Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project

Comment Search Mobile

Comment Search

Report comment

Are you sure you want to report this comment for review?
Skip to filters
Sort by: Best match Most recent Submitted by

421 results

Attachment MCM - Enclosure 1 - Provincial Authority Advice Record - Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism
  • Reference number: 340
  • Submitted: 2026-04-14 - 12:07 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe  
  • Attachment included
  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada – Provincial Authority Advice Record 1 Enclosure 1: Provincial Authority Advice Record – Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project Please submit the completed form by April 6, 2026, to Nottawasaga@iaac-aeic.gc.ca.1 Submission Date April 9, 2026 Ministry/Organization Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Lead Contact, Title, Work Unit Email, Phone Dan Minkin, Heritage Planner, Heritage Planning Unit Dan.minkin@ontario.ca 416-786-7553 Alternate Contact, Title, Work Unit Email, Phone Karla Barboza, Team Lead, Heritage Planning Unit Karla.barboza@ontario.ca 416-660-1027 Provincial frameworks and opportunities for cooperation 1. Describe any provincial regulatory frameworks that apply to the project (e.g., permitting, environmental assessment or registrations, compliance limits, land use policies, contractual agreements), including: a) the project activities and locations to which the framework applies (considering the federal land boundary as well as multiple transmission line scenarios); b) the environmental components or pathways of effect considered within the framework; c) related policies or guidance documents; d) any technical reports or special information required from the proponent; e) any Indigenous or public consultation requirements, timelines, and participant funding; f) any potential opportunities to coordinate regulatory requirements (simply ideas for further exploration), to avoid duplication, simplify steps for participants, or remove time lags; and g) any known obstacles to reaching a decision under the framework (e.g., lack of information, unacceptable effects that ...
Report

Attachment TC Energy Ontario Pumped Storage Project

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Township of Tiny
  • Reference number: 313
  • Submitted: 2026-04-07 - 2:38 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
  • Attachment included
  • 130 Balm Beach Road West Tiny, Ontario L0L 2J0 (705) 526-4204 | 1-866-939-8469 www.tiny.ca April 2, 2026 Terence Hubbard, President, Impact Assessment Agency IAAC (Impact Assessment Agency of Canada) 55 York Street, Suite 600 Toronto, ON M5J 1R7 ontarioregion-regiondontario@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re: TC Energy Ontario Pumped Storage Project At its April 1, 2026 Council Meeting, the Township of Tiny Council ratified the following resolution regarding TC Energy Ontario Pumped Storage Project: Moved by Councillor Sean Mskimins Seconded by Councillor Dave Brunelle WHEREAS the Township of Tiny recognizes the importance of developing reliable and sustainable energy infrastructure for the Province of Ontario and acknowledges that energy projects of this scale may have significant environmental, economic, and social implications for our region, particularly for Georgian Bay and surrounding ecosystems; AND WHEREAS the proposed TC Energy Ontario Pumped Storage Project is located within the Municipality of Meaford, the Township of Tiny is committed to ensuring that the interests of our residents and the health of Georgian Bay are fully considered; AND WHEREAS the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has twice recommended to the Ministry of Energy (MOE) that this Pumped Storage project would not reduce electricity costs and have no economic value to Ontario ratepayers; AND WHEREAS the IESO has authorized newer, more efficient and less environmentally invasive technologies such as Long-Duration Battery Storage, as they not only take less property and time to build, they can be built at more locations closer to high demand markets, reducing the need for long transmission ...
  • Attachment included
  • Severn Sound Environmental Association 489 Finlayson St, PO Box 460, Port McNicoll ON L0K 1R0 Phone (705) 534-7283 | Website: www.severnsound.ca September 9, 2025 Township of Tiny 130 Balm Beach Road W Tiny, Ontario L0L 2J0 Dear Mayor and Council, RE: SSEA Comment – Requested by Township of Tiny Council RE: The TC Energy Pumped Storage Proposal The SSEA has conducted an initial assessment of the TC Energy pumped storage proposal. The proposed project falls outside of the Severn Sound watershed and the jurisdiction of the SSEA. The local watershed planning authority and organization with local expertise on this site and this project would be the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority. While SSEA staff can’t provide specific comment on localized effects of the pumped storage facility near Meaford, we offer some thoughts on potential widespread effects on Georgian Bay, specifically considering the western coast of Tiny Township, which of all the shorelines in the SSEA service area is most likely to be impacted. Georgian Bay is already under stress from the impacts of climate change, localized algae blooms, invasive species, habitat loss and the loss of species at risk, so any project that will add to one of these stressors should be scrutinized and all appropriate mitigation measures taken. Our primary concern is around the precedent that a project like this might set, and the possibility of a similar project being proposed in the Severn Sound area in the future. If the proposed pumped storage was within the Severn Sound watershed, the SSEA would want to see a rigorous and comprehensive environmental impact assessment completed, including considerations for fish/fish habitat, ...

Attachment Needs study in multiple areas and is of high enough risk that it shouldn’t proceed

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: John Noga
  • Reference number: 310
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 11:55 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • This endeavour has multiple unresolved and high risk issues that lead to the conclusion that it should not proceed. 1. Environmental impacts (major concern) Water quality & aquatic life: The project would pump and release billions of litres of water daily, which would: disturb sediments reduce water clarity alter temperature and oxygen levels Fish and other organisms would be harmed through “entrainment” (being pulled into turbines), this is an ongoing issue at existing generation facilities  Ecosystems & species at risk in an important part of the province: The site lies near the Niagara Escarpment, I have lived in this controlled area and understand the fragile nature and need to protect it for Ontario Construction of a large reservoir and infrastructure would include, similar to hydroelectric projects that require a high level of environmental review: destroy habitat impact wetlands and tributaries affect migratory birds and species at risk Shoreline and lakebed disturbance would have damaging results: Underwater infrastructure (pipes, transmission lines) would disturb and damage lakebed sediment and ecosystems 2. Contamination risks (unique to this site as a former military training/testing location) The project is located on a military training base with unknown hazards. What are plans to deal with: unexploded ordnance toxic residues (e.g., munitions chemicals) Excavation and tunneling could release ...

Attachment Opposed

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Ted Crysler
  • Reference number: 309
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 11:34 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • The provincial government energy regulator has reviewed this project and indicated that it does not have economic value for the province of Ontario. This would seem sufficient to stop the project now. There are much better ways that TCE could contribute to green energy if it is committed to do so, rather than pursuing this pumped storage project. There will be negative environmental impacts on both the water and the land. The transmission line was originally going to be underwater to Wasaga Beach in order to connect to the Stayner transformer station, however this seems to have changed to an overland transmission system. I have not seen any indication of the route. Presumably it could revert to an underwater line again, which would be disruptive to the Georgian Bay ecosystem. The project's impact on fish is likely to be negative, with increased turbidity in the water at the base of the pump lines as well. The project seems predicated on lower electricity rates overnight when energy will be needed to pump the water to the reservoir, but this assumption may not hold true in the future as more people switch to electric vehicles and machinery and appliances that will require energy use at night. There will also be a disruption to the activities of the armed forces base at Meaford. The project would divert from the military activities that are done on the base and take away valuable land that is needed for training or other purposes. This site could also be used as the receive site for the OTH-A radar project, instead of locating it on valuable prime farmland in Clearview township. That would be a military installation on Base Meaford that would make sense. This project has virtually no economic benefit to the region ...

Report

Attachment CIAR, Information Request Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Nicole Corrado
  • Reference number: 315
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:54 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Please preserve the trees at this location. Please do not harm animals with this project. Please do not use animal testing for pollution and effluent monitoring.  https://www.change.org/p/stop-testing-sewer-water-on-laboratory-fish ? Please work with the Canadian Centre for the Alternatives to Animal Methods.  https://www.uwindsor.ca/ccaam/ Please only use non lethal ways to live with geese, beavers, and other wildlife. Develop a Living With Coyotes program with the animal welfare organization Coyote Watch Canada.  www.coyotewatchcanada.com Please only use non lethal ways to manage wildlife. There are humane, non lethal ways to deal with beavers. Here's a great resource.  https://thefurbearers.com/downloads/PDFs/Beaver%20Book%20-%202019-10-08%20The%20Fur-Bearers.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fP2wOYQKbWREX0E5QzYBhZLf9VjwMov3p37Vh8ToW1-NeQvAoVATZhEg%0A%0A https://www.change.org/p/stop-banff-from-killing-animals-after-conflicts https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/humanely-scare-away-canada-geese https://www.canadageese.org/nlcontrol.html https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/humane-goose-control-pdf.pdf https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/what-do-about-canada-geese This company makes non lethal products.  https://margosupplies.com/ca-en/   ? Conventional rodent control uses cruel methods. The companies use glue traps, and snap traps, which, like legholds, can cause injury. They also use rodenticide, which kills slowly and kills many non target ...

Report

Attachment Save the animals

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Beaconsfield Animal Services
  • Reference number: 307
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:52 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Please preserve the trees at this location. Please do not harm animals with this project. Please do not use animal testing for pollution and effluent monitoring. https://www.change.org/p/stop-testing-sewer-water-on-laboratory-fish ?Please work with the Canadian Centre for the Alternatives to Animal Methods. https://www.uwindsor.ca/ccaam/ Please only use non lethal ways to live with geese, beavers, and other wildlife. Develop a Living With Coyotes program with the animal welfare organization Coyote Watch Canada. www.coyotewatchcanada.com (http://www.coyotewatchcanada.com/) Please only use non lethal ways to manage wildlife. There are humane, non lethal ways to deal with beavers. Here's a great resource. https://thefurbearers.com/downloads/PDFs/Beaver%20Book%20-%202019-10-08%20The%20Fur-Bearers.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fP2wOYQKbWREX0E5QzYBhZLf9VjwMov3p37Vh8ToW1-NeQvAoVATZhEg%0A%0A https://www.change.org/p/stop-banff-from-killing-animals-after-conflicts https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/humanely-scare-away-canada-geese https://www.canadageese.org/nlcontrol.html https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/humane-goose-control-pdf.pdf https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/what-do-about-canada-geese This company makes non lethal products. https://margosupplies.com/ca-en/ ? Conventional rodent control uses cruel methods. The companies use glue traps, and snap traps, which, like legholds, can cause injury. They also use rodenticide, which kills slowly and kills many non target ...

Report

Attachment Meaford Pumped Storage

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: C S
  • Reference number: 306
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:37 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I would like to provide one brief clarification regarding the project’s impact on Ontario’s electricity system. Ontario currently meets its electricity needs reliably, and the province frequently exports surplus electricity to the United States. There is no present supply shortage, no reliability crisis, and no demonstrated need for additional storage capacity of this scale. Since pumped storage is a net consumer of electricity, this project will require additional power generation capacity for decades. This permanent increase in demand is a material adverse effect, particularly in a province that already has surplus generation. Any assessment of the project’s purported benefits must therefore consider whether the services it claims to provide are actually needed, and whether those benefits justify the increased system load and associated environmental, economic, and social impacts. Given the proponent’s clear incentive to present favourable assumptions and modelling outcomes, I request that all technical modelling submitted by TC Energy — including grid impacts, demand forecasts, economic projections, and round-trip efficiency calculations — be independently verified by the Agency and relevant federal departments, rather than accepted at face value. Thank you for considering my comment.

Report

Attachment ORA Comments on the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Project. Reference No. 89803

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Ontario Rivers Alliance
  • Reference number: 305
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:29 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • The Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA) is a not-for-profit grassroots organization with a mission to protect, conserve, and restore Ontario rivers. ORA advocates for effective policy and legislation to ensure that development affecting Ontario rivers is environmentally and socially sustainable.  See full submission in PDF below.
  • Attachment included
  • 379 Ronka Road Worthington, ON P0M3H0 LindaH@OntarioRiversAlliance.ca OntarioRiversAlliance.ca “A World of Healthy River Ecosystems” 6 April 2026 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 600-55 York Street Toronto, Ontario M5J 1R7 Email: Nottawasaga@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Re: Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project – Project Reference: 89803 Dear Sirs: The Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA) is a not-for-profit grassroots organization with a mission to protect, conserve, and restore Ontario rivers. ORA advocates for effective policy and legislation to ensure that development affecting Ontario rivers is environmentally and socially sustainable. 1. Introduction and ORA Position ORA respectfully submits the following critique of the Initial Project Description – Plain Language Summary (IPD Summary) for the Ontario Pumped Storage Project (the Project), proposed by TransCanada Energy Ltd. (TC Energy) near Meaford, Ontario. ORA notes that the IPD Summary was prepared by a consulting firm retained and funded by the proponent (Stantec Consulting Ltd.). This is an inherent limitation of proponent-led assessment processes: any consultant commissioned and paid by the proponent will necessarily reflect the proponent’s perspective and interests, and the resulting document cannot be considered an independent or neutral characterization of the Project and its effects. The document reads in significant part as a promotional piece rather than an objective preliminary environmental description. While ORA understands that this is an Initial Project Description and that detailed environmental work is forthcoming, the gaps, omissions, and framing issues identified below are substantial enough to require attention before ...
Report

Attachment Objections to the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project #89803

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: June Porter
  • Reference number: 304
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:21 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Resubmitting as attached document didn't upload. Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 55 York Street – Suite 600 Toronto, ON M5J 1R7 April 6, 2026 RE: Objections to the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project #89803 Dear Assessment Project Leader, As a Councillor and resident of The Town of The Blue Mountains, Ontario, an adjacent community which relies on water from  Georgian Bay. As a Town Councillor, I am legally bound to protect the drinking water of the residents I serve. I cannot accept the risk this project poses to our drinking water supply. Water sustains human life and is vital for human health (https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/water ). Water travels to this muncipality from Meaford quickly as within a day of the Johnny O fire dated May  25, 2023 where there was a significant volume of vehicle tires destroyed. The importance of this statement is that within one day rubber tire pieces appeared along the shoreline of town owned water access at the north end of Lansdowne Street North. The statement serves to reinforce environmental changes in one municipality have the potential to impact another. My concerns are anchored in the knowledge that the Ontario Pump Storage Project will involve the excavation of contaminated land. The Meaford Tank Range (the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre) is currently classified by the Treasury Board of Canada as a contaminated site, largely due to more than 80 years of live-fire weapons training. The extent of the contamination is complex because the site remains an active military facility raises several critical areas of concern: Key ...
  • Attachment included
  • Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 55 York Street – Suite 600 Toronto, ON M5J 1R7 April 6, 2026 RE: Objections to the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project #89803 Dear Assessment Project Leader, As a Councillor and resident of The Town of The Blue Mountains, Ontario, an adjacent community which relies on water from Georgian Bay. As a Town Councillor, I am legally bound to protect the drinking water of the residents I serve. I cannot accept the risk this project poses to our drinking water supply. Water sustains human life and is vital for human health (https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/water ). I have experienced that water travels to this area from Meaford quickly as within a day of the Johnny O fire dated May 25, 2023 where there was a significant volume of vehicle tires destroyed. The importance of this statement is that within one day rubber tire pieces appeared along the shoreline of town owned water access at the north end of Lansdowne Street North. The statement serves to reinforce environmental changes in one municipality have the potential to impact another. My concerns are anchored in the knowledge that the Ontario Pump Storage Project will involve the excavation of contaminated land. The Meaford Tank Range (the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre) is currently classified by the Treasury Board of Canada as a contaminated site, largely due to more than 80 years of live- fire weapons training. The extent of the contamination is complex because the site remains an active military facility raises several critical areas of concern: Key Contaminants • Heavy Metals & Toxins: Decades of expended rounds have deposited heavy metals into the soil. • Unexploded Ordnance ...
Report

Attachment Temporary Workforce Housing and Community Impacts

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Keith Bumstead
  • Reference number: 303
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:15 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I oppose the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project because its social effects on Meaford and Grey County have not been responsibly addressed. TC Energy’s own summary says people have already raised concerns about “workforce accommodation and community life,” including where construction workers will be housed, local infrastructure capacity, community well-being, and adverse effects from a workforce influx. The project materials also identify potential effects on local commercial accommodation capacity, the local housing market, regional population, traffic, and demand for social infrastructure and utilities. This is not a speculative issue. In its Initial Project Description, TC Energy says it is still evaluating labour market capacity, has not yet determined whether temporary workforce accommodations will be required, and will only develop an accommodation strategy later. It also says some workers will need to come from elsewhere in Ontario or Canada to fill specialized roles or meet peak construction demand, and it projects 1,700 construction jobs during the four-year peak construction period. TC Energy even says that if a temporary workforce accommodation facility is required, it will rely on a project code of conduct and harassment-free workplace measures. That tells me the project’s social impacts are foreseeable, not hypothetical. Grey County and Meaford are already under housing pressure. Grey County’s Housing and Homelessness Plan says demand for affordable housing exceeds supply, and in January 2026 the County reported that its affordable housing waitlist grew from 2,230 in 2024 to 2,545 in 2025. Meaford is separately undertaking Municipal Housing ...

Report

Attachment Objections to the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project #89803

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: June Porter
  • Reference number: 302
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:13 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Comments are submitted as a Councillor and resident of The Town of The Blue Mountains, Ontario, an adjacent community which relies on water from Georgian Bay. As a Town Councillor, I am legally bound to protect the drinking water of the residents I serve. I cannot accept the risk this project poses to our drinking water supply. Water sustains human life and is vital for human health (https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/water ). Please find my attached document outlining my objections and concerns regarding the risks of the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project #89803. I appreciate the need for energy and energy storage options, however, alternatives to this site need to be explored. Respectfully submitted,  June Porter

Report

Attachment Project Noise, Blasting, and Vibration Impacts on Nearby Residents

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Allyson Bumstead
  • Reference number: 301
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 10:03 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I oppose the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project on the current record because TC Energy has not shown that noise and vibration effects on nearby homes will be acceptable. The project description says some residential properties adjacent to 4 CDTC are located less than 500 m from project components. It also says project-specific existing-condition noise and vibration studies have not been completed. For a project with homes this close, that is a serious gap, not a minor detail. The filing shows that this would be a long construction project, with construction planned from 2029 to 2035. TC Energy says construction will generate noise from vehicle traffic, equipment, tunnelling, and blasting. It also says blasting vibration can annoy people at large distances and damage buildings at close distances, and that applicable noise guidance is used to identify when residents may reach thresholds of annoyance or sleep disturbance. Those issues should be addressed before the project advances, not deferred to later stages. Operational effects are also unresolved. TC Energy says the project is not expected to produce substantive environmental noise during operations because most sound-generating infrastructure would be underground, but it also says the main operational noise sources would be the ventilation shafts and the switchyard. In the engagement record, it acknowledges concern about operational noise from the pumps, water moving through the tunnels, and whether the noise will be the same as the tank range. Its response is only that sound is anticipated to be limited to the immediate area of the project and that site-specific studies and noise modelling may be part of the later Impact Statement process. ...

Report

Attachment Time of Day Pricing and Electrical Grid Flattening

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Darren Kingston
  • Reference number: 300
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:59 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Hello, Becuase this project does not have a net power benefit, it is proposed to help with providing power when it is currently most required, during high use time periods.  TC will make money by using power from the grid when it is cheapest, and in the least demand at night, and selling the power when the price is highest.  My concern is that the assumption that the power grid will remain as it is today in 2030 and beyond is a very bad/inaccurate assumption.  With the uptake of Electric cars, by 2030 and beyond, the power grid is expected to flatten, rendering the entire project useless.   People will be charing their electric cars at night, thereby flattening the grid.  This is not an assumption, but rather a predictable fact.  All we have to do is look at countires, like Norway, where electric cars already make up over 50% of the cars on the road.   With the increased demand on the grid at night, when E-cars are being charged, the requirements for power at night will equal the demand during the day.   The Government is incentivising the use of electric cars and wants this change to occur.  Once even 50% of the cars on the road are electric, our grid in Ontario will be relatively flat, completely negating the need for a storage facility.  Taking power from the grid at night will not benifit anyone at this time.   Why would the Government sign any contract with TC Energy to pay them more money to feed the grid at at time period that is no longer "higher usage".  TC energy will cover themselves against this eventual change in the power grid, by guaranteeing themselves a higher price for power then they will be paying ...

Report

Attachment Meaford Hydropower Project

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Courtney Murgatroyd
  • Reference number: 299
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:34 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  •  Dear Mr. Skocylas, I am a third-generation Georgian Bay island cottager, and I strongly support the need for a full environmental assessment before this hydroelectric project moves forward. As stewards of Georgian Bay, it is in our best interest to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of this Great Lake. The Georgian Bay Association has highlighted numerous concerns, including impacts on fish and fish habitat, water quality, species at risk, the health and safety of swimmers and boaters, as well as shoreline erosion and modification. For these reasons, I believe it is imperative that this project proceed with caution and careful consideration of its potential environmental impacts. Sincerely, Courtney    

Report

Attachment In Favour, with conditions.

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Bob Peel
  • Reference number: 298
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:30 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I have been around Georgian Bay all my life, and have a great love for the beautiful blue water, the fishing, and the people surrounding the Bay. I have served on the Meaford Chamber of Commerce for many years, including 2 1/2 years as Chamber President, and have served on the committee that puts together Meaford Dragons for the past 8 years. My daughter moved to the Municipality of Meaford some 7 years ago and has a business on Sykes Street. I maintain an office and a warehouse in town, and have coached dozens of local small businesses. I have also served as a member of the Pumped Storage Advisory Committee, from its inception in 2024 to its dissolution in February 2026.  I wish to add my voice of support to this project, as a key component of the Ontario Power Grid, as a power backstop to the military base and as an economic driver of the local, regional and Provincial economy.  I do wish however, to condition my response on the very premise that this project is thoroughly reviewed, and satisfies the very elements that have triggered such organised opposition. In my roles as a responsible citizen of Canada and Ontario, and as business owner &  business coach, and as a fisherman, an amateur photographer and as a husband, father, and grandfather, I strive to make the places we live in, better, with opportunities for all. I have listened to, and read much information & contentions from people who cover the spectrum of fear, anxiety, scepticism, informed dissent, speculation, fear mongering, NIMBYism, optimism and quiet support. I firmly believe that all of the concerns voiced need to form the checklist by which we measure the safety, effectiveness and economic impact ...

Report

Attachment Open Loop Pumped Storage across the bay from UNESCO World Biosphere Reserve is needlessly dangerous, costly AND totally Obsolete.

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Concerned Citizen and local Resident
  • Reference number: 297
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:24 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Environmental Concerns The proposed pumped storage project poses significant environmental risks to the UNESCO BIOSPHERE RESERVE of South Georgian Bay’s ecosystem. The construction and operation of such a large-scale OPEN LOOP hydro facility would disrupt aquatic habitats, alter natural water flow, and threaten water quality in one of Ontario’s most sensitive freshwater environments. Meanwhile, modern chemical battery technologies—such as Vanadium Flow, sodium-ion, and other emerging battery systems—offer clean, efficient, modular, and rapidly deployable alternatives. These solutions can deliver the same 1,000 MW of long-duration storage without the ecological disruption associated with large-scale hydro engineering. As these technologies continue to advance, their lifecycle environmental footprint and cost per megawatt-hour are steadily decreasing, making pumped storage appear outdated and environmentally regressive. They can also be upgraded or upscaled as needed if more storage becomes necessary in the near or distant future. This cannot be said for the 300 acre pond dug out of the toxic tank range site  Fiscal Concerns The project’s financial outlook is equally troubling. The estimated cost has more than doubled, from approximately $4 billion in 2019 to $8–10 billion in 2026, with a realistic projection of up to $20 billion by completion in 2035 due to inflation, material costs, and project delays and overuns. This escalation represents poor value for both taxpayers and ratepayers. In contrast, a battery-based storage park of equivalent capacity could be built for under $2 billion, completed in a fraction of the time, and expanded ...

Report

Attachment concerned

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Anna lee Sangster
  • Reference number: 296
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:18 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I am concerned about this proposal for a many reasons, which include both harm and irreversible damage to the existing environment, ecosystems, and habitats as well as potential for drinking water contamination. The local community will experience substantial negative impacts during and after the construction of this facility. Construction traffic alone will be unbearable for local residents, not to mention, the lack of safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in place currently to help protect people using different modes of transportation on the roads that will also be used for construction routes. I'm also concerned about the noise of the built and functioning pumped storage facility, and impacts on the local residents when operating (both when water is pumped and released). I'm concerned for residents who live below and down-slope from the pumped storage basin should the basin ever fail - it would be catastrophic. Alternative options that are less expensive and less destructive to the environment, ecosystems, habitats and local community are available and should be explored instead.

Report

Attachment who will be responsable for the enviromental clean up?

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: David Harvey
  • Reference number: 295
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:15 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • This project will make rich investors richer and provide no new source of energy at all; it is time-shifting for profit and a handful of jobs. Short-term construction jobs for the vast majority will be sourced from outside the community. Using contaminated land to build a reservoir situated on unstable karst hoping the liner does not leak or rip with 23 million metric tons of weight being added every day and losing that much every night rupturing and contaminating dumping 23 billion litres  of  water (daily output thats 9200 olympic pools full) ) into a delicate ecosystem threatens drinking water, as well as vibrant recreational and commercial fisheries and tourism, all of which are at risk. This project provides fewer jobs and less tourism than a mini-golf course on a plot of land one-one-hundredth the size would. What benefit does this provide for the community? For that matter, what benefit does this bring to Ontario? Does this bring down prices? No. Does this create clean energy? No. Does this bring investment or people to the community? No; it just makes the rich richer. Battery tech already exists without the environmental risk and can be placed almost anywhere. This land was expropriated from local farmers for the benefit of all Canadians, not so it could later be sold off to make money for the rich. If time-shifting energy is so important, why are the provincial or federal governments not building this project themselves, with $1 trillion in total investment earmarked for nation-building, instead of this private for-profit company? According to the company, TC Energy (TCE) actively states that Ontario needs pumped storage, arguing it is a critical, long-term solution for ...

Report

Attachment The solution to pollution is not dilution

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Andy Metelka
  • Reference number: 294
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:14 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  •  After a limited time to review the proponent's proposal (30 days), we provide our submission for your review. Given more time, we would certainly provide further information and a more detailed review if necessary. We are disappointed that a longer review period has not been granted, since the proponent has had years to prepare for this project. From the information provided by the proponent, we have determined that this project is a financial incentive for the proponent and a significant risk and setback for the taxpayers of Ontario, who are funding it.  It has become difficult to overturn despite extreme opposition over the last few years, but it now raises serious questions for all Georgian Bay residents and wildlife.  The threat to health and safety for financial gains or losses is an extreme risk. If any of the following situations occur during the project or at its completion, they can be difficult to reverse, both environmentally and financially. Table of Concerns: Please review the attached document for details   1. Liability and accountability for damages 2. The Adam Beck Generating Station 3. Construction concerns 4. Financial risk and future projections 5. Fish entrapment due to high intake rates 6. Effects on Tourism 7. Fish contamination 8. Fish Reproduction Turbidity 9. CO2 savings and creation after completion vs. during construction 10. Electrical Power usage for turbine pumps 11. ...
  • Attachment included
  • Mr. Stefan Skocylas, Regulatory Lead Ontario Pumped Storage Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 600-55 York Street Toronto, Ontario M5J 1R7 April 5, 2026 Review of: Project No. 89803, TC Energy Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project After a limited time to review the proponent's proposal (30 days), we provide our submission for your review. Given more time, we would certainly provide further information and a more detailed review if necessary. We are disappointed that a longer review period has not been granted, since the proponent has had years to prepare for this project. From the information provided by the proponent, we have determined that this project is a financial incentive for the proponent and a significant risk and setback for the taxpayers of Ontario, who are funding it. It has become difficult to overturn despite extreme opposition over the last few years, but it now raises serious questions for all Georgian Bay residents and wildlife. The threat to health and safety for financial gains or losses is an extreme risk. If any of the following situations occur during the project or at its completion, they can be difficult to reverse, both environmentally and financially. Table of Concerns: 1. Liability and accountability for damages 2. The Adam Beck Generating Station 3. Construction concerns 4. Financial risk and future projections 5. Fish entrapment due to high intake rates 6. Effects on Tourism 7. Fish contamination 8. Fish Reproduction Turbidity 9. CO2 savings and creation after completion vs. during construction 10. Electrical Power usage for turbine pumps 11. ...
Report

Attachment Concerns about TCE Proposal

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Wendy Best
  • Reference number: 293
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 9:09 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I am concerned about: 1) lakebed erosion/turbidity and its impact on water supplies (private and Meaford's municipal intake). 2) the impact of multiple water intakes at the Site, increased turbidity, and potential temperature increases on aquatic ecosystem health. 3) Expropriation of land to construct transmission towers for conveyance of this energy - either in Meaford or across Georgian Bay 4) that the use of 1 unit of fossil fuel energy to create <= 0.75 units of energy only works at certain cost differentials between peak and off-peak power  5) the poor precedent set by using federal lands for For Profit Enterprise. 6) the potential impact of standard operations at the military base on the integrity of the upper basin. (i.e shock waves produces by explosives). I feel a lower basin would solve some of these issues.  

Report

Attachment Expropriated for military purposes- not Private Profits

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Keith Bumstead
  • Reference number: 292
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 8:56 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I strongly object to the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project and ask IAAC not to allow it to proceed at 4 CDTC. This is not a routine energy-storage project on vacant or surplus land. It is a proposal to place a large private commercial power project on federal land that was expropriated for military purposes and that DND itself says is still actively used by the Canadian Armed Forces and is not surplus to Defense requirements. My central concern is land use. This land was taken from families for national defense, not for future transfer to a private industrial developer. If land is no longer needed for the military purpose for which it was taken, it should not simply be repurposed for commercial use. It should be returned, or at the very least the government must fully address the public-interest, historical, and ethical implications of using expropriated military land for a private project. My family has a direct and personal stake in this issue. Families affected by the original taking should not be treated as an afterthought while the site is considered for a project that has nothing to do with the purpose for which the land was originally expropriated. The scale and nature of the proposal make this concern even more serious. The project description says it would require UXO clearance, decommissioning DND infrastructure, drilling, blasting, tunnelling, in-water works, and construction of a reservoir holding about 26 million cubic meters of water behind a 4.5 km ring dam enclosing about 135 hectares. This is not a minor change in land use. It is a major industrial transformation of a military site with a deeply contested history. The Agency should specifically examine the historical ...

Report

Attachment Submissions Opposing

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Joyce Gateman
  • Reference number: 291
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 8:49 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I agree with all the submissions opposing the pumped storage project in Meaford. There are numerous reasons and concerns to investigate this TC Energy project. The digging and tunnelling on active DND occupied land is most concerning to me. The disturbance of unexploded ordnance, the risks of toxic laden soil and the runoff to our precious fresh water. A body of water which is the life line to hundreds of communities around Georgian Bay and Lake Huron. Submission #167 - City of Owen Sound supported, with conditions, the TC Energy project. To quote, “City of Owen Sound is pleased to conditionally support this project, which promises significant environmental, economic, and societal benefits.” Promises significant environmental, economic and societal benefits. Who can promise significant environmental benefits? TCE? What promise? When has the environment every benefited from any 7+ billion project? This proponent has failed to answer many basic questions over the last 7-8 years. I was hoping to see a public submission from the Meaford Mayor, Deputy Mayor or any of the councillors who voted conditionally to support the TCE project in February 2023!  I would appreciate hearing the supporting council's reasoning as to why they believed TCE would benefit Meaford, especially when the majority of residents were against the project and voted the council in, based on their campaign to oppose the pumped storage project. Was it the Community Benefit Agreement proposed by TC Energy? The IESO has twice turned down this project, explaining that there is no benefit to the taxpayers of Ontario. ...

Report

Attachment Have you thought about the environment and how this will affect future generations! It doesn’t appear that you have

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Susan Arnold
  • Reference number: 290
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 8:22 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • have you thought about what this is going to do to the water and our environment. We need to consider future generations and the quality of life they're going to have

Report

Attachment Comments to the IAAC regarding TC Energy's pumped storage proposal --IAAC registry number 89803

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Administrator on behalf of Clair Balfour
  • Reference number: 324
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 8:17 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Dear Ms. McLeod Norberg:   In accordance with a March 6 email from you, I am sending my comments plus three supporting documents regarding TC Energy's proposed pumped storage (hydropower) project in Meaford, Ont.   The first document is a copy of an email received Feb. 2 from HUB International insurance which is simply copied on this email. It concerns the non-availability of flood insurance coverage.   The second is an attachment to this email from Hunter and Associates and is being included for images H.3.1 and H.3.2, which outline the Torrential Flood Zone below TC Energy's proposed reservoir and the properties and homes that would be at risk.   The third is a single image which highlights many of the residential properties below the proposed reservoir and can be read with the larger Hunter and Associates document.   These items are referenced on page 3 of my comments.   Thank you.   Sincerely,     Clair Balfour <email address removed> <personal information removed>           FEB. 2, NOTE RE INSURANCE COVERAGE FROM HUB INTERNATIONAL Good morning Clair,   Below are the answers to your questions:   What happens if the Dam ...
  • Attachment included
  • Please see the attachment to view the content.
  • Attachment included
  • COMMENTS TO THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT AGENCY OF CANADA From: Clair Balfour, a Meaford property owner whose land borders TC Energy’s proposed pumped storage project site Re IAAC Registry Number 89803 April 6, 2026 I am writing as a homeowner on the 7th Line in Meaford, Ontario, one of approximately 300 property owners—an estimated 800 to 1,000 residents—living directly below the planned 135-hectare reservoir that is central to TC Energy’s proposed Pumped Storage Project on the 4th Canadian Division Training Centre (Project No 89803 for which the Initial Project Description was registered with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on February 24, 2026). The IPD and its executive summary total 289 pages. Despite that length, the documents are noteworthy for one thing: their lack of concrete factual information. There are frequent references to studies initiated or undertaken by TC Energy, many as far back as 2020, but almost no actual data or findings from those studies are included. In regard to potential environmental harms, the IPD claims repeatedly that “mitigation measures”—no further details—will be taken if necessary or, more vaguely, if feasible. There is no total cost affixed to the project, no definitive mode or route chosen for its transmission lines, no formal risk assessment and no plans whatsoever for emergency measures, evacuation or compensation in the event of a catastrophic failure. What then are member of the public supposed to comment on? This IPD is largely a declaration of incomplete plans for a multi-billion-dollar megaproject by a corporation with a questionable safety record that says: “Trust us.” It is unworthy of the IAAC and the current ...
  • Attachment included
  • Ms. Eve McLeod Norberg E-MAIL A/Project Manager, Ontario Region Eve.McleodNorberg@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Impact Assessment Agency of Canada ottawasaga@iaac-aeic.gc.ca VISUALS Under the Reservoir Impact Group Georgian Bay Pumped Storage IAAC Ref No. 69-803 Comments on the Initial Project Description Released on March 6, 2026 by the IACC TC Energy Proposed Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project Near Meaford, Ontario, on Nottawasaga Bay (Georgian Bay) Prepared by: Garry T. Hunter, M.A.Sc., P.Eng. Environmental Systems Planner, Hydrogeologist and Civil Engineer Hunter and Associates April 6, 2026 Our File No.: 22-402 mailto:Eve.McleodNorberg@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Ms. Eve McLeod Norberg A/Project Manager, Ontario Region Impact Assessment Agency of Canada April 6, 2026 FIGURE INDEX 1.0 Proponent's Conceptual Key Project Components Fig H.1.1 Preliminary Project Components and Conceptual Rendering (Stantec) 2.0 Civilian Lands - Site Photos Fig H.2.1 Fractured Karstic Dolostone Outcrop - County Rd 12 and 25 Sideroad area - Typical of IPD Proposed Reservoir Site Fig H.2.2 Warren Hill Creek discharge to Georgian Bay. Turbid storm and meltwater flows originating from headwater riparian valley erosion on DND lands (Sideroad 30) Typical shoreline ‘dug well’ water supplies below the DND Pumped Storage Project Fig H.2.3 Taum Sauk Hydroelectric Power Station (Missouri) Ring Dam Reservoir Failure and Replacement 3.0 Potential Reservoir Breach Torrential Flooding Hazard Envelope Fig H.3.1 Hazard Envelope Fig H.3.2 Parcel / Residence Count 4.0 Ludington Pumped Storage Reservoir ...
Report

Attachment Immediate Air shed Bylaw, no time to wait.

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Joseph Leung
  • Reference number: 289
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 7:49 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Resident of Annan, Sydenham for 24 years and I am concerned about many issues, this issue is very important to Protect Air- quality in case this project is approved. As Residents we have the right to protect our Health. The municipality has the responsibility to pass Bylaws, and Air Quality is one of those.  A good Example is Oakville, Ontario where TCE was building a 900MW Gas plant. In September 2009, the Ontario Power Authority ( OPA announced it had accepted TransCanada' bid to build The Natural gas- fired power generation facility on Ford- owned lands in southeast Oakville , near Royal Windsor and Ford Drives. The Town of Oakville was not consulted prior to the announcement. This development acted as a catalyst for the town to take more direct action to address a growing concern in the Oakville community poor Air Quality. The town hired Dr. David Balsillie.  His report's fourth recommendation calls for all applications for Provincial certification of approval for new industrial activities that will increase polluting emissions within the Airshed, including the proposed TransCanada power plant, to be considered in light of the current capacity of the Airshed. The town filed an application with the Ontario government under the Environmental Bill of Rights ( ERB) asking the government to institute a new regulation under the Environmental Protection Act ( EPA)- or a new Air Pollution act if needed be- that effectively regulates the emissions of Airborne Fine PM to protect communities from adverse health effects..The requested regulation would establish a limit on the level of concentration of Fine PM in affected airshed based on known health ...

Report

Attachment Strongly oppose the Ontario PSP

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Tina Veer
  • Reference number: 288
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 7:42 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I am deeply concerned about the proposed TCE pumped storage project and strongly oppose its approval. At its core, this project does not make economic sense. The IESO has already rejected it twice on the basis that it does not provide economic benefit to ratepayers. That alone should be sufficient reason to halt further consideration. What is difficult to understand is how a project deemed economically unfeasible at earlier cost estimates continues to advance as projected costs increase, not decrease. Initial figures in the billions have already risen significantly, with estimates now reaching approximately $7 billion and potentially climbing toward $10 billion, as is common with projects of this scale. However, no detailed feasibility study or cost analysis has been completed regarding the remediation of the heavily contaminated land at the site, and it remains unclear whether, or to what extent, those costs are reflected in current projections. In other words, the project has already been found not to make economic sense while significant potential costs remain unquantified. Proceeding under those conditions represents a fundamental failure of due diligence and responsible fiscal planning. There is also the question of project experience and execution risk. TC Energy does not have a demonstrated track record in developing projects of this specific type and scale. That raises additional concerns about cost overruns, delays, and overall project delivery, all of which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers. In addition, the company has faced past environmental controversies, which raises further concern about environmental risk management on a project of this complexity and ...

Report

Attachment Serious concerns and suggestions

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: SVS Canada Inc.
  • Reference number: 287
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 7:40 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • After a limited time to review the proponent's proposal (30 days), we provide our submission for your review. Given more time, we would certainly provide further information and a more detailed review if necessary. We are disappointed that a longer review period has not been granted, since the proponent has had years to prepare for this project. From the information provided by the proponent, we have determined that this project is a financial incentive for the proponent and a significant risk and setback for the taxpayers of Ontario, who are funding it.  It has become difficult to overturn despite extreme opposition over the last few years, but it now raises serious questions for all Georgian Bay residents and wildlife.  The threat to health and safety for financial gains or losses is an extreme risk. If any of the following situations occur during the project or at its completion, they can be difficult to reverse, both environmentally and financially. Table of Concerns: Please review the attached document for details that cover the following: 1. Liability and accountability for damages 2. The Adam Beck Generating Station 3. Construction concerns 4. Financial risk and future projections 5. Fish entrapment due to high intake rates 6. Effects on Tourism 7. Fish contamination 8. Fish Reproduction Turbidity 9. CO2 savings and creation after completion vs. during construction 10. Electrical Power usage for turbine ...
  • Attachment included
  • Mr. Stefan Skocylas, Regulatory Lead Ontario Pumped Storage Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 600-55 York Street Toronto, Ontario M5J 1R7 April 5, 2026 Review of: Project No. 89803, TC Energy Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project After a limited time to review the proponent's proposal (30 days), we provide our submission for your review. Given more time, we would certainly provide further information and a more detailed review if necessary. We are disappointed that a longer review period has not been granted, since the proponent has had years to prepare for this project. From the information provided by the proponent, we have determined that this project is a financial incentive for the proponent and a significant risk and setback for the taxpayers of Ontario, who are funding it. It has become difficult to overturn despite extreme opposition over the last few years, but it now raises serious questions for all Georgian Bay residents and wildlife. The threat to health and safety for financial gains or losses is an extreme risk. If any of the following situations occur during the project or at its completion, they can be difficult to reverse, both environmentally and financially. Table of Concerns: 1. Liability and accountability for damages 2. The Adam Beck Generating Station 3. Construction concerns 4. Financial risk and future projections 5. Fish entrapment due to high intake rates 6. Effects on Tourism 7. Fish contamination 8. Fish Reproduction Turbidity 9. CO2 savings and creation after completion vs. during construction 10. Electrical Power usage for turbine pumps 11. ...
Report

Attachment Better options are available

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Jerry Primak
  • Reference number: 286
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 7:33 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I oppose the building of a Pumped Storage Project in Meaford for many reasons. The cost of an estimated 7 billion will be much higher as happens with all projects of this size. The increase in the price of fuel because of the war with further drive up prices Twice IESO turned down the proposal and this was ignored. The fresh water from Georgian Bay and the Great Lakes is an essential long term resource and we must protect it . It is everyones responsibility . DND has tested the soil on the base in the past and found contaminents that will leach into the drinking water of wells and the Meaford water intake nearby.  TCE has never done a project like this , how many things could go wrong. How safe is a reservoir above 300 homes? Where will the workers live during the build? Will women and children be exploited by a "man camp" Will the transmission lines go under Georgian Bay or overland on the Niagara Escarpment , both option are harmful eoither to the  fish population or loss of habitat for wildlife.   The DND  property has been deemed unsuitable for critical National Defence infrastructure and in the 1970's residents of Meaford were told there were too many contaminents and unexploded ordnances on the site to be safe for use as a Park or returned to the over 100 families who were expropriated from this land in 1942.  I am concerned about the air pollution during the long building phase . How many truck loads of materials will be travelling to and from the site with the dust and diesel fumes being breathed in by our children . There are cheaper and less invasive ways to produce electricity. The damage done to the Niagara ...

Report

Attachment Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Ken Nix
  • Reference number: 285
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 7:24 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I am writing today to ask that a full Impact Assessment be done for the Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project. This project is proposed in response to the projected increase in demand for electricity in the Province of Ontario and is projected to provide an additional 1000 MW at an initial cost of close to $7+Billion. Recognizing the need to explore additional capacity options, this appears to be an expensive project that will cost more per kW than other options. The project delivers only a small portion of the projected need for additional generation capacity and may have potential consequences in many areas. The Impact Assessment considers the consequences of major projects on the environment and on society. I understand there are concerns raised by the public and subject matter experts regarding the environment and health impacts. I would like to focus more on the societal and long term economic effects and mitigation measures. Everyone recognizes there will be an inflow of wealth into the community in the short term during the construction phase, which is great. The short term the inflow of wealth will benefit the broader business community and provide potential short term employment opportunities in the area, but a broader understanding of the longer-term impacts is needed. Homelessness, and poverty are a challenge in many municipalities in Ontario, including Meaford to some extent. The inflow of wealth and competition for accommodation can be expected to increase rents and accommodation expenses which can negatively affect the financially marginalized community. My concern is better understanding the long-term wealth benefits and potential ...

Report

Attachment Environmental Impact statement

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Collin Young
  • Reference number: 284
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 7:12 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • As someone who spends a lot of time on Georgian Bay through sailing and tourism, I’m paying close attention to the proposed pumped storage project in Meaford.   Healthy water isn’t optional here—it supports our entire coastal community, from marinas and charter operators to fishing and tourism.   One concern that stands out is the potential disturbance of mercury-bearing sediments. Research shows that when these are disrupted, they can convert into methylmercury, a toxin that builds up in fish and the food chain.   If this risk hasn’t been fully assessed yet, it deserves careful, independent review.   It also raises a bigger question: do we really need this project here, in this location? When risks remain uncertain, they may outweigh the benefits.   This isn’t about opposing development—it’s about making sure we fully understand the long-term impact before moving forward.   Georgian Bay is worth getting this right.   #GeorgianBay #Sailing #Tourism #GreatLakes #EnvironmentalStewardship

Report

Attachment The pumped storage proposal poses undue risk for human and aquatic life

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Karri North
  • Reference number: 283
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 6:04 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • It is by now well understood that fish species, such as the Gizzard Shad, are drawn to areas of water warmed by industrial processes on the shoreline, such as the Bruce Nuclear plants on Lake Huron. In February this year, millions of Gizzard Shad were killed within the intake structure of Bruce A (Gowan, 2025; Environment Office SON, 2025). When water sits in a reservoir, it is warmed by the land that surrounds it and the sun that shines down upon it. When that warmed water is returned via turbines, to the bay, how can we adequately predict how the temperature change might impact the marine life habitats existing nearby? What contaminants picked up from the land might be shuttled into these same sensitive environments?      A study by Yasuda and Watanabe (2016), analyzing serious incidents at hydropower plants in Japan, highlights that pumped storage plants experienced at least double (and in many cases 3 times) the probability for failure than hydroelectric plants built along naturally flowing water systems, such as rivers. They also detail that the majority of serious incidents are caused by machinery degradation and flooding issues. Secondary incidents involve the clogging of valves, jamming of turbines, oil leakages, and the detachment of machinery parts. The story of the Taum Sauk Dam - a reservoir-to-reservoir pumped storage facility in Missouri - cautions as to how only a single system failure can result in widespread environmental disaster, particularly when there are humans and habitats living below. Given the lessons of past failures, and current information about the probability for error, it seems ill-advised at best and inhumane at worst to even consider ...

Report

Attachment Comments for the Initial Project Description — Ontario Pumped Storage Project 89803

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Save Georgian Bay Association
  • Reference number: 282
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 5:56 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • Save Georgian Bay Association (SGB) submits that TC Energy’s Initial Project Description (IPD) for the proposed 1,000-MW open-loop pumped storage project at 4 CDTC Meaford is materially incomplete and does not provide sufficient information for IAAC or the public to assess potential adverse effects under section 22 of the Impact Assessment Act. Key project components, baseline environmental and geotechnical conditions, associated infrastructure, and cumulative effects are inadequately defined or deferred. The submission identifies threshold failures related to site suitability on karst escarpment terrain, legacy contamination risks on an active military base, impacts on fish and species at risk, groundwater and dam safety concerns, and exclusion of transmission and ancillary works from scope. Procedural concerns include constrained public participation, deferral of Indigenous rights and knowledge, and regulatory sequencing issues. Independent IESO determinations finding insufficient ratepayer value are material to the assessment of project need and public interest. SGB submits that the IPD raises a reasonable basis to conclude the project may cause significant adverse environmental effects within federal jurisdiction and requests a comprehensive Impact Assessment, preferably by a Review Panel, before any further advancement.
  • Attachment included
  • 4/ 4/ 20 26 1 Appendix A – Municipal and Council Resolutions Opposing the TC Energy Pumped Storage Project (Submitted as contextual information only; not relied upon as technical evidence) Purpose of this Appendix This appendix provides supporting contextual information regarding municipal and stakeholder concerns related to the proposed Ontario Pumped Storage Project. The materials included here demonstrate the geographic breadth and consistency of concerns expressed across the Georgian Bay region, particularly with respect to environmental risk, water quality, Species at Risk, and information sufficiency. Save Georgian Bay submits these materials as context only. The primary basis of this submission remains the deficiencies identified in the Initial Project Description (IPD) and the absence of information required for assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. Appendix A-1: Township of The Archipelago – Resolution No. 23-189 (November 17, 2023) Document included: Resolution of the Township of The Archipelago Council opposing the TC Energy Pumped Storage Project on Georgian Bay. Summary: This resolution formally opposes the Project, citing the IESO’s recommendation that the project not proceed due to poor financial value for Ontario, potential irreversible environmental harm, impacts to tourism and fisheries, and the failure of DND to remediate contamination at the military base. The resolution urges both the Ministry of Energy and DND to halt support for the Project and to remediate the site. Appendix A-2: Town of The Blue Mountains – Council Support for Archipelago Resolution (December 18, 2023) 4/ 4/ 20 26 2 Document included: Extracts from ...
  • Attachment included
  • 4/ 4/ 20 26 1 The Save Georgian Bay Association 102 Ross Street Meaford, Ontario N4L 1W7 March 19, 2026 By email to: Nottawasaga@iaac-aeic.gc.ca CC: MinisterEnergy@ontario.ca mikeschreiner@gpo.ca alex.ruff@parl.gc.ca Terence Hubbard, President Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Place Bell Canada 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Re: Public Comments on the Initial Project Description — Ontario Pumped Storage Project Canadian Impact Assessment Registry No. 89803 Proponent: TransCanada Energy Ltd. (TC Energy or TCE) IPD Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd., Project No. 123515349 IPD Date: February 24, 2026 Comment Period Deadline: April 6, 2026 Dear President Hubbard, The Save Georgian Bay Association (SGB) submits these comments on TC Energy’s (TCE) Initial Project Description (IPD) 89803, for the proposed 1,000 MW open-loop pumped storage hydropower project on the shore of Georgian Bay at the Department of National Defence’s (DND) 4th Canadian Division Training Centre (4CDTC*) near Meaford, Ontario (Cape Rich area). This submission is made on behalf of our grass roots volunteer-based organization, incorporated as a non-profit with core membership in Meaford and supporters throughout the Georgian Bay region. SGB has studied this proposal since 2019, when 70 local residents first learned of it, during an August 31, 2019 community meeting in which many questions and concerns were expressed. We have since conducted extensive research on pumped storage, energy storage and this proposal, hosted dozens of information sessions, gathered over 40,000 petition signatures on Change.org plus 3,500 local signatures, collaborated with allied ...
  • Attachment included
  • 4/ 4/ 20 26 5 Appendix B – Select Contextual Correspondence and Reference Material (Included selectively; not relied upon as technical evidence) Appendix B-1: Technical Correspondence on Subsurface Conditions and Contaminant Pathways Document Included • Correspondence from Andy Metelka, Sound and Vibration Solutions Canada Inc. Contextual Summary This correspondence discusses geophysical methods relevant to characterizing complex subsurface conditions at the Meaford site, including the identification of clay layers, shale, bedrock, and potential contaminant pathways using techniques such as ground-penetrating radar (GPR), electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), seismic methods, and targeted borehole sampling. The correspondence is provided for context regarding possible approaches to site characterization in complex geology and does not constitute a formal study or analysis. Figure 5.2 - Conditionality Table (60 Examples) 1–20 21–40 41–60 1. Section 8 “TC Energy does not anticipate… however, this will be confirmed as the assessment of the Project progresses.” 21. Section 6.2 “Project components may be adjusted based on ongoing engineering…” 41. Section 6.1 “Project layout may evolve as design progresses.” 2. Section 8 “It is anticipated that releasing this water…” 22. Section 6.2 “Final design details will be determined…” 42. Section 6.1 “Specific locations will be confirmed during detailed design.” 3. Section 8 “Site-specific studies… may be a component…” 23. Section 6.2 “Infrastructure requirements are being refined…” 43. Section 6.1 “Facility dimensions may vary depending on engineering outcomes.” 4. Section 8 “…may be ...
  • Attachment included
  • 4/ 4/ 20 26 1 Appendix D – Environmental Reference Materials Appendix D-1: Acoustic Survey for Endangered Bats – Meaford, Ontario (2023) Document included: Survey for Endangered Bats: Meaford, Ontario – An acoustic survey of the local bat community, prepared by Susan L. Holroyd, M.Sc., for Save Georgian Bay Association, October 2023. Contextual summary: This acoustic bat survey was conducted in August 2023 in the Niagara Escarpment and Georgian Bay shoreline area northwest of Meaford, within a few kilometres of the proposed Ontario Pumped Storage Project site. Using stationary acoustic monitoring and a driving transect in accordance with North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) protocols, the study documented relatively high bat diversity and activity levels across the survey area. Endangered bat species detected include Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and Tricolored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus), both listed as Endangered under provincial and federal legislation. Migratory bat species — Hoary Bat, Eastern Red Bat, and Silver-haired Bat — were also detected at relatively high levels; these migratory species were assessed by COSEWIC as Endangered in May 2023 and are under consideration for protection under the federal Species at Risk Act. The study identifies the Meaford area as providing high-quality summer roosting and foraging habitat, in close proximity to known and potential hibernation sites associated with the Niagara Escarpment. The report notes that this combination of habitat features may represent a local bat biodiversity hotspot and identifies potential sensitivity to large-scale land disturbance, artificial lighting at night, habitat loss, and alteration of ...
  • Attachment included
  • Please see the attachment to view the content.
Report

Attachment Request for Impact Assessment

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: J Khosla
  • Reference number: 281
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 5:43 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • As someone in their mid-twenties, the decision to proceed with the project is extremely disappointing. To think about how long this water source has existed as a thriving ecosystem, and now to think that this will be the generation to destroy that. I urge the representatives of this area to leave a positive influence on the Country and Province they vowed to serve. Seeing all the effects of a warming climate on the quality and quantity of freshwater should make us want to protect it. The knowledge that Meaford’s most integral tourism pull is going to be harmed, does not invite new citizens. It’s going to drive away the youth who will not see a reason to remain here or return here in the future. Though pricy, Battery Energy Storage Systems would reduce the environmental impact and would not require the same plot of land as the PSS. Therefore leaving the escarpment ecosystems and Georgian Bay (plus all connected waters) unharmed. 

Report

Attachment Questions Regarding the TCE Pumped Storage Project

  • Ontario Pumped Storage Hydropower Project
  • Author: Sheila Ryan
  • Reference number: 280
  • Submitted: 2026-04-06 - 5:42 PM
  • Project phase: Planning
  • Participation notice: Public notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
  • I strongly object to this prject or many reasons. I have lived my entire life at Woodland Beach which is located across from Meaford on Georgian Bay. My comments would only reflect the numerous thoughts and feelings posited by our very concerned community.  I would particularly highlight the submission by Maura Ryan regarding the immensely troubling construction of this palnned storage facility. I have questions that I need to ask: 1. It appears that many consider these types of facilities a necessary and viable source of energy.  Many of these plants are or have been operating for a number of years in many countries as well as our own. Location is the first decision to be made and the paramount decision before any proposed facility can be considered. In a province as vast as ours, have all other locations been investigated? Why Meaford and the Niagara Escarpment before all others?  Why touch such pristine water much less the numerous impacts on our social and environmental fabric? 2.  According to a 2023 Stantec assessment report, the importance of completed design work, experienced contractors, available skilled and productive workforce and an effective supply chain are paramount for safety and efficiency. Will the facility be impeccable in construction and application?  What professional agency/organization will provide meticulous oversight during the massive construction?  Who will be the caretakers in future years?  Will the structures stand the test of time?  Waht upgrades will be needed to be done in the future?  The Ludington Plant in Michigan is experiencing great issues with their latest upgrade.  a court case is presently ...

Report

Date submitted Display filters

Filters

Consultation typesDisplay filters

Project phaseDisplay filters

Participation noticesDisplay filters

Report a problem on this page
Date modified: