|2009-09-23 at 3:22 PM
|2009-09-23 at 3:22 PM
|FW: EB 2009-0242
Assistant Board Secretary
Ontario Energy Board
Official Correspondence: BoardSec@oeb.gov.on.ca
P.O. Box 2319
2300 Yonge Street 27th Floor
From: Debbie Schaefer [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: September 23, 2009 2:28 PM
Subject: Fw: EB 2009-0242
Please confirm that you have received this email.
Thank you, Debbie Schaefer
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Schaefer
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:20 AM
Subject: EB 2009-0242
On behalf of Concerned Citizens of King Township I am forwarding you a letter as our response to YEC Application for Electricity Generation License (file no. EB 2009-0242). A hard copy in mail will follow per identified protocol. I am forwarding this in email as I was not able to access the OEB portal.
concerned citizens of king township inc.
P.O. Box 875, King City, Ontario L7B 1A9
September 21, 2009
Ms. Kirsten Walli
Ontario Energy Board
P.O. Box 2319
2300 Yonge Street, 27th Floor
Toronto, ON M4P 1E4
Dear Ms. Walli:
RE: York Energy Centre LP Application for an Electricity Generation License
File No. EB-2009-0242
I am writing on behalf of Concerned Citizens of King Township (CCKT) in relation to the above-captioned matter. Please accept these comments as CCKTs written submission on the York Energy Centre LPs (YEC) Application for an Electricity Generation Licence (Application).
This letter should replace an earlier letter dated 08/13/09. The latter was sent in response to the original deadline of 08/14/09 for written comments on the YEC Application. As the deadline has been revised to 09/23/09 I have updated my letter to incorporate new information.
1. As set out in the reasons below, we believe that the YECs Application ought to be turned down because it is premature.
· The Application requires that the YEC list all regulatory approvals required and the status of each approval. The YEC has indicated that it submitted a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment to the Ontario Ministry of Culture (MOC) in June 2009 and that a clearance letter was expected in July, 2009. To date, we have no evidence that the YEC has obtained a clearance letter from the MOC. We also have no information regarding whether the YEC has submitted applications for its Certificate of Approval for Industrial Sewage Works and Certificate of Approval for Air and Noise to the Ministry of the Environment (MOE). These applications were anticipated to be submitted in July, 2009.
· The YEC has noted on Schedule A that it has only listed major approvals required for its project, and has not listed minor permits, licences and approvals. The YEC should be required to provide a comprehensive list of all required permits, licences and approvals, and their status, before a generation licence is granted.
Further, the YEC has not yet confirmed how it will connect to the power grid.
The route proposed by the YEC assumes use of a right-of-way (ROW) that crosses the Cawthra Mulock Nature Reserve (CMNR). The CMNR has refused YECs use of the right-of-way across its property and an alternative route has not been established. The OEB has been advised of this position by Ontario Nature, owners of the CMNR in their letter to the OEB dated of 09/15/09 in relation to the YECs application for a generation licence.
A possible alternative to using the ROW across the CMNR would be to use the King Township road allowances. King Township went on record January 19, 2009 indicating that they would not agree to this.  The latter is consistent with King identifying itself as an unwilling host on July 02, 2008. 
· In relation to the high pressure gas pipeline proposed for the YEC, Enbridge has just filed its Environmental Report. The Report has not yet been reviewed nor have public hearings been held in relation to the proposed pipeline. The proposed pipeline requires a separate environmental assessment from that of the YEC project and is still at an early stage.
· Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) on September 15, 2009 advised King Township to deny Pristines Site Plan Application on the basis that the proposed site alterations which are associated with the proposal are contrary to Section 3.1.2. (d) of the Provincial Policy Statement. A copy of LSRCAs letter dated September 15, 2009 is enclosed.
· The Application also indicates at page 9, Item 12, that the Applicant has not secured financing for the YEC project. This raises serious questions regarding the viability of this project and the need to apply for a generation licence at this time.
Given the incomplete status of most of the required approvals and other unknown or unconfirmed details regarding the project, we believe that the Application is premature because each of the approvals could change the size, location, and operation of the proposal. LSRCA has recognized that the Province may decide to proceed with the project even though LSRCA has determined that the proposed site alterations are contrary to section 3.1.2 (d) of the Provincial Policy Statement. If the Province determines that the proposed site is acceptable for a generation facility, the LSRCA has identified twenty-five conditions which must be addressed. Addressing these conditions may change the size, location and operation of the proposal. As a result, at the present time, key aspects of the proposal are uncertain so it is impossible to know what a generation licence is being granted for. Because many of the documents are in the early stages of review, the applicant cannot know what conditions will be attached to the project nor the final form of the development. At this time there is no reasonable certainty of the proposed licensed activity and this Application therefore serves to impede regulatory efficiency.
Request for Proposal
2. Furthermore, I would argue that the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) should not issue an electricity generation license to the YEC until the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and YEC explain how the generator meets the objectives laid out in the Request For Proposal (RFP). It should be noted that the OPA changed the RPF in July 2008 after the draft was issued in June 2008 to award extra points to bidders who could meet the new "islanding" requirement.
Islanding was intended to "twin" the generator with the Armitage transformer station so that in an N-2 scenario, Armitage would receive power in short order. A N-2 scenario is basically a disaster situation - both B82 and B83 circuits are out of commission, i.e. the Claireville line is "down". The latter could be caused by an ice storm or a tornado. The ice storm in eastern Ontario and the tornado that came through the YEC site in 1982 show that the concern is not hypothetical but real, especially with our changing weather patterns.
YEC, by virtue of its location, does not protect Armitage in a disaster and in fact may make the likelihood or extent of the disaster worse. This statement is based on two assumptions:
i) the greater the length of transmission lines connecting the generator to the transformer, the greater the risk that the disaster cause will affect the generator's connection.
ii) the new transmission towers and lines that must cross the Claireville line (over or under) to achieve the "islanding" connection on the Armitage tap line create a confluence of above ground structures that could create a domino effect, i.e., one tower or line taking out another tower or line.
At the present time we have no confirmation that the proposal is in fact permitted at its proposed location. There are serious questions outstanding concerning the projects compliance with key provincial policies including the Provincial Policy Statement and Greenbelt Plan as well as compliance with the Regional Official Plan, Official Plan and zoning by-law. Further, the proposed location of the project is adjacent to the environmentally and agriculturally significant Holland Marsh.
3. In conclusion, the OEB must deny the application. As outlined above, the Application is premature given the incomplete status of a number of approvals, concerns raised by the LSRCA and the absence of certainty regarding the projects compliance with local planning provisions. Further, given that northern York Region is only served by one transmission line (Claireville) and given that the OPA and the OEB have no plans to add a backup line, the YEC is at best, a partial solution to the disaster scenario. "Islanding" becomes a critical part of the design. However based on the generator connection proposed by Pristine in the Application, the proposed connection will put northern York Region at greater risk, not less risk.
I would be happy discuss any of the above comments.
Yours very truly,
P.O. Box 875,
King City, ON
cc: Arie D. Van Driel
York Energy Centre LP
350-7th Avenue S.W.
Calgary, AB T2P 3N9
Fax No. 403-444-6784
King Township Minutes of July 2, 2009 Meeting pages 5,6,7
King Township Planning Report P2009-03 filed 01/19/09 page 15
Letter of LSRCA to King Township September 15, 2009
Letter of Ontario Nature to OEB September 15, 2009
Lettery of CCKT to Minister Gerretsen April 29, 2009
 King Township Planning Report P2009-03 filed 01/19/09 page 15, enclosed
 King Township Council Meeting Minutes July 2, 2008 pages 5,6,7, enclosed
 Application for an Electricity Generation Licence, Page 1, Section 2
 See CCKTs letter to Minister Gerretsen, dated April 29, 2009, enclosed.
Reduce Your Carbon Footprint, Please Think Before You Print.