Saltsprings - Natural Gas Environmental Assessment Review

The IESO have created a Community Liaison Committee of which I am a member.  In all fairness to the community, the mandate of this committee does not seem to be working. Our inital contact by the IESO was January 2, 2026, with a followup of a confirmed committee meeting date of January 27th (13 days before the final day of public input, Feb 9) which was cancelled as a result of weather and then the followup meeting of Feb4th, 2 two hours prior to, because of a "security reason" not well explained.  The community have many concerns and questions.   There is great concern over the lack of transparency regarding the develpment proposal for this plant as a result of the Saltsprings Environmental Assessment (EA) Findings.  The community is small with verying degrees of accessibility to internet and its use. The EA hardcopy was not allowed to be released from its location at Johnny's Canteen and the Municipality of Pictou County - a 300 plus page document with more pages of drawings and maps.  IESO and MOPC would not reproduce a hardcopy either.  

As a committee member, the Terms of Reference seem to be bias to the IESO as the chair and secretary are both controlling the administration of the committee.  The IESO 's lack of ability to communicate with CLC to promote community dialogue however when the EA Findings have presented has in itself incinuated lack of transparency and bias.  Community members have rallied togther as best they can to present their concerns and questions, after an emergency meeting Feb 5th.  They are not happy with the process and its lack of response.  The Clean Power Plan, in regards to Pictou County, and its relationship to the Saltsprings Natural Gas Project has not been well described as an intergrated system - the Saltsprings Natural Gas Project to be peak only. 

Of major concern to residents of Saltsprings is the affect on their well-water supply and property values.  The Natural Gas project will be using well water, no surface water and the supply is not yet confirmed for the plant, but as IESO indicated "... Before construction, local wells will be tested for both water quantity and quality to gather baseline data. If any changes are detected in local wells during operations, additional measures will be implemented to protect them. ..in the event that the upcoming aquifer test results and modelling indicate that the location cannot sustainably draw the necessary quantity of water, a more expensive but less water intense technology will be incorporated to manage air emissions..."  the questions remain as to what wells dug for supply will do to private wells even if the quantity and quality is sufficient at the time of testing as well as what is the alternative technology to the proposed process rather than what will be compensation.  Most residents want to retain their water quantity and quality as is understandable. The "Clean Power Plan" is more like the "Cleaner Than Power Plan" as fossil fuels are still being used - 80% Natural Gas & 20% Oil.  The oil fuel (light oil) in the simple cycle gas generating plant is the highest risk component as indicated in the EA.  Using Oil fuel requires a 9 million litre tank which requires special engineering and maintenance.  This will be on site so oil spill is of major concern and high mitigation measures are proposed.  Also the use of oil produces more emissions, requires more water in the process and treatement after the fact.  Also higher green house gases.  So the oil eliminates the most of the positives of the Natural Gas.  

The location of this natural gas plant was chosen basically for its location near existing natural gas pipeline, road networks, and transmission lines.  I would also suggest because it was in an unpopulated, rural area, and would be off road out-of site, it was a quick decision politically. The alternative is Marchdale, located again away from the any population, and many of the design feature issues would apply.  By the way there has been no communication with this community which might be advantageous to both.  
I believe there may be other development sites in Pictou County that may be more acceptable regarding the resources and impact this one would have on Saltsprings. The is a pipeline known as the Michelin Connector, off the Maritime and Northeast Pipeline running from north east from Saltsprings location to Abercrombie Point. It near transmission lines and the Trenton Power Generation Plant and the 106 Trans Canada Highway .  Most importantly, this is the location of the Pictou County Solid Waste Facility (PCSWF)  The landfill site composts tons of biomass from local pickup of waste - Renewal Natural Gas (RNG).  Why would this not be a solution to plant location and instead of the 20% oil used as part of the process, RNG would take its place?  Not only this but Michelin uses the freshwater supply of the Middle River, also near the PCSWF.  This is a good supply of water for the simple cycle natural gas but if a combined cycle plant is constructed instead - both the use of water and heat from the generator will be utilized for more electricity output and recovery and recycling of water.  A win win!

Another concern of the EA is is did not address hydrogen as a fuel mentioned and promoted will be utilized in the future as soon as it becomes available. Natural gas lines apparently can also be used for hydrogen.  The question remains, what affect will this have on Saltsprings.  The EA did not address this. 

Major concerns remain and the project will be challenged until questions are answered.  Until they are answered the community is against this proposal. Regardless of the jobs it creates, the costs to this community are great - socially, economically, and environmentally. The government owes this community due diligence and review.