Pasadena-based firm poised to harness the sun's power

Ontario Pumped Storage advances as Ontario's largest energy storage project, delivering clean electricity, long-duration capacity, and grid reliability for peak demand, led by TC Energy and Saugeen Ojibway Nation, with IESO review underway.

Key Points

A long-duration storage project in Meaford storing clean power for peak demand, supporting Ontario's emission-free grid.

✅ Stores clean electricity to power 1M homes for 11 hours

✅ Partnership: TC Energy and Saugeen Ojibway Nation

✅ Pending IESO review and OEB regulation decisions

In a bid to accelerate the province's ambitions for clean economic growth, TC Energy Corporation has announced significant progress in the development of the Ontario Pumped Storage Project. The Government of Ontario in Canada has unveiled a plan to address growing energy needs as a sustainable road map aimed at achieving an emission-free electricity sector, and as part of this plan, the Ministry of Energy is set to undertake a final evaluation of the proposed Ontario Pumped Storage Project. A decision is expected to be reached by the end of the year.

Ontario Pumped Storage is a collaborative effort between TC Energy and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. The project is designed to be Ontario's largest energy storage initiative, capable of storing clean electricity to power one million homes for 11 hours. As the province strives to transition to a cleaner electricity grid by embracing clean power across sectors, long duration storage solutions like Ontario Pumped Storage will play a pivotal role in providing reliable, emission-free power during peak demand periods.

The success of the Project hinges on the approval of TC Energy's board of directors and a fruitful partnership agreement with the Saugeen Ojibway Nation. TC Energy is aiming for a final investment decision in 2024, as Ontario confronts an electricity shortfall in the coming years, with the anticipated in-service date being in the early 2030s, pending regulatory and corporate approvals.

“Ontario Pumped Storage will be a critical component of Ontario’s growing clean economy and will deliver significant benefits and savings to consumers,” said Corey Hessen, Executive Vice-President and President, TC Energy, Power and Energy Solutions. “Ontario continues to attract major investments that will have large power needs — many of which are seeking zero-emission energy before they invest. We are pleased the government is advancing efforts to recognize the significant role that long duration storage plays — firming resources, including new gas plants under provincial consideration, will become increasingly valuable in supporting a future emission-free electricity system.” 

The Municipality of Meaford also expressed its support for the project, recognizing the positive impact it could have on the local economy and the overall electricity system of Ontario. Additionally, various stakeholders, including LiUNA OPDC, LiUNA Local 183, and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, lauded the potential for job creation, training opportunities, and resilient energy infrastructure as Ontario seeks new wind and solar power to ease a coming electricity supply crunch.

The timeline for Ontario Pumped Storage's progress includes a final analysis by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to confirm its role in Ontario's electricity system and in balancing demand and emissions during the transition, to be completed by 30 September 2023. Concurrently, the Ministry of Energy will engage in consultations on the potential regulation of the Project via the Ontario Energy Board, while debates over clean, affordable electricity intensify ahead of the Ontario election, with a final determination scheduled for 30 November 2023.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Utilities Shift From Coal as natural gas stays cheap, renewables like wind and solar scale, Clean Power Plan uncertainty lingers, and investors, state policies, and emissions targets drive generation choices and accelerate retirements.

Key Points

A long-term shift by utilities from coal to cheap natural gas, expanding renewables, and lower-emission generation.

✅ Cheap natural gas undercuts coal on price and flexibility.

✅ Renewables costs falling; wind and solar add competitive capacity.

✅ State policies and investors sustain emissions reductions.

When President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to sweep away Obama-era climate change regulations, he said it would end America's "war on coal", usher in a new era of energy production and put miners back to work.

But the biggest consumers of U.S. coal - power generating companies - remain unconvinced about efforts to replace Obama's power plant overhaul with a lighter-touch approach.

Reuters surveyed 32 utilities with operations in the 26 states that sued former President Barack Obama's administration to block its Clean Power Plan, the main target of Trump's executive order. The bulk of them have no plans to alter their multi-billion dollar, years-long shift away from coal, suggesting demand for the fuel will keep falling despite Trump's efforts.

The utilities gave many reasons, mainly economic: Natural gas - coal’s top competitor - is cheap and abundant; solar and wind power costs are falling; state environmental laws remain in place; and Trump's regulatory rollback may not survive legal challenges, as rushed pricing changes draw warnings from energy groups.

Meanwhile, big investors aligned with the global push to fight climate change – such as the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund – have been pressuring U.S. utilities in which they own stakes to cut coal use.

"I’m not going to build new coal plants in today’s environment," said Ben Fowke, CEO of Xcel Energy, which operates in eight states and uses coal for about 36 percent of its electricity production. "And if I’m not going to build new ones, eventually there won’t be any."

Of the 32 utilities contacted by Reuters, 20 said Trump's order would have no impact on their investment plans; five said they were reviewing the implications of the order; six gave no response. Just one said it would prolong the life of some of its older coal-fired power units.

North Dakota's Basin Electric Power Cooperative was the sole utility to identify an immediate positive impact of Trump's order on the outlook for coal.

"We're in the situation where the executive order takes a lot of pressure off the decisions we had to make in the near term, such as whether to retrofit and retire older coal plants," said Dale Niezwaag, a spokesman for Basin Electric. "But Trump can be a one-termer, so the reprieve out there is short."

Trump's executive order triggered a review aimed at killing the Clean Power Plan and paving the way for the EPA's Affordable Clean Energy rule to replace it, though litigation is ongoing. The Obama-era law would have required states, by 2030, to collectively cut carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels. It was designed as a primary strategy in U.S. efforts to fight global climate change.

The U.S. coal industry, without increases in domestic demand, would need to rely on export markets for growth. Shipments of U.S. metallurgical coal, used in the production of steel, have recently shown up in China following a two-year hiatus - in part to offset banned shipments from North Korea and temporary delays from cyclone-hit Australian producers.

RETIRING AND RETROFITTING

Coal had been the primary fuel source for U.S. power plants for the last century, but its use has fallen more than a third since 2008 after advancements in drilling technology unlocked new reserves of natural gas.

Hundreds of aging coal-fired power plants have been retired or retrofitted. Huge coal mining companies like Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal fell into bankruptcy, and production last year hit its lowest point since 1978.

The slide appears likely to continue: U.S. power companies now expect to retire or convert more than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired plants in 2017 after shutting almost 13,000 MW last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration and Thomson Reuters data.

Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, acknowledged Trump's efforts would not return the coal industry to its "glory days," but offered some hope.

"There may not be immediate plans for utilities to bring on more coal, but the future is always uncertain in this market," he said.

Many of the companies in the Reuters survey said they had been focused on reducing carbon emissions for a decade or more while tracking 2017 utility trends that reinforce long-term planning, and were hesitant to change direction based on shifting political winds in Washington D.C.

"Utility planning typically takes place over much longer periods than presidential terms of office," Berkshire Hathaway Inc-owned Pacificorp spokesman Tom Gauntt said.

Several utilities also cited falling costs for wind and solar power, which are now often as cheap as coal or natural gas, thanks in part to government subsidies for renewable energy and recent FERC decisions affecting the grid.

In the meantime, activist investors have increased pressure on U.S. utilities to shun coal.

In the last year, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, the world's largest, has excluded more than a dozen U.S. power companies - including Xcel, American Electric Power Co Inc and NRG Energy Inc - from its investments because of their reliance on coal-fired power.

Another eight companies, including Southern Co and NorthWestern Corp, are "under observation" by the fund.

Wyoming-based coal miner Cloud Peak Energy said it doesn't blame utilities for being lukewarm to Trump's order.

"For eight years, if you were a utility running coal, you got the hell kicked out of you," said Richard Reavey, a spokesman for the company. "Are you going to turn around tomorrow and say, 'Let's buy lots of coal plants'? Pretty unlikely."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Canada Oil Recession Outlook analyzes the Russia-Saudi price war, OPEC discord, COVID-19 demand shock, WTI and WCS collapse, Alberta oilsands exposure, U.S. shale stress, and GDP risks from blockades and fiscal responses.

Key Points

An outlook on how the oil price war and COVID-19 demand shock could tip Canada into recession and strain producers.

✅ WTI and WCS prices plunge on OPEC-Russia discord

✅ Alberta oilsands face break-even pressure near 30 USD WTI

✅ RBC flags global recession; GDP hit from blockades, virus

A war between Russia and Saudi Arabia for market share for oil may have been triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic in China, but the oil price crash contagion that it will spread could have impacts that last longer than the virus.

The prospects for Canada are not good.

Plunging oil prices, reduced economic activity from virus containment, and the fallout from weeks of railway blockades over the Coastal GasLink pipeline all add up to “a one-two-three punch that I think is almost inevitably going to put Canada in a position where its growth has to be negative,” said Dan McTeague, a former Liberal MP and current president of Canadians for Affordable Energy. The situation “certainly has the makings” of a recession, said Ken Peacock, chief economist for the Business Council of British Columbia.

“At a minimum, it’s going to be very disruptive and we’re going to have maybe one negative quarter,” Peacock said. “Whether there’s a second one, where it gets labeled a recession, is a different question. But it’s going to generate some turmoil and challenges over the next two quarters – there’s no doubt about that.”

RBC Economics on March 13 announced it now predicts a global recession and cut its growth projections for Canada's economy in 2020 by half a per cent.

Oil price futures plunged 30% last week, dragging stock markets and currencies, including the Canadian dollar, down with them, even as a deep freeze strained U.S. energy systems. That drop came on top of a 17% decline in February, due to falling demand for oil due to the virus.

The latest price plunge – the worst since the 1991 Gulf War – was the result of Russia and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), led by Saudi Arabia, failing to agree on oil production cuts.

The COVID-19 outbreak in China – the world’s second-largest oil consumer – had resulted in a dramatic drop in oil demand in that country, and a sudden glut of oil, with the U.S. energy crisis affecting electricity, gas and EV markets.

OPEC has historically been able to moderate global oil prices by controlling output. But when Russia refused to co-operate with OPEC and agree to production cuts, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned company, Aramco, announced it plans to boost its oil output from 9.7 million barrels per day (bpd) to 12.3 million bpd in April.

In response to that announcement, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices dropped 18% to below US$34 per barrel while the Canadian Crude Index fell 24% to US$21. Western Canadian Select dropped 39% to US$15.73.

The effect on Alberta oilsands producers was severe and immediate. Cenovus Energy Inc. (TSX:CVE) saw roughly $2 billion in market cap erased on March 9, when its stock dropped by 52%, which came on top of a 12% drop March 6.

The company responded the very next day by announcing it would cut spending by 32% in 2020, suspend its oil-by-rail program and defer expansion projects.

MEG Energy Corp. (TSX:MEG), which suffered a 56% share price drop on March 9, also announced a 20% reduction in its 2020 capital spending plan.

Peter Tertzakian, chief economist for ARC Energy Research Institute, wrote last week that Russia’s plan is to try to hurt U.S. shale oil producers, who have more than doubled U.S. oil production over the past decade.

Anas Alhajji, a global oil analyst, expects that plan could work. Even before the oil price shock, he had predicted the great shale boom in the U.S. was coming to an end.

“Shale production will decline, and the myth of ‘explosive growth’ will end,” he told Business in Vancouver. “The impact is global and Canadian producers might suffer even more if the oil that Saudi Arabia sends to the U.S. is medium and heavy. This might last longer than what people think.”

The question for Alberta is how Canadian producers can continue to operate through a period of cheap oil. Alberta producers do not compete on the global market. They serve a niche market of U.S. heavy oil refiners, and Biden-era policy is seen as potentially more favourable for Canada’s energy sector than alternatives.

“On the positive side, the industry is battle-hardened,” Tertzakian wrote. “Over the past five years, innovative companies have already learned to endure some of the lowest prices in the world.”

But he added that they need WTI prices of US$30 per barrel just to break even.

“But that’s an average break-even threshold for an industry with a wide variation in costs. That means at that level about half the companies can’t pay their bills and half are treading water.”

Just prior to the oil price plunge, the International Energy Agency (IEA) updated its 2020 forecast for global oil consumption from an 825,000 bpd increase in oil consumption to a 90,000 bpd decrease, due to the COVID-19 virus and consequent economic contraction and reduction in travel.

The IEA predicts global oil demand won’t return to “normal” until the second half of 2020. But even if demand does return to pre-virus levels, that doesn’t mean oil prices will – not if Saudi Arabia can sustain increased oil production at low prices, and evolving clean grid priorities could influence the trajectory too.

The oil plunge was greeted in Alberta with alarm. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney warned Alberta is in “uncharted territory” as consumers are urged to lock in rates and said his government might have to review its balanced budget and resort to emergency deficit spending.

While British Columbians – who pay some of the highest gasoline prices in North America – will enjoy lower gasoline prices at a time when prices are usually starting a seasonal spike, B.C.’s economy could feel knock-on effects from a recession in Alberta.

“We sell a lot of inputs, do a lot of trade with Alberta, so it’s important for B.C., Alberta’s economic health,” Peacock said, “and recent tensions over electricity purchase talks underscore that.”

Last week, the Trudeau government announced $1 billion in emergency funding to cope with the virus and waived a one-week waiting period for unemployment insurance.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Electric Buses reduce urban emissions and noise, but require charging infrastructure, grid upgrades, and depot redesigns; they offer lower operating costs and simpler maintenance, with range limits influencing routes, schedules, and on-route fast charging.

Key Points

Battery-electric buses cut emissions and noise while lowering operating and maintenance costs for transit agencies.

✅ Lower emissions, noise; improved rider experience

✅ Requires charging, grid upgrades, depot redesigns

✅ Range limits affect routes; on-route fast charging helps

In lots of ways, the electric bus feels like a technology whose time has come. Transportation is responsible for about a quarter of global emissions, and those emissions are growing faster than in any other sector. While buses are just a small slice of the worldwide vehicle fleet, they have an outsize effect on the environment. That’s partly because they’re so dirty—one Bogotá bus fleet made up just 5 percent of the city’s total vehicles, but a quarter of its CO2, 40 percent of nitrogen oxide, and more than half of all its particulate matter vehicle emissions. And because buses operate exactly where the people are concentrated, we feel the effects that much more acutely.

Enter the electric bus. Depending on the “cleanliness” of the electric grid into which they’re plugged, e-buses are much better for the environment. They’re also just straight up nicer to be around: less vibration, less noise, zero exhaust. Plus, in the long term, e-buses have lower operating costs, and related efforts like US school bus electrification are gathering pace too.

So it makes sense that global e-bus sales increased by 32 percent last year, according to a report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, as the age of electric cars accelerates across markets worldwide. “You look across the electrification of cars, trucks—it’s buses that are leading this revolution,” says David Warren, the director of sustainable transportation at bus manufacturer New Flyer.

Today, about 17 percent of the world’s buses are electric—425,000 in total. But 99 percent of them are in China, where a national mandate promotes all sorts of electric vehicles. In North America, a few cities have bought a few electric buses, or at least run limited pilots, to test the concept out, and early deployments like Edmonton's first e-bus offer useful lessons as systems ramp up. California has even mandated that by 2029 all buses purchased by its mass transit agencies be zero-emission.

But given all the benefits of e-buses, why aren’t there more? And why aren’t they everywhere?

“We want to be responsive, we want to be innovative, we want to pilot new technologies and we’re committed to doing so as an agency,” says Becky Collins, the manager of corporate initiative at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, which is currently on its second e-bus pilot program. “But if the diesel bus was a first-generation car phone, we’re verging on smartphone territory right now. It’s not as simple as just flipping a switch.”

One reason is trepidation about the actual electric vehicle. Some of the major bus manufacturers are still getting over their skis, production-wise. During early tests in places like Belo Horizonte, Brazil, e-buses had trouble getting over steep hills with full passenger loads. Albuquerque, New Mexico, canceled a 15-bus deal with the Chinese manufacturer BYD after finding equipment problems during testing. (The city also sued). Today’s buses get around 225 miles per charge, depending on topography and weather conditions, which means they have to re-up about once a day on a shorter route in a dense city. That’s an issue in a lot of places.

If you want to buy an electric bus, you need to buy into an entire electric bus system. The vehicle is just the start.

The number one thing people seem to forget about electric buses is that they need to get charged, and emerging projects such as a bus depot charging hub illustrate how infrastructure can scale. “We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles,” says Camron Gorguinpour, the global senior manager for the electric vehicles at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, which last month released twin reports on electric bus adoption. “The actual charging stations get lost in the mix.”

But charging stations are expensive—about $50,000 for your standard depot-based one. On-route charging stations, an appealing option for longer bus routes, can be two or three times that. And that’s not even counting construction costs. Or the cost of new land: In densely packed urban centers, movements inside bus depots can be tightly orchestrated to accommodate parking and fueling. New electric bus infrastructure means rethinking limited space, and operators can look to Toronto's TTC e-bus fleet for practical lessons on depot design. And it’s a particular pain when agencies are transitioning between diesel and electric buses. “The big issue is just maintaining two sets of fueling infrastructure,” says Hanjiro Ambrose, a doctoral student at UC Davis who studies transportation technology and policy.

“We talk to many different organizations that get so fixated on the vehicles. The actual charging stations get lost in the mix as the American EV boom gathers pace across sectors.”

Then agencies also have to get the actual electricity to their charging stations. This involves lengthy conversations with utilities about grid upgrades, rethinking how systems are wired, occasionally building new substations, and, sometimes, cutting deals on electric output, since electric truck fleets will also strain power systems in parallel. Because an entirely electrified bus fleet? It’s a lot to charge. Warren, the New Flyer executive, estimates it could take 150 megawatt-hours of electricity to keep a 300-bus depot charged up throughout the day. Your typical American household, by contrast, consumes 7 percent of that—per year. “That’s a lot of work by the utility company,” says Warren.

For cities outside of China—many of them still testing out electric buses and figuring out how they fit into their larger fleets—learning about what it takes to run one is part of the process. This, of course, takes money. It also takes time. Optimists say e-buses are more of a question of when than if. Bloomberg New Energy Finance projects that just under 60 percent of all fleet buses will be electric by 2040, compared to under 40 percent of commercial vans and 30 percent of passenger vehicles.

Which means, of course, that the work has just started. “With new technology, it always feels great when it shows up,” says Ambrose. “You really hope that first mile is beautiful, because the shine will come off. That’s always true.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

BC Fossil Fuel Phase-Out outlines a just transition to a green economy, meeting climate targets by mid-century through carbon budgets, ending subsidies for fracking, capping production, and investing in renewable energy, remediation, and resilient infrastructure.

Key Points

A strategic plan to wind down oil and gas, end subsidies, and achieve climate targets with a just transition in BC.

✅ End new leases, phase out subsidies, cap fossil production

✅ Carbon budgets and timelines to meet mid-century climate targets

✅ Just transition: income supports, retraining, site remediation jobs

Politicians in British Columbia aren't focused enough on phasing out fossil fuel industries, a new report says.

The report, authored by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says the province must move away from fossil fuel industries by mid-century in order to meet its climate targets, with B.C. projected to fall short of 2050 targets according to recent analysis, but adds that the B.C. government is ill prepared to transition to a green economy.

"We are totally moving in the wrong direction," said economist Marc Lee, one of the authors of the report, on The Early Edition Wednesday. 

He said most of the emphasis of B.C. government policy has been on slowing reductions in emissions from transportation or emissions from buildings, even though Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA, while still subsidizing fossil fuel extraction, such as fracking projects, that Lee said should be phased out.

"What we are putting on the table is politically unthinkable right now," said Lee, adding that last month's provincial budget called for a 26 per cent increased gas production over the next three years, even though electrified LNG facilities could boost demand for clean power.

B.C.'s $830M in fossil fuel subsidies undermines efforts to fight climate crisis, report says
He said B.C. needs to start thinking instead about how its going to wind down its dependence on fossil fuel industries.

'Greener' job transition needed
The report said the provincial government's continued interest in expanding production and exporting fossil fuels, even as Canada's race to net-zero intensifies across the energy sector, suggests little political will to think about a plan to move away from them.

It suggests the threat of major job losses in those industries is contributing to the political inaction, but cited several examples of ways governments can help move workers into greener jobs, as many fossil-fuel workers are ready to support the transition according to recent commentary. 

Lee said early retirement provisions or income replacement for transitioning workers are options to consider.

"We actually have seen a lot of real-world policy around transition starting to happen, including in Alberta, which brought in a whole transition package for coal workers producing coal for electricity generation, and regional cooperation like bridging the electricity gap between Alberta and B.C. could further support reliability," Lee said.

Give cities the power to move more quickly on the environment, say Metro Van politicians
Make it easier for small businesses to go green, B.C. Chamber of Commerce urges government
Lee also said well-paying jobs could be created by, for example, remediating old coal mines and gas wells and building green infrastructure and renewable electricity projects in affected areas.

The report also calls for a moratorium on new fossil fuel leases and ending fossil fuel subsidies, as well as creating carbon budgets and fossil fuel production limits.

"Change is coming," said Lee. "We need to get out ahead of it."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

East-West Transmission Project Ontario connects Thunder Bay to Wawa, facing OEB bidding, Hydro One vs NextBridge, First Nations consultation, environmental assessment, Pukaskwa National Park route, and reliability needs for Northwestern Ontario industry and communities.

Key Points

A 450 km Thunder Bay-Wawa power line proposal facing OEB bidding, Hydro One competition, and First Nations consultation.

✅ Competing bids: Hydro One vs NextBridge under OEB rules

✅ First Nations cite duty to consult and environmental review gaps

✅ Route debate: Pukaskwa Park vs bypass; jobs and reliability at stake

Leaders of six First Nations are urging the Ontario government to "clean up" the bureaucratic process that determines who will build an "urgently needed" high-capacity power transmission line to service northern Ontario.

The proposed 450 kilometre East-West Transmission Project is set to stretch from Thunder Bay to Wawa, providing much-needed electricity to northern Ontario. NextBridge Infrastructure, in partnership with Bamkushwada Limited Partnership (BLP) — an entity the First Nations created in order to become co-owners and active participants in the economic development of the line — have been the main proponents of the project since 2012 and were awarded the right to construct.

In 2018, Hydro One appealed to the previous Liberal government with a proposal to build the transmission line with lower maintenance costs. On Dec. 20, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued a decision that said it will issue the contract to construct the project to the company with the lowest bid, even as a Manitoba Hydro line delay followed a board recommendation in a comparable case.

The transmission regime in Ontario allows competing bids at the beginning of a project to designate a transmitter, and then again at the end of the project to award leave to construct.

As a result, the Hydro One was permitted to submit a competing bid, five years after it was first proposed. The chiefs of the six First Nations say that will delay the project by two years, impede their land and violate their rights. The former Liberal government under which the project was initiated "left the door open" for competition to enter this late in the construction, according to the community leaders.

"The former government created this mess and Hydro One has taken advantage of this loophole," Fort William First Nation Chief Peter Collins said in a Queen's Park news conference on Thursday. "Hydro One is an interloper coming in at the last minute, trying taking over the project and all the hard work that has been done, without doing the work it needs to do."

Mess will explode, says chief

According to Collins, the Ontario Energy Board is likely to choose Hydro One's late submission in February, "causing this mess to explode." The electricity and distribution utility has not completed any of the legal requirements demanded by a project of this magnitude, Collins said, including extensive consultations with First Nations, such as oral traditional evidence hearings that inform regulators, and thorough environment assessments. He speculated that by ignoring these two things, even though in B.C. Ottawa did not oppose a Site C work halt pending a treaty rights challenge, Hydro One's bid will be the lowest cost.

"Hydro One's interference is a big problem," said Collins. He was flanked by the leaders of the Pic Mobert First Nation, Opwaaganasiniing (also known as the Red Rock Indian Band), Michipicoten, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg — or Pic River First Nation — and Pays Plat First Nation.

Collins also highlighted that Hydro One's proposed route for the transmission line will go through Pukaskwa National Park on which there are Aboriginal title claims, and noted that an opponent of the Site C dam has been sharing concerns with northerners, underscoring the need for meaningful engagement. NextBridge's proposal, Collins said, will go around the park.

If Hydro One is awarded the construction project, at risk, too, are as many as 1,000 job opportunities in northern Ontario (including the Ring of Fire) that are expected from NextBridge's proposal, as well as the "many millions" in contracting opportunities for the communities, Collins said.

"That companies such as Hydro One can do this and dissolve all that has been developed by NextBridge and our [partnership] and all the opportunities we have created will signal to ... everyone in Ontario that Ontario's not open for business, at least fair business," Collins said.

Ontario Energy Minister 'disappointed' by OEB's decision

In an email statement to National Observer, Energy Minister Greg Rickford's press secretary said the government acknowledged the concerns of the First Nations leaders, and is "disappointed that the OEB continues to stall on this important project."

"The East-West Tie project is a priority for Ontario because it is needed to provide a reliable and adequate supply of electricity to northwestern Ontario to support economic growth," she wrote.

In October, Rickford wrote to the OEB outlining his expectation that a prompt decision would be made through an efficient and fair process.

Despite the minister’s request, the OEB delayed a decision on this project in December — as in B.C., a utilities watchdog has pressed for answers on Site C dam stability — pushing the service date back to at least 2021. In 2017, NextBridge said that, pending OEB approval, it would start construction in 2018, with completion scheduled for 2020.

Without the transmission line, the community faces a higher likelihood of power outages and less reliable electricity overall.

"Our government takes the duty to consult seriously and it is committed to ensuring that all Indigenous communities are properly consulted and kept informed regardless of the result of the OEB process," Rickford's office's statement said.

In a letter sent to Premier Doug Ford, Rickford and to Environment Minister Rod Phillips, all members of the Bamkushwada Limited Partnership said they will be compelled to appeal the OEB's decision if the right to construct is given to Hydro One.

The entire situation, they wrote in their letter, is "an undeniable mess" that requires government intervention.

"If the Ontario government can correct this looming outcome, it is incumbent on the Ontario government to do so," they wrote, urging the government to "take all legal means to prevent the OEB from rendering an unconstitutional and unjust decision."

"Our First Nations and the north have waited five long years for this transmission project," Collins said. "Enough is enough."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News