Strongly oppose the Ontario PSP

I am deeply concerned about the proposed TCE pumped storage project and strongly oppose its approval.

At its core, this project does not make economic sense. The IESO has already rejected it twice on the basis that it does not provide economic benefit to ratepayers. That alone should be sufficient reason to halt further consideration.

What is difficult to understand is how a project deemed economically unfeasible at earlier cost estimates continues to advance as projected costs increase, not decrease. Initial figures in the billions have already risen significantly, with estimates now reaching approximately $7 billion and potentially climbing toward $10 billion, as is common with projects of this scale. However, no detailed feasibility study or cost analysis has been completed regarding the remediation of the heavily contaminated land at the site, and it remains unclear whether, or to what extent, those costs are reflected in current projections.

In other words, the project has already been found not to make economic sense while significant potential costs remain unquantified. Proceeding under those conditions represents a fundamental failure of due diligence and responsible fiscal planning.

There is also the question of project experience and execution risk. TC Energy does not have a demonstrated track record in developing projects of this specific type and scale. That raises additional concerns about cost overruns, delays, and overall project delivery, all of which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers. In addition, the company has faced past environmental controversies, which raises further concern about environmental risk management on a project of this complexity and sensitivity.

Even setting the economics aside, the environmental risks are considerable. The site contains unexploded ordnance and hazardous toxins, including areas restricted even from military training. Disturbing this land through blasting and large-scale construction raises serious concerns about contamination entering the air and water systems, including Georgian Bay and local drinking water sources. The question of accountability in the event of environmental damage, including what level of impact would be considered acceptable, and by whom, remains unanswered.

There are also significant risks to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The potential destruction of critical habitat, including spawning grounds, shoreline ecosystems, and on-land habitats for flora and fauna, is deeply concerning. This includes impacts on species at risk and other sensitive ecological communities. The likelihood of fish mortality and broader ecosystem disruption has been documented in similar projects, including well-known cases such as the Ludington pumped storage facility in Michigan, where fish mortality led to significant legal action and remediation requirements. Yet it remains unclear what level of impact would be considered acceptable, and by whom.

The risk to nearby homes and landowners in the event of a reservoir breach is another serious concern. Projects of this scale are not appropriate in proximity to populated areas.

This proposal also raises important questions about fairness and land use. The land in question was expropriated from local families in 1942 with the understanding it would be returned, which never occurred. Allowing a private corporation to now develop that land for profit is deeply troubling.

From a local economic standpoint, the benefits are limited. While temporary construction jobs may be created, they are likely to rely heavily on non-local labour. Long-term employment opportunities are minimal, while local infrastructure, including roads and housing, will bear additional strain.

At its core, this project appears to benefit primarily a private corporate entity rather than the public. It does not meaningfully serve ratepayers, local communities, or the environment.

Finally, the process itself raises concern. There has been insufficient transparency, limited meaningful public consultation, and a lack of robust, accessible data to support informed decision-making.

If a project has already been determined not to make economic sense, and its projected costs continue to rise while significant potential costs remain unaccounted for or unclear, it is difficult to justify how proceeding could represent responsible decision-making.

For all of these reasons, I urge you to reject this project and instead prioritize energy solutions that are economically sound, environmentally responsible, and aligned with the interests of the communities they affect.