Municipalities were given a veto, and they’re using it

This article was written by Marco Chown Oved and was published in the Toronto Star on November 30, 2023.

Local municipal councils in Eastern Ontario rejected one new gas plant but welcomed another this week, complicating the province’s plan to build new fossil fuel projects.

At a meeting on Monday evening, Loyalist Township declined to support a new gas plant, with councillors saying they could not support energy projects that both pollute local air and make climate change worse.

“We should not entertain at all any fossil fuel developments in our township,” said Loyalist Coun. Paul Proderick.

On Tuesday, Napanee council endorsed a bid by Atura power — a subsidiary of the publicly-owned Ontario Power Generation — to build a new gas plant in their community, citing the growing demand for electricity.

“I believe we are going to need more power than wind and solar (are going to be able to provide),” said Napanee Coun. Dave Pinnell Jr.

The conflicting decisions testify to the way that energy planning in Ontario has transformed from a top-down decree to a courtship road show, in which energy planners and electricity developers have to make their cases to each and every community where they want to build.

In Napanee, Atura offered annual payments of $400,000 as part of its pitch to get the town to accept a new gas plant.

The local votes went from being a courtesy to a requirement when Premier Doug Ford promised to give locals a veto over new energy projects in their communities.

While pitched as a way to combat wind and solar farms, the new found local power has evolved into a way to stymie fossil fuel projects.

“Essentially, we have a veto,” said Loyalist Coun. Lorna Willis.

And communities across the province have been using it.

In addition to Loyalist township, Thorold, in Niagara region, rejected a new gas plant in September. Last January, Windsor became the first community in the province to welcome a new gas plant.

All these communities already host gas plants. Loyalist township is close to three: Lennox, Kingston and Napanee.

“This area has probably shouldered its fair share of poor air quality,” said Loyalist Coun. Jake Ennis. “The community has strongly raised concerns, particularly with regard to the expansion of the cogeneration plant, and concerns with environmental impacts and impacts on human health.”

Dr. Mili Roy, co-chair of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE), Ontario, said the cavalcade of municipalities rejecting gas plants is heartening to see.

“I hope we’re going to see a domino effect where a no vote in one municipality empowers the next municipality to stand up and say no as well,” she said.

CAPE has been speaking out against natural gas expansion because of its serious implications for human health.

“Natural gas is not a benign bridge fuel, it’s methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas,” she said.

“Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face around the world.”

Aric McBay, a campaigner with the Providence Centre for Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation, said the case against gas plants is based on three arguments: health, climate and economics.

Healthwise, the toxic pollutants that emerge from the smokestacks of gas plants have been linked to preterm births, increased hospitalization and a higher incidence of childhood asthma. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, air pollution causes more than 15,000 premature deaths each year.

From a climate point of view, natural gas was once hailed as a transition fuel that would help wean the world off fossil fuels while emitting less carbon than coal. Unfortunately, research now shows that natural gas actually produces just as much greenhouse gasses as coal when all the methane leaks in the extraction and pipeline system are factored in.

Economically, the volatility of global fossil fuel prices contrasts dramatically with the consistently dropping price of renewables, making natural gas one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity and wind one of the cheapest. Layered on top of that is the province’s promise to pay gas plants to sit idle if they are forced to shut down due to the federal government’s clean electricity regulations.

“These plants, if expanded, would harm the health of regular people, put greater burdens on our health care system and needlessly delay a transition to renewable energy. All the while making the cost of living more expensive for regular Ontarians,” McBay said.

As a Star investigation revealed last month, Ontario’s gas plants run far more often than advertised. In downtown Toronto, the Portlands gas plant ran 21 hours a day last summer.

As a result, Ontario’s electricity grid, which is one of the cleanest in North America, is getting far dirtier. Projections put out by the IESO show that gas plant use — and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions — is set to triple in the next three years.

This rise in electricity emissions risks undermining efforts to reduce carbon in virtually every other sector.

“The plans of most municipalities and most organizations and even individuals to decarbonize depends on electrification. That’s been the push in really every sector from home heating and cooling to the steel industry,” said McBay.

“If the amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels increases instead of decreases, then it’s going to not only harm the planet and the health of people, but it’s going to undermine our efforts to fight climate change in the long term. And more specifically, it will actually deceive regular people because it will make us think that we’re fighting climate change with electrification when we’re just consuming fracked natural gas without even realizing it.”

The IESO said more gas plants in the short term is compatible with moving to net zero by 2035.

“We do need to add some gas as we move through the energy transition,” said Chuck Farmer, chief energy transition officer and vicepresident, planning, conservation & resource adequacy at IESO.

“We are supporting an orderly transition to a net zero electricity system and economy in a way that balances reliability and affordability.”

Over the last 20 years, electricity demand has been flat in Ontario. But in the next 20 years, the IESO projects a need for at least 40 per cent more power.

“There is an urgent need to get infrastructure built to ensure we meet the growing needs of the province,” he said.

Three new battery and electric vehicle plants alone will use as much energy as the entire city of London, Farmer said.

The grid “is a key enabler of decarbonization in other sectors of our economy. But it does need to increase in size to support electric vehicles, people switching to heat pumps and the electrification of industrial processes. And the emissions reductions we’re achieving from those efforts are greater than the incremental emissions that we will see from new natural gas generation.”

Gas will be needed into the early 2030s, at which point it will be replaced with a combination of energy conservation and new non-emitting generation, like wind, solar and hydro, Farmer said.

“All of these things will contribute to our net zero future. But they will take time to deploy and we need incremental generation now,” he said.

Jack Gibbons, a former commissioner with Toronto Hydro and the Chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, said he hopes Ford will start listening to the municipalities that don’t want more gas plants.

“Municipalities are fighting back and saying no to new gas fired power plants. This is great news and shows very clearly that Doug Ford’s plans don’t make political or economic sense. It’s time for the province to rethink how we’re going to meet our provincial power needs. We need to look to Quebec which will be massively expanding its electricity grid with 100 per cent renewable power.”

‘‘

I hope we’re going to see a domino effect where a no vote in one municipality empowers the next municipality to stand up and say no as well.

DR. MILI ROY CO-CHAIR OF CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS