Letter to the Editor
Editor,
I live directly below TC Energy’s proposed pumped storage project reservoir.
I’ve gone to the TC Energy information meetings, where I’ve spent a total of six hours one-on-one with TC Energy Representatives; I’ve had a five hour meeting with a TC Energy community liaison; I partook in TC Energy’s virtual Zoom information session; I’ve corresponded with independent engineers and environmental impact assessors; I’ve met with MPP Bill Walker (associate Minister of Energy) and MP Alex Ruff; I’ve joined a knowledgeable group called Save Georgian Bay. I’ve dedicated weeks to researching impacts of pumped storage projects (of which there are many). I have put the work in to understand this project and this company which may become my neighbour.
While they are important topics that concern me, I will not be discussing this project’s impacts on fish, water, air, and noise pollution, emissions, or other environmental detriments, as I feel Stephen Carr, Bruce Rodgers, Jim Brunow and others have done a stupendous job in that regard. I would like to discuss the estimated Regional Economic Impacts, and TC Energy’s record of incidents and noncompliance.
Before I begin. The term ‘nimby’ is not useful, especially when used in a pejorative way to dismiss the valid concerns of those opposed. If it is fair of someone to support the project because it does not negatively impact them, then it is only fair that those it does negatively impact are free to oppose without being labelled a nimby. As proven with COVID-19, it’s important to have compassion for those who may be affected by something more than you are. I have valid concerns regarding this project, and some of them are because the proposed location is in my front yard – but I would not wish this project upon your yard either. I’ve opposed TC Energy’s tactics and projects (expropriation for Keystone Pipeline) well before I knew they’d be in our neighbourhood, and I continue to oppose their tactics (non-compliant pre-construction clearing on Wet’suwet’en Territory without completing the necessary environmental fieldwork for 42 wetlands) to this day.
But, enough of the mushy stuff, as I know many residents in support of this project are not concerned by that. Let’s talk jobs. Through discussions with local residents, employment opportunity seems to be the main reason for support. Fair enough. We all want our community to provide opportunity. So, let’s take a closer look at TC Energy’s Regional Economic Study prepared by ERM Consultants. Today I will focus on the estimated ‘direct’ local employment opportunities during pre-construction and construction (2017-2027).
ERM estimates that during ‘peak’ pre-construction/construction periods, the project will require “up to” 141 workers within the “RSA”. What is the RSA? The RSA is the Regional Study Area. The RSA covers Bruce, Grey, and Simcoe Counties. Bruce County population: 66,491. Grey County: 98,830. Simcoe County: 307,050. Total population included in RSA: 467,371. Total area of RSA: 13,433 square kilometres.
With a population pool that big, 141 jobs doesn’t sound as auspicious it did at face value. The RSA will only account for up to 14% of the workforce required for this project during construction, with 892 jobs being hired from the rest of Ontario and Canada.
If you’re of the mindset that it doesn’t matter where the jobs are, as long it’s for the betterment of someone, somewhere, then I would encourage you to apply that mindset to this project entirely: The inexpensive energy TC Energy will be storing and selling back to ratepayers for top price is currently energy that is sold to the U.S. to offset their use of coal and gas. The environment doesn’t have borders, economic reach does. Personally, I am okay with not saving a few dollars a year on electricity if it means less emissions are entering our shared atmosphere. (But I said I wouldn’t discuss emissions).
Next, let’s look at where this information came from. The Regional Economic Study states “Using the expected Project inputs and the IOM – direct, indirect and induced expected Project outputs (benefits) were estimated.” The IOM relies on the Statistics Canada 2015 data-set, and the “Project Inputs” were “Estimates provided by TC Energy…”. So when TC Energy cites their Independent Consultants Regional Economic Study touting direct jobs, they are citing their own estimates which they gave to ERM Consultants. This is why we need to apply a critical eye to the narrative that TC Energy is feeding us in ALL aspects of this project, not just what I’ve discussed here today.
Navigant Consulting prepared TC Energy’s Economic Analysis study. Please read the following service description taken directly from Navigant. While reading, replace “clients” with “TC Energy” to understand my point.
“Navigant Consulting, Inc. (NYSE:NCI) is a specialized, global professional services firm that helps clients take control of their future. Navigant’s professionals apply deep industry knowledge, substantive technical expertise, and an enterprising approach to help clients build, manage, and/or protect business interests. With a focus on markets and clients facing transformational change and significant regulatory or legal pressures, the firm primarily serves clients in the… energy… industries.”
TC Energy’s independent consultant’s objective is to manage and protect TC Energy’s interests. To me, this hardly sounds independent.
TC Energy was known as TransCanada Pipelines until May 3, 2019. TC Energy projects include the notorious Keystone Pipeline, and Coastal GasLink. TC Energy has been in the pipeline business for 60+ years. A long time! And yet – even with 60+ years of experience, their pipelines continue to leak. Sixty years, and yet – despite going through the process many times – they continue to receive government-issued noncompliance orders. According to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER), TC Energy had reported over 222 safety incidents between 2008 and 2018 in Canada. This number is not including incidents reported in the USA or Mexico. Why did these incidents happen? As per CER: Engineering/planning, failure in communication, human factors, inadequate supervision, maintenance, natural/environmental forces, and tool/equipment failure. Some of these incidents resulted in events such as explosion, fire, gas release, liquid release, operation beyond design limits, and serious injury. The data is available on CER’s website.
With a record such as this, how are we to have confidence in TC Energy’s first pumped storage project? Will it be safe? Is safety guaranteed? Will they be compliant? “If you want to know the future, look at the past” – Albert Einstein.
To conclude, I am not against for-profit corporations. I am not against economic growth. I am not saying no to clean energy. I am against a misleading narrative. I am against green-washing. I am against non-compliant corporations. I am saying no to a non-compliant corporation with a poor safety record holding 20 million cubic meters of water above my home for a green-washed project, wouldn’t you?
Taylor Raffy, Meaford
