King residents raise concern over a letter sent by OPA to Mayor Black

Comments made at a March 30 public meeting regarding a possible generating station in the Holland Marsh area prompted the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) to send a letter to Mayor Margaret Black.

OPA criticized presentations made by community groups, writing the presentations "unfortunately, contain a substantial number of inaccurate statements."

Council heard two deputations from residents at Monday night's meeting, reacting to the letter and proposal.

Ansnorveldt area resident Clayton de Vries, a member of the King Countryside Stewardship Alliance (KCSA) and one of the organizers of the March meeting, said KCSA would have appreciated a direct response from OPA and thanked council for a chance to comment on the letter.

"So, the OPA says we are misleading the public. Well, let's see who is misleading whom," he remarked.

He said KCSA is concerned with the amount of water the generator would consume and wondered if water would be used for cooling purposes.

De Vries added OPA has not been available to clearly answer questions regarding water.

"They have not returned our calls," he said. "It is past time for the OPA to come clean."

He said it would have been helpful had OPA provided information on reducing electricity demand and details on emissions.

De Vries remarked the letter did not offer new information or clarity.

"I believe the correct word for it is obfuscation," he said. "If you must receive this letter, the KSCA asks you to receive it with our comments."

Harvey Tenenbaum, a King City resident, spoke to council regarding the OPA application.

"I want to elaborate on the fallacies in the thinking of the OPA," explained Tenenbaum.

"The first question is, do we really need it?" he said.

While gas is the best option for fossil fuel power generation, it is still a polluter, said Tenenbaum.

Rather than paying lip service to conservation and renewable energy, he observed it's better to start on it now.

Tenenbaum explained that from an economic point of view, the $500 million power generator (which includes both the $300 construction cost and that of installing pipe lines) does not make sense.

In 2006, OPA exported between 3,000 and 3,500 mega watts (MW) of electricity to the United States, earning $100 million in profits, Tenenbaum observed. If exports would be reduced by one per cent, or 30 to 35 MW, it would "save the necessity of erecting a power plant," he said.

Eliminating one per cent of electricity exports, and foregoing $1 million in profit, would save $50 million annually, he explained. This is because if the $500 million generator were built, it would cost taxpayers $50 million per year in interest and depreciation.

Tenenbaum also said environmental responsibility is one of the most disappointing aspects of the application.

He said OPA has a mandate to by-pass the Environmental Protection Act. "We have to rely on their integrity to decide what is environmentally acceptable," declared Tenenbaum.

Tenenbaum further remarked that with regard to social responsibility, openness, conservation culture and public health are considered, but the criteria to do so are not defined.

Acceptable land use is also considered by OPA, however, its only condition is the ability to access land, said Tenenbaum. Ecological factors and landscape impacts are not considered, he added.

Since King is a model for environmental protection, King Township should protect "its marvelous heritage of conservation," stated Tenenbaum.

"I could go on, but I don't have to," Tenenbaum concluded. "Residents are proud of our community. We don't want to spoil it by tainting it with this project."