IESO: Regional Electricity Planning in the Northwest Region – June 11, 2026

By Linda Heron on Wednesday, July 1st, 2026

The Chute, First Falls, Ivanhoe River – Photo by Mark Clement

During the June 11 webinar, ORA asked why wind, solar, and battery energy storage systems (BESS) could not supply some remote communities directly, rather than waiting on long transmission builds, when those resources are cheaper, cleaner, and faster to deploy. The IESO answered that this is “exactly the kind of options and considerations this planning process is meant to consider,” and confirmed that such supply resources “can certainly be done in a shorter timeframe” and “are a key aspect to helping address some of those more near-term needs” for remote communities.¹ ORA welcomes that answer and writes to ensure it is carried into the demand forecast, the scenarios, and the plan that follows.

Continue reading →

North Shore Link Project (Mississagi TS to Third Line TS) Draft Environmental Study Report

By Linda Heron on Thursday, June 11th, 2026

Posted in Electricity Act, Ontario Energy Board Act, Transmission, IESO, Bulk Planning, ORA Submissions, Climate Change, River Concerns, Government, Rivers at Risk, Energy, Fisheries, Mining, Environmental Assessment Act, Species at Risk

The Project is being advanced as a designated “priority project”, and that designation matters. Under the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) grants leave to construct a transmission line only if the work is in the public interest, but the OEB may, by law, consider only a narrow public interest: the interests of consumers with respect to the price, reliability, and quality of electricity service. The OEB does not weigh environmental effects, which are left to the Class Environmental Assessment for Transmission Facilities (2024) (Class EA), and because the provincial government has declared this Project a “priority project”, the OEB must accept that the Project is needed; it does not test need at all. The Class EA gives the public no ability to request that the decision be elevated to a Comprehensive Environmental Assessment, and the comments received during this 30-day window are reviewed and resolved by the proponent, Hydro One Networks Inc. The result is that no independent body weighs whether this line, on this route, at this cost, and with these environmental effects, is the right choice for the public, while ratepayers and taxpayers carry the full and long-term cost.

Continue reading →

IESO: North of Sudbury Bulk Planning Update

By Linda Heron on Tuesday, May 26th, 2026

Posted in Bulk Planning, IESO, Electricity Act, ORA Submissions, Hydroelectric, Regulatory, River Concerns, Dams, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Industry, GHG Emissions, Regulatory Submissions

The IESO’s own planning documents are the appropriate starting point. The May 20, 2026, presentation states on slide 24: “A large share of supply resources in the area is hydroelectric, which is energy-limited and cannot be relied on at full output in all hours.”¹ Slide 30 states: “Hydroelectric supply resources are energy-limited and cannot be relied on to meet demand in all hours or conditions.” The planning engineer presenting the NOS plan confirmed verbally at the May 20 webinar that “These hydro facilities are largely river-based, so they have limited storage, meaning their output depends on water availability, so they cannot be relied on at all times.”

Against that backdrop, the Province’s April 9, 2025, media release describes the proposed Nine Mile Rapids and Grand Rapids generating stations, together up to 430 MW, as providing “affordable, reliable, and clean electricity” and “24/7 power for families and businesses,” and characterizes hydroelectricity as “a reliable source of emissions-free power.” ORA places both sets of statements on the formal planning and procurement record. The contradiction between what the IESO’s own planning staff have documented and what the Province and industry have announced to the public is not a minor discrepancy. It goes to the core of whether the plan’s generation assumptions are honest and forthright, and whether the long-term ratepayer commitments contemplated here rest on an accurate foundation.

Continue reading →

IESO: South and Central Bulk Planning Update Webinar-April 30, 2016

By Linda Heron on Thursday, May 21st, 2026

Posted in Bulk Planning, IESO, Hydroelectric, ORA Submissions, Regulatory, River Concerns, Dams, Energy, Government, Rivers at Risk, Fisheries, GHG Emissions, Regulatory Submissions, Species at Risk, Water Quality

Wabagishik Rapids, Vermilion River

Within those parameters, the IESO’s conclusion was nonetheless unambiguous: “a non-emitting, hybrid resource portfolio, in theory, shows significant promise. It can provide both baseload and peak power with reasonably high, albeit imperfect, reliability, and potentially at costs that are competitive with gas and nuclear generation.” The hybrid resource portfolio option of wind, solar and battery storage is estimated to cost between $44 billion and $53 billion, with a build-out of 13,500 MW to 16,800 MW achieving 99.5 percent to 99.98 percent of the peak load served.

Continue reading →

IESO: Bulk Planning Update Webinar (Eastern Ontario Bulk Plan) – December 12, 2025

By Linda Heron on Friday, January 23rd, 2026

Posted in Bulk Planning, IESO, Biodiversity, Sustainability, ORA Submissions, Hydroelectric, Aquatic Life, Climate Change, Dams, River Concerns, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Fisheries, Flooding, GHG Emissions, Regulatory Submissions, Water Quality

ORA submits that Eastern bulk planning must not function as a backdoor implementation tool for the Province’s post-election “Energy Superpower” agenda. Voters, and ultimately ratepayers, did not authorize a supply-expansion and export trajectory. The IESO must therefore clearly distinguish between reinforcements required to meet demonstrated Ontario reliability needs and those designed to enable speculative industrial growth or new generation development pathways—particularly high-impact hydropower expansion. Bulk planning must not be used to pre-build capacity and corridors for an export-oriented supply surplus.

ORA further submits that the Province’s “Energy Superpower” framing is economically reckless and directly contrary to ratepayer interests. Ontario households have already experienced a significant electricity price shock: the Ontario Energy Board increased Regulated Price Plan electricity prices effective November 1, 2025 (widely reported as a ~29% increase), while the Province simultaneously increased the Ontario Electricity Rebate from 13.1% to 23.5% in an apparent effort to buffer bill impacts. This is not a stable affordability moment to hard-wire major new system-expansion costs into Ontario’s electricity future.

Ratepayers are already experiencing significant affordability impacts, including sharp increases in total electricity bills since November 2025, even after provincial rebates. For example, a residential Hydro One customer’s Hydro bill from December 2025–January 2026 shows total charges of $642.33 for 4,177 kWh, including an Ontario Electricity Rebate of –$168.66 and “Total Ontario support” of $321.67 — confirming that rising system costs are increasingly being masked through subsidies rather than avoided through least-cost planning. This illustrates the structural affordability problem: costs are rising sharply, and rebates are being increased to mask the impact rather than reduce the underlying drivers.

Continue reading →

IESO: Bulk Planning for Sudbury North and Eastern Ontario

By Linda Heron on Friday, October 31st, 2025

Posted in IESO, Bulk Planning, Competition Act - Greenwashing, Hydroelectric, ORA Submissions, Regulatory, River Concerns, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Government, Industry, GHG Emissions, Water Quality

In October 2024, the provincial government officially set out the goal of becoming an “Energy Superpower” in its energy strategy. It stands to reason that the plot on slide 6 showing a 15% increase in electricity demand forecast between 2024 and 2025 is as a result of that declaration, rather than an actual increase in projected demand. It was a huge increase in forecasted energy needs in just one year.

In October 2025 many reports indicate that Canada is in a period of significant economic slow-down with risks of recession. Consequently, there are uncertainties about the immediate and long-term future. In addition, billion dollar deals with Stellantis and Nexstar are causing even more uncertainty.

Do we really want to jump the gun with additional hydroelectric projects that would commit the province to funding the planning of these boondoggle projects in such an uncertain climate? Especially when the province is proposing legislation to place partnering Indigenous’ upfront planning costs on the shoulders of ratepayers?

Continue reading →