure has yet to be addressed and coordinated accordingly. OUR CURRENT ISSUE: We now face the prospect of local generation being delivered to northern York Region as was recommended by the OPA in the fall of 2005, following the York Region working group consultations. In my personal view, after sitting on the Hydro Task force for 18 months (meeting approximately every two weeks) and after having studied this issue extensively, the prospect of local "distributed" generation has the potential to be an excellent solution to meet our long term power supply needs provided the final facility is appropriately scaled located and designed to address commonly held concerns. Buffer zones, set backs, emission limits and mitigation measures designed to address all related visual impacts must be considered and factored into the final design for the long term betterment of our community. Depending on the size of a plant, new transmission lines may be required to connect the plant to the Armitage Transformer which would once again result in what the OPA calls "social friction in the power planning process" (let's all pray that we don't have to go there once again). Northland Power presented to the Aurora - Markham Task Force in 2004 and in my experience they have been more than willing to present their case and explain why the OPA and many other jurisdictions are leaning towards a more robust and diverse power supply model. Gas fired peaking plants are designed to deliver power during peak load periods. This may mean operating for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening during weekdays, and particularly during hot summer months. The over all emissions impact is negligible (less than one or two per cent in most cases, conservatively speaking) when compared to vehicular, residential and industrial emissions and the emissions are far cleaner for the province of Ontario than our current coal supply. While I have not attached the presentation made to the Task Force over two years ago, I encourage council to have a similar presentation made by Northland Power. I also encourage council to better understand why this type of local generation solution is promoted by both the OPA as part of their ($73 Billion) Supply Mix Study, but also by the Clean Air Alliance who are very well versed in power supply and the related environmental issues. The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) is expected to issue a request for proposal for local generation in the near future but some indications are that they will wait until after the October 10th provincial election due to the contentious nature of this issue. Given the timeline required to plan and approve a local generation facility by the set target date of 2011 for the plant, the process is due to commence at any time now (See MPP Frank Klees' press release at the bottom of this summary). Vaughan, Mississauga, Toronto and other communities have seen very large public outpourings of concern over proposed gas power generation facilities but keep in mind that these were related to "intermediate" power generation facilities that were much larger in size and operated for much longer periods of time. It is IMPORTANT to stress that what we are looking at is a "peaking plant" as proposed in the OPA's recommendations outlined in Ontario's Supply Mix Study. Also note that the concerns recently expressed in King Township over the now approved Holland Junction Transformer may reflect many of the same concerns that will be expressed when the transformer slated for Aurora in 2011 is built. The residents located on or near Pedderson Drive in Aurora (behind the old Reebok building) as well as those people living on or near the local roads near the proposed site could see new —78- 7/4/2007 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Page 3 of 10 distribution lines running down their streets and they deserve to be both well informed and heard. We could learn from both the engineering report commissioned by the Township of King as well as the concessions made by Hydro One to address those concerns, if any. Although I have not yet read Hydro One's letter to King, I presume that the closed door mediation process resulted in some end benefit to King, but based on recent news coverage, I have to question how many concerns were actually addressed by Hydro One. We could also learn from other jurisdictions such as in Connecticut, California, Germany and Japan where transmission line legislation and planning policies exist to address commonly held concerns. I do not for a second expect anyone to read all of the material provided below but please know that this is actually an abbreviated sampling of the related documentation. This has been a very long and hard fought battle and the ball is now being passed to your court. 1 am greatly encouraged by our new council and the new approach to public dialog in this town's towns conduct of its business and it is my hope that we will start to work together towards the development of a sustainable and considerate "smart growth" plan. Good luck and regards, Richard Johnson Aurora www.stop-emf.ca (the STOP website needs updating, but over 80 news stories of our past experience remain posted as do a number of relevant links) Mayor Cousin's comments as reprinted from the National Post: LINK: http//www.cit_markham.on.ca/markham/resources/zap enews dec2004.pdf Aurora..r.,.Markham_Hydro Task Force;_ Task Force Webpage: http://www.markham.ca/markham/channels/council/committees/hotf.htm Comments on Planning Process from Task Force (note that David Richmond and Peter Faye were both technical consultant on the Hydro Task Force set up by Markham and they joined they both left the Task force to join the OEB during the 18 months the Task Force sat): http://www,stop-emf.calstopinfo/alternativeviewpoint pddf B i l..l._.5.1__Quee.n..s....Pa...r..k._Stan.d...i n.g_Comm.. Committee; STOP made the first presentation in the three days of hearings. This provides a very good overview of the power supply issue. The views presented by STOP where also shared in many respects by Mayor Hazel McCallion representing Mississauga, Toronto, Oakville, The Conservatives, The NDP, The Environmental Law Association and other community groups such as the Blue Highlands Citizen Coalition. This is the same issue that the Town of Aurora just passed a resolution to deal with. Hansard LINK: http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files html/2006-08-03 G028.htm 7/4/2007 -7 9 Page 4 of 10 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 TOWNOFAURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 07-21 Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers PLC— Bill 51 —The Planning and Conservation Land pg. 98 Statute Law Amendment Act RECOMMENDED: THAT report PL07-030 be received for information, and THAT staff report back to Council on interim changes that will be required to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to implement the positive changes provided for under Bill 51; and THAT the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to complete strict development policies pertaining to energy projects, prior to the Lieutenant Governor exempting any class of undertakings under the provisions of Section 62.0.1(1 a and 70 h) of the Planning Act. HaUand Junction TS recentiy.aprproved;. LINK: http //www k ngsentinel.com news/2007/0613/Front Page/004.htm1 OPA's York Region Electricity Supply Recommendations September 2005: LINK: http://powerauthority.on.ca/Stora eg /13/853 DR Sept 9 Briefing Presentation.pdf York Region Webpage (note Exhibit "A" Consultation Report"): http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Pagg.as ? PageID=122&ContentlD=886 0ow_I I.ngs_Rep. ortsr- Gowlings was the Aurora - Markham Hydro Task Force legal council. David Estrin is a very well respected environmental law specialist and he has an incredible depth of experience in the Environmental Assessment process. Gowlings Report regarding Hydro One's DRAFT Environmental Study Report: http://www.stop- emf ca/stopinfo/GowlingsResponsetoAESI%20Report(v1) DOC Gowiing's Letter RE: AESI - Aurora Hydro Report (as mentioned as a must read document in our discussions): http_//www.stop-emf.ca/stopinfo/GowI ngsResponsetoAESI%20RRRRRWort v1 .DC Chris Bancroft -Wilson: Chris Bancroft -Wilson worked for Ontario Hydro as a planner and he was instrumental in the development of the 7/4/2007 —8 0— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Page 5 of 10 current EA process. Chris is considered an expert in the field of both power planning and environmental considerations. The following Is his review of Hydro One's planning process which is very consistent with his public statements made in 1992 (Chris has been trying to address these issues for a long time 1). LINK: htt :/p/www.stop-emf.ca/stopinfo/esrreview,pdf LAZAR vs. Hydro One Networks. Potential Real Estate Impact / Injurious Affection LINK: http://www.aicanada.ca/e/pdfs/CONFERENCE-05-INJURIOUS-AFFECTION.pdf W119f Over 80 past news stories posted on the STOP website: htlp:/Aw w.stop-emf.ca/customer/help.�h section=pastnews Good link from the STOP website: http://www.stop-emf.ca/customer/help.i3hiD?section=taskforce link One of two STOP 80 page bump -up letters. See reference to "Ontario, Canada, bump up request" under heading of "relevant resources". This was one of 653 letters submitted to the Ministry of Environment concerning the proposed power lines impacting Aurora: LINK: http://www.hopgDfgeorgia.com/ The _O n to r i o.. Pewe r.. A u t h o r s ty.:. Per page C13 of the following report... have we met the 5% CDM targets noted ? LINK: http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/Storage/13/891 Gap Analysis.pdf OPA York Region Webpage: http:/iwww.powerauthority.on.ca/Page.asp?PageID=122&ContentlD=886 U.K..... S-..AGE_Report; This is a very recent report from the UK related to power transmission lines. This document provides a good balance view of the EMF issue and was prepared by both public health and power industry representatives: SAGE Report LINK. http.LLwWvv_.rkpartnership.co.uk/sage/Public/SAGE0/020first0/0 20interim%20assessment.Ddf Potential Supreme Cocrt_Case nBC that._coWd_ mpact.Polnrer planning across Canada:. This case could have national implications for the application of the "precautionary principle" in the power planning process. LINK: http://www.canada.com/thei)rovince/news/story.html?id=764214bg-2fcf-4ed1-8c4e-Ofbf5flO74c3 7/4/2007 -81 Page 6 of 10 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Another News LINK: ham://www.cknw.com/news/news local.cfm? cat=7428545912&rem=67590&red=80154523aPBlny&wids=242&qi=1&qm=news local.cfm Community Group's website: www.trahvol.com Note that the BC Utilities Commission had extensive hearings in this case and a local paper called the Delta Optimist has covered this story very well over the years. A search on their website offers and extensive list of impressive stories and letters to the editor. More_LIN_KS__o_.f.. nte_re_st: University of Victoria Paper, April 22, 2005, "Regulating Powerline EMF Exposure - International Precedents" LINK: http://www elc uvic ca/projects/2005- 01/Powerl-ineEMFExposure.pdf 2004 Connecticut Transmission Line Legislation: LINK: http•//www cqa ct gov/2004/jfr/h/2004HB-05418-ROOET- JFR.htm Related News Story from Connecticut LINK: http://wvvw.powerlinefacts.com/connecticut requires underground.htm Environmental law Centre, University of Victoria and note reference to BC (Trahvol) case: http://www.elc.uvic,c2/ The Tsawwassen case is currently before the BC Utilities Commission and a decision is pending shortly. New research has also been presented in the UK, from Oxford University (Dr. Draper) and a subsequent Task Force that further supports "prudent avoidance of risk" measures related to prolonged EMF exposure. LINK: http //www delta -optimist com/i ssuesO5/062205/news/0622D5nnl html LINK: http7//v,,ww.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=13440 Recent News Story: EUB fails integrity test by spying on residents, June 2007, The Edmonton Journal. LINK: http;//www.canada_cgm/ ddmontonjournal/news/citypiuslstory.htmi?id=eebb77fa-249a-4101-8357- df57c47ee8ac&k=3724&p=2 Canadia. n._Cancer_SQc.1 ty.p..os_Ition.__o..n_F-MF;. LINK: http:l/www cancer ca/res/internet/standard/0 3182 3172 372086 langld-en OO.html Recent Town of Markham Staff Report: LINK: CC:\Documents and Settings\Mom\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\89YNOP63\Town Staff Report - Status of OPA IPSP - April 16 2007.htm 7/4/2007 -8 2 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Page 7 of 10 Recent Toronto Star report on proposed Riverdale power line: LINK: http_//www.thestar.com/article/207863 Note that the government has back off of this plan as a result of community engagement. A similar case arose in BC where the residents of Tsawwassen where told in writing by the BC Liberal government just before an election that the proposed lines would be re-routed. Guess what, shortly after the election, plans changed and now there may be a pending Supreme Court Case related to the application of the precautionary principle in the power planning process. If heard by the Supreme Court, this case could have national implications. Apparently the provincial government is BC fells that the impacted residents should accept their fate in the interest of "the public good", as they do in Ontario. Planning decisions are made base don technical and financial considerations and impact son residents and the over all environment appear to be an after thought in the planning process. It all comes down to the bottom line. CJ.�at7_Air_�II.[anpe Mgcjlg Ce�ttCe.;. Jack Gibbons participated in the OPA's York Region Working Group meetings and he has also raised the transmission line issue facing Toronto and communities to the north. The Clean Air Alliance is also a supporter of distributed generation provided it is well designed and located. LINK: http://www.cleanair.web.net/media/omedia.html Tr�nsfnrming Toeonio - Commumtx B.gsed Grou.R; Three new community groups fighting transmission line upgrades have been recently created. One in Halton Hills, one in Alberta and one in Toronto. LINK: bM-./://www.transformingtoronto.ca/ More Recent News: Utilities link up on energy projects Toronto Hydro arm and gas unit in joint venture to develop low -emission, renewable power sources May 31, 2007 04:30 AM Tyler Hamilton ENERGY REPORTER Two of the city's largest utilities — one a leader in electricity delivery, the other in natural gas distribution — have formed a joint venture aimed at developing a variety of low -emission and renewable -power projects in the Toronto area. Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc., the competitive arm of city -owned Toronto Hydro Corp., and Enbridge Solutions Inc., the new energy -services subsidiary of Enbridge Inc., said the partnership announced yesterday will help the city build new electricity supply while keeping greenhouse gas emissions to a minimum. "Both companies have great financial strength, and there's a nice fit of skills sets and cultures," said Jack Simpson, Toronto Hydro Energy's vice-president of generation. "If we handle things electrically and they handle gas, it's a very nice fit, and we can offer customers a lot of strength with that combination." 7/4/2007 —8 3— Page 8 of 10 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE - JULY 16, 2007 Lino Luison, president of Enbridge Solutions, said the joint venture will target a wide ranges of opportunities relating to co -generation, district energy, grid "peak shaving" and other distributed generation models fuelled by either natural gas or renewables. Projects could be as small as 250 kilowatts or as large as 40 megawatts. Luison said many initiatives will fall under the province's newly created clean energy standard offer program, which will pay a premium to small-scale power -generation projects that have a low -carbon profile. Similar to the standard offer programs for renewables such as solar, wind and biomass, the -clean energy program is expected to be unveiled next month, probably as part of the Dalton McGulnty government's climate action plan. "It's a great vehicle for us to participate," said Simpson. "We think there's a lot of merit in building that (generation) capacity locally in a distributed system." Enbridge Solutions and Toronto Hydro Energy are also targeting the backup power market. They plan to offer a leasing program this summer that will supply business, industrial and institutional customers with backup generators that run on natural gas, a much cleaner alternative than widely used diesel generators. "It could be a very substantial market," said Luison. Ideally, Toronto Hydro would sign these customers up to a demand -side -management program, similar to the residential Peaksaver program, giving the utility the ability to turn on these generators as needed to provide peak power supply in the city. Enbridge estimates such a program has the potential of providing 30 megawatts of power Fr�n..k K.Lee_s.._P[ess Rglease,..May 31,_2..007..;.. For Immediate Release KLEES to McGuinty Government: Don't Play Politics with York Region's Energy Supply! (Queen's Park) Oak Ridges MPP Frank Klees today called on the provincial Energy Minister to direct the Ontario Power Authority to issue a long overdue RFP for the construction of a gas -fired generation plant in York Region. Klees raised the issue in the Legislature, referring to a letter to the minister from the Coalition of York Region Chambers, which includes Aurora Newmarket Richmond Hill. Whitchurch-Stouffville and Markham. The Chambers' letter expressed serious concerns that unless the government takes immediate action, the northern part of the Region will face brownouts, or perhaps even blackouts. Despite repeated efforts by Klees to impress on the minister the urgency of immediate action due to the potential harmful effects on families and businesses in the northern part of York Region if the necessary steps are not taken, the minister provided no indication that he would take any action. "The wake-up call will come when the lights go out," said Klees. "If there isn't a photo -op involved, the ministers of this government are 'missing in action."' Klees expressed disappointment that the minister refused to acknowledge the urgency of directing the Ontario 7/4/2007 —84— SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 Page 9 of 10 Power Authority to proceed with the issuance of an RFP for local generation. According to the Coalition's Government Affairs Committee, the OPA is awaiting that directive and cannot proceed without it. Klees questioned the minister on information that the minister is reported to have said he will not issue a directive before the October 10 provincial election. "It is nothing short of irresponsible for the minister and this government to play politics with this issue," said Klees. "Surely, the good of the community should override any political agenda." Hansard Record of the Question to the Minister follows: LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO Thursday 31 May 2007 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY Mr. Frank Klees (Oak Ridges): My question is to the Minister of Energy, and it relates to a letter that was addressed to the minister on May 16 of this year from the coalition of York region chambers, including Aurora, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Markham and others. They speak specifically about two recommendations made by the Ontario Power Authority in September 2005. The first is to construct a transformer station in the vicinity of Holland Junction. The second is the construction of a gas -fired peaker plant for local generation. Nothing has happened on these issues. The chambers are very concerned about the possibility of brownouts, even blackouts, if nothing is done. My question to the minister is this: Will the minister ensure that, first of all, the construction for the transformer station will begin, and that there is no further delay in issuing an RFP at least for the peaking station? Hon. Dwight Duncan (Minister of Energy): When we came to office, the situation in York region had been let go for eight years, and it really was in a crisis situation. With rapid growth, there wasn't adequate generation, adequate wiring. We did direct the OPA to begin work on that. I can inform the member of a number of steps we've taken. Work is now under way on short-term recommendations to, ensure that we keep the lights on in the next few years. Hydro One has commenced its development work, including consulting with the public on the transformer station in King township. The Ontario Energy Board is monitoring the key milestones on this project. The OPA has selected Roden Energy and Metering Solutions as the successful proponent in York region demand response. Demand response is something your government cut, sir. That is where we would turn power down. So we've taken some intermediate steps. I'd also assure the member that we've met with — The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Thank you. Supplementary? Mr. Klees: I'm well familiar with the consultations; I participated in them. I also know —perhaps the minister doesn't —that specific recommendations have already been made and that what we are awaiting is the issuance of an RFP for local generation. It has come to my attention that the minister, when asked why the RFP is not being issued —the OPA is awaiting direction from the minister to have that done. I'm also advised that the minister has made the statement that he will not do so before the provincial election. I would ask that the minister put the interests of our communities ahead of whatever political or partisan reasons he may have for delaying the issuance of this RFP, that he get on with it so that we can be assured of stability of power supply in York region. Hon. Mr. Duncan: Our government has taken a number of steps to ensure that the power needs of 7/4/2007 —85— Page 10 of 10 SPECIAL GENERAL COMMITTEE — JULY 16, 2007 the region are in fact met this summer and next summer. What's interesting is that various members of your caucus from the region have differing points of view on where the generation should go. Which township do you want it to be in? The member talks about what one says, but when one municipality says, "We don't want power generation," the other one says, "We don't want power generation" Other municipalities have said they don't want wires. If the member has a better process, I invite him to bring it forward. The fact is, after eight years of neglect, the people of York region can be assured that the power will stay on this summer and next summer. There are long-term solutions that need to be addressed. I look forward to the member's support for siting a new power generation plant in his riding, and I look forward to his support in terms of bringing the wires through his riding that are going to be needed as well. I'm delighted— -30- For further information Frank Klees, MPP 416-509-8999 7/4/2007 —8 6—