Editor,
This Initial Project Description (IPD) submitted by TC Energy is essentially a compilation of their research dating back to 2016. It is important for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to recognize that after a decade—despite TC Energy’s assertion that their engineering team is highly skilled—the company has produced a document exceeding 200 pages that fails to provide tangible solutions to known challenges, evidence of completed tests, or reliable projections that they claim are achievable.
TC Energy has made some effort to engage with the Meaford community. However, their so-called “Coffee Chats”, which they label as “community engagement”, are more akin to promotional events intended to advance the project. As an educated individual, I must stress to the IAAC that this is not merely an opinion, but a fact. During these sessions, TC Energy’s representatives presented the purported benefits of pumped storage (their terminology) to residents of Grey Bruce. I attended two of these events, in 2023 and 2025. Their presentations were polished and likely persuaded several attendees to support the project. Upon reviewing the IPD, it is evident that some of the concerns addressed within the document stem directly from these community meetings. For the past three years, I have highlighted the reasons, based on analysis, why this project should not proceed, including cost, project efficiency, timelines to operation, and other factors. I have also suggested viable alternatives for energy storage. The IPD addresses the “who, where, when, and why” but, consistent with their approach since 2016, fails to adequately address “what” needs to happen and the consequences of those actions. Many questions raised over the past six years remain unanswered. The IAAC should ask TC Energy: what have their “engineers” been doing over the past ten years?
Prior to TC Energy’s involvement, other corporations* evaluated this pumped storage concept and concluded that it would not yield a reasonable return on investment at this site. I have reviewed engineering research that raises questions about the safety of the proposed final reservoir location. This raises further concerns: why is TC Energy, via sole source bidding from the Ontario Energy Board (OEB), pursuing this project in its current form? The absence of verifiable facts in the IPD is inexcusable. For example, the report presents questionable data and calculations:
– TC Energy claims a variety of round-trip efficiency rates of 72%, 76%, and even 80%. These figures are misleading; the actual total efficiency including bi-directional transmission losses, according to accepted engineering calculations, is closer to 68%, with a margin of error of approximately +/-1%. Can TCE and the IAAC please confirm the efficiency calculations that must be made at the Barrie Transfer Station.
– There is ambiguity regarding the routing of transmission lines—will they be placed above or below ground? Will they connect to Barrie, Sudbury, or another location? The proposal offers no clarity on this point despite that this project was advanced in 2019. Can the IAAC please get the plan for these lines.
Another operational concern involves the concept of nighttime “charging”. The proposal does not specify whether excess energy will be sourced from nuclear (Bruce Power), existing natural gas, or other means from the current grid. It is also unclear whether there will be any “excess” power available for charging in ten years’ time. The IAAC needs to provide current estimates of available nighttime energy over the next 10 years.
Within the IPD, TC Energy claims a 1,000 MW output and a 10,000 MWh capacity for 11 hours from a 26,000 cubic metre reservoir. This is simply not possible: it is not feasible to produce 1,000 MW for 11 hours per day from a reservoir of that size unless the output is derated. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the stated reservoir capacity accounts for the necessary dead water reserve (typically 10–20%). Standard power calculations using a 26 million cubic metre reservoir, 174 metres of head pressure, and 72% efficiency yield a storage capacity of only 8,860 MWh. Achieving the proposed 10,000 MWh would require a round-trip efficiency of 81.3%, which is unrealistically high. Efficiency will not reach 72%; at best, it will be 68%. TCE and the IAAC need to confirm these calculations.
The examples above illustrate just a portion of the questionable data and calculations presented by TC Energy and their consultants in their effort to promote this pumped storage project to the public and government agencies. If TC Energy’s engineers are willing to misrepresent the project’s potential power output and efficiencies, one must question what other aspects of the proposal might be similarly misrepresented.
Given these issues, a fundamental question remains: can we trust any of the claims made by this company?
*GDF SUEZ. (Now it’s been absorbed by ENGIE.)
Pat Maloney, Meaford
