IESO: Long-Term 2 RFP – August 20, 2026

By Linda Heron on Monday, August 31st, 2026

Big Falls – Victory – stopped a proposed hydroelectric project on a sacred site!

MEM knows. Its own policy paper calls hydroelectricity non-dispatchable with limited to no flexibility, records the surplus it helps create and the exports sold at or below zero, and concedes that new hydroelectric generation needs longer lead times and long-term certainty than other resources.¹⁵ The policy framework actually driving this procurement is worse. The Ministry’s June 2025 Energy for Generations makes no mention of climate change at all.³¹ ORA said so in its filed feedback of 12 March 2026, and says it again: an electricity plan that does not read the province’s own climate science is not planning.⁵ Ontario’s own Climate Change Impact Assessment, published by another ministry of the same government, rates electrical power generation infrastructure in the highest-risk category for all future time periods, and names increasing temperatures and reduced hydroelectric output as a consequence of drought.¹²

That assessment was not a report to one ministry. It came with a commitment from the government as a whole. The then Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) wrote, in his message launching it, that “climate change requires a whole-of-government approach, and as we build Ontario, it is vital we do so in a way that will protect the well-being of current and future generations, safeguard the natural environment, ensure food and water security, enhance infrastructure and strengthen our economy.”³² Safeguard the natural environment. Ensure water security. Strengthen the economy. All three in one sentence, from this government, about this assessment.

Continue reading →

ERO 026-0670: Proposal to Update the Statement of Environmental Values for the Ministry of Energy and Mines

By Linda Heron on Thursday, August 6th, 2026

Posted in Sustainability, Biodiversity, Statement of Env. Values, Aquatic Life, Environmental Registry, Climate Change, River Concerns, Dams, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Government, Fisheries, Species at Risk, Water Quality

Vermilion River – Our grandchildren’s future with water!

ORA has reviewed the draft Statement of Environmental Values (SEV) for the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) and the two statements it would replace. The Environmental Registry notice says the climate change content of the former statements has merged into the new document.¹ It has not merged. It has been cut. The draft removed the commitment to sustainable development, the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the commitment to help Ontarians prepare for the impacts of climate change, and the commitment to engage with communities in their preferred language. It replaces the word evaluate with the word consider. And it never once mentions water.

This matters now more than at any point in the past thirty or more years. One ministry now sets Ontario’s energy priorities, directs what the province procures to meet them, and decides which mineral projects proceed. Both sides of that mandate run on water. Both change rivers. ORA’s position is that the largest single long-term risk to ratepayers, taxpayers, the climate and Ontario rivers is more hydroelectric development, followed closely by the mine waste that will be left behind. An SEV that does not mention water, rivers, fish or cumulative effects cannot manage either risk.

Continue reading →

IESO: Long Lead-Time RFP: Questions and Comments

By Linda Heron on Friday, July 10th, 2026

Posted in Long Lead-Time, IESO, ORA Submissions, Hydroelectric, Aquatic Life, Climate Change, River Concerns, Dams, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Industry, Class EA for Waterpower, GHG Emissions, Water Quality, Watershed Planning

The hydro-only energy stream is not reconciled with the IESO’s own August 2025 modelling.

The LLT energy stream is restricted to new hydroelectric resources, yet the IESO’s own August 2025 Hybrid Resource Portfolio Equivalency Assessment found that wind/solar/BESS portfolios served 99.5%–99.98% of the peaky-need scenario and 99.7%–99.9% of the baseload-need scenario, and that a gas + wind/solar/BESS portfolio served 100% of load at a lower net present value than the gas-only option in seven of ten weather years. The IESO has not publicly reconciled that modelling with a decision to create an exclusive 40-year procurement lane for new hydro, together with the new transmission required to connect those projects to the grid. Citing the Directive does not discharge the IESO’s public-interest obligation to show that new hydro is necessary, least-cost and superior to lower-risk alternatives.

Nor has the IESO published any comparable analysis testing new hydro against wind, solar and BESS portfolios; the reconciliation gap is therefore wider, not narrower.

Continue reading →

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 →

ERO 026-0427, Fortifying Ontario’s Economy: A vision for protecting Ontario, strengthening economic sovereignty, and securing global leadership in critical minerals.

By Linda Heron on Tuesday, June 16th, 2026

A Vermilion River Otter, By Al Oman

A strategy that halves review time, proposes permit-by-rule, ignores its own climate science, weakens species law, short-changes public and Indigenous consultation, commits to century-long methane-emitting reservoir infrastructure over its own innovative and green alternatives, and treats Indigenous consent as an equity transaction, is not protecting Ontario’s economy. It is mortgaging Ontario’s watersheds, its climate resilience, and its relationships with First Nations against a demand the public was never asked to approve. It does all of this to fast-track projects, while the courts are still being asked whether the very laws that enable it are constitutional.

Continue reading →

ERO-026-0414: Streamlining Requirements for Waste Disposal Site Service Area and Fill Rate Changes

By Linda Heron on Monday, June 8th, 2026

Posted in Sustainability, Drinking Water, ORA Submissions, Aquatic Life, Environmental Registry, Regulatory, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk, Government, Fisheries, Flooding, Land Use, Environmental Assessment Act, Species at Risk, Urban Development, Water Quality

ORA urges the Ministry to withdraw this proposal. ERO-026-0414 is not a red-tape reduction measure. It is the elimination of the only independent environmental assessment for a class of waste disposal decisions that can directly affect groundwater, contaminate rivers, damage aquatic ecosystems, and undermine the health and food security of rural and municipal communities, Indigenous peoples, and all communities living near waste-disposal sites. Posted as a companion to Bill 105’s simultaneous assault on the Comprehensive EA process (ERO-026-0415), it is part of a coordinated and accelerating dismantling of Ontario’s environmental protection framework, a withdrawal by the Province from its constitutional and moral obligation to hold Ontario’s natural environment in public trust for present and future generations.

Continue reading →

Federal: Getting Major Projects Built in Canada: Discussion Paper on Regulatory Reform

By Linda Heron on Thursday, June 4th, 2026

Posted in Sustainability, ORA Submissions, Hydroelectric, Aquatic Life, Regulatory, Climate Change, River Concerns, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Government, Regulatory Submissions, Species at Risk, First Nations Treaty Rights, Water Quality, Impact Assessment Act, Mercury

Abitibi River – Twin Falls GS

The Discussion Paper frames delays as a process problem caused by excessive oversight and public consultation considerations that delay projects by more than five years before federal decisions are made and construction begins. The evidence from ORA’s direct experience tells a different story: current delays are driven primarily by proponents who extend their own timelines while development activity proceeds on the ground, and by assessments that defer rather than decide on the most difficult questions. Reducing or eliminating public consultation will not fix these structural failures. It will make them worse, and the costs will be borne by communities, by First Nations, and ultimately by the federal government in litigation.

ORA supports a well-resourced, efficient, and credible impact assessment system, and supports reforms that fix the real bottlenecks: underfunded review staff, incomplete Crown consultation, and weak post-approval enforcement. ORA opposes the proposals that would cut public and Indigenous participation, exempt whole categories of projects from independent review, or allow construction to begin before a decision is made.

The Prime Minister promised, in the 2025 Speech from the Throne, that decisions on major projects would be made within two years. The Discussion Paper now proposes one. ORA asks the Government to hold the Prime Minister to that two-year commitment, and to withdraw the following proposals outright: early construction before a decision (Proposal 6.5); the Cabinet power to exempt projects from the species-at-risk jeopardy test (Proposal 6.8); Federal Economic Zones (Proposal 5); the removal of independent impact assessment for pipelines and transmission lines (Proposal 4); the transfer of nuclear and uranium assessments to the industry’s own regulator (Proposal 4); and the new ministerial powers to weaken environmental conditions after approval (Proposals 6.6 and 6.7).

Continue reading →

ERO-026-0300: Proposed Planning Act, City of Toronto Act, 2006, Building Code Act, 1992 and Municipal Act, 2001 Changes (Schedules 1, 2 and 7 of Bill 98, the Building Homes and Improving Transportation Infrastructure Act, 2026)

By Linda Heron on Thursday, May 14th, 2026

Posted in Sustainability, Biodiversity, Ontario Building Code, Bill 98, MZOs, ORA Submissions, Aquatic Life, Environmental Registry, Regulatory, Climate Change, River Concerns, Fisheries, GHG Emissions, Land Use, Species at Risk, Municipal, Planning Act, Species at Risk Act

ORA’s concern is direct and practical. MZOs have been used in Ontario to authorize development on or adjacent to sensitive wetlands, floodplains, and river corridors, in some cases over the objections of CAs and local municipalities. The notice requirement has been the only mechanism by which organizations like ORA can identify when a proposed MZO amendment affects a river system, place concerns on the public record, and seek to influence the Minister’s decision before it is made. Removing notice does not constrain the use of MZOs; it makes their use invisible until it is too late. For watershed and river protection purposes, an MZO amendment process with no public notice is a process with no meaningful public participation at all.

ORA submits that notice requirements for MZO amendments and revocations must be retained without qualification. If the government’s concern is administrative efficiency, notice can be provided through streamlined electronic means with a fixed and short comment window. Removing public notice entirely is not a proportionate or defensible administrative reform.

Continue reading →

ERO-026-0304: Draft Projection Methodology Guideline (PMG), 2026 to Support Implementation of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (Bill 98)

By Linda Heron on Thursday, May 14th, 2026

Posted in Sustainability, Biodiversity, Bill 98, ORA Submissions, Aquatic Life, Environmental Registry, Regulatory, Climate Change, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk, Fisheries, GHG Emissions, Conservation Authorities Act, Species at Risk, Urban Development, Planning Act, Policy & Process, Provincial Policy Statement

West Credit River Brook Trout – Photo by Steve Nokams

ORA submits comments on ERO-026-0304 as part of a coordinated response to the Bill 98 legislative package. ORA has submitted separately on ERO-026-0315 (April 24, 2026), ERO-026-0313, ERO-026-0300, and ERO-026-0301/0302 (all May 14, 2026).⁶,⁷,⁸,⁹ The Projection Methodology Guideline (PMG) is foundational to this package: the land quantum it produces is the primary input driving (ary Expansion (SABE) decisions in official plan updates across Ontario. A methodology that systematically omits environmental constraints from its land supply calculations will generate land need figures that are overstated, ecologically unjustified, and will provide a spurious quantitative basis for designating development onto natural heritage lands, floodplains, river corridors, and watershed recharge areas that cannot and should not be built upon.

Continue reading →

ERO-026-0312: Proposed Changes to Support Standardizing of Parkland Requirements Under the Planning Act (Bill 98)

By Linda Heron on Thursday, May 14th, 2026

Posted in Biodiversity, Bill 98, ORA Submissions, Aquatic Life, Environmental Registry, Regulatory, Climate Change, River Concerns, Dams, Energy, Fisheries, Flooding, GHG Emissions, Land Use, Species at Risk, Planning Act, Policy & Process, Provincial Policy Statement

The Ontario Provincial Climate Change Impact Assessment (OCCIA 2023) documents increasing precipitation intensity, hydrological volatility, and flood frequency across Ontario.⁴ The Auditor General of Ontario’s 2022 report on urban flood risk documented billions of dollars in flood-related municipal infrastructure losses and found that existing floodplain mapping substantially underestimates actual flood risk in many communities.⁵ Flooding events in spring 2024 and spring 2026 across the Sudbury, Ottawa, and Lake Erie watersheds caused widespread municipal infrastructure damage and emergency costs. Municipalities that accept floodplain-adjacent land as parkland will inherit maintenance liability and public safety responsibility for lands that are demonstrably at increasing flood risk.

ORA submits that floodplain-adjacent lands, including valley lands and riparian corridors that fall within but near the boundary of identified hazard areas, should be explicitly ineligible for developer-identified parkland credit, not merely eligible on an undefined condition.

Continue reading →