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 026-0329: Technical Guide, River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, and Technical Bulletin, Special Flooding Hazard Conditions in River and Stream Systems

By Linda Heron on Sunday, August 9th, 2026

Posted in Technical Bulletins, Hydroelectric, Environmental Registry, Regulatory, Climate Change, River Concerns, Dams, Rivers at Risk, Flooding, GHG Emissions, Regulatory Submissions, Land Use, Species at Risk, Water Quality, Policy & Process, Renewable Energy on Crown Land

24 June, 2017 – An extreme rain event caused the dam to fail when all the stop logs could not be removed.

ORA has reviewed both draft documents. We are strongly opposed to this proposal and we ask the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) to withdraw it.¹ The hydrology and hydraulics chapters of the Technical Guide are a real improvement on the 2002 edition and should be retained and completed; however, the Technical Bulletin should not proceed in its current form. It reverses a provincial policy that exists to keep people and communities out of harm’s way, it does so in a document that no one is required to follow, and it does so without a single word about the environment, about Indigenous communities, or about who pays when a dam or water retainment structure fails.

This is a public safety matter. Loss of life and loss of property are what is at stake, and this proposal goes against the public interest.

ORA has made it clear that we are strongly opposed to this proposal and that it should be withdrawn. In the event MNR moves forward regardless, the recommendations below are offered as a fail-safe to mitigate the Ministry’s mitigation efforts. None of them should be read as support for the proposal.

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: Long-Term 2 RFP – June 16, 2026

By Linda Heron on Friday, July 3rd, 2026

Posted in Long Term 2, IESO, Alternatives, ORA Submissions, Hydroelectric, Regulatory, River Concerns, Dams, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Industry, GHG Emissions, Water Quality

ORA’s central concern is that LT2 is being used, alongside the LLT RFP and roughly 1,800 kilometres of “priority” transmission, to advance ratepayer-backed repowered and new hydropower generation as quickly as possible, without a consolidated accounting of what it will cost ratepayers, in dollars and in emissions. Cost, emissions, public health impacts, fuel price exposure, and stranded asset risk are not external to affordability and reliability; they are a huge part of it. Environmental Defence made the same point in this engagement, cautioning that procurement frameworks “should not treat these externalities as irrelevant to affordability or reliability.” ORA agrees. The IESO’s own Hybrid Resource Portfolio Equivalency Assessment found that a portfolio of wind, solar and battery energy storage systems (BESS) can meet system needs “with 99.50 to 99.98 percent of load served” in every weather year modelled, and “can provide both baseload and peak power.” Wind, solar and BESS are cheaper, cleaner and faster to deploy than hydroelectricity, and far cleaner than gas.

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

By Linda Heron on Wednesday, July 1st, 2026

Posted in Transmission, IESO, IRRP, Alternatives, ORA Submissions, Hydroelectric, Climate Change, River Concerns, Dams, Energy, Rivers at Risk, GHG Emissions

The IRRP is the planning vehicle that is meant to consider a broad range of options, including non-wires alternatives. ORA asks the IESO to hold to that purpose in the Northwest. Several large transmission builds are already underway or contemplated for the region: the $1.2 billion dollar Waasigan line, in service between 2026 and 2027,² the Red Lake line north of Dryden, a 230 kV double-circuit build that nearly quadruples the area’s capacity, roughly 400 MW, and is expected in the early 2030s, a planned 230 kV line toward the Greenstone area, and the recently completed East-West Tie at about $777 million. The IESO has not published a cost estimate for the Red Lake line, though it almost certainly holds one; CBC reports it at $830 million. For scale, the province’s new Barrie-to-Sudbury bulk line is estimated at $1.4 to $1.6 billion. These are multi-billion-dollar commitments. A wind, solar, and battery storage package sized to a remote community’s need costs a fraction of a long transmission build and can be deployed far sooner, so communities are not left waiting years for power that a local resource could deliver.

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 →

IESO: Changes to the Establishment and Publication of Market Parameters – June 18, 2026

By Linda Heron on Tuesday, June 30th, 2026

Posted in Sustainability, IESO, Alternatives, ORA Submissions, Hydroelectric, River Concerns, Energy, Rivers at Risk, Industry, Fisheries, GHG Emissions, Water Quality

ORA’s concern is heightened by the growing influence of directives from the Minister of Energy and Mines over IESO preferences that are backed by data or studies. The April 16, 2026, Ministerial Directive instructed the IESO to procure new long lead-time hydroelectric generation, even as the Directive acknowledged that these resources are “deemed not well-suited to competing against resources with shorter development timelines and lifespans (e.g., wind, solar and inverter-based battery energy storage systems).” That instruction overrode the IESO’s own August 2025 Hybrid Resource Equivalency Assessment, which found that wind, solar, and battery energy storage systems (BESS) could serve 99.5 to 99.98 percent of load in the Peaky Need Scenario. When political direction can displace the IESO’s own expert analysis, on-the-record, Board-governed control of market parameters is not a formality. It is the safeguard that keeps ratepayer-facing decisions independent, accountable, and aligned with the public interest rather than a shifting political agenda.

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 →

IAAC: Crawford Nickel Project, Draft Impact Assessment Report, IAAC Registry No. 83857

By Linda Heron on Wednesday, June 10th, 2026

Posted in Carbon Capture, ORA Submissions, Heavy Metal Contamination, Lake Sturgeon, Climate Change, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk, Government, Fisheries, GHG Emissions, Mining, Species at Risk, Water Quality, Impact Assessment Act

Photo by Dennis Jarvis.

The Crawford Nickel Project is one of the largest proposed mines in Canadian history. Its receiving waters, the North Driftwood, the West Buskegau, and the Jocko Rivers, are not industrial corridors. They are living rivers in Treaty 9 territory, supporting fish, birds, boreal caribou, and the harvesting rights, food security, and cultural continuity of nations that have depended on them since time before memory. The federal government’s own analysis values Canada’s ecosystem services at $3.6 trillion. A “low to moderate” economic contribution from a project with admitted significant adverse effects on fish, birds, and Indigenous rights, whose climate contribution is undemonstrated and whose consultation record is incomplete, does not clear that bar.

ORA calls on the Minister to withhold approval until the consultation record is complete, FPIC from AAN has been obtained or the legal consequences of its absence fully adjudicated, the fish habitat offsetting plan is finalized and publicly reviewed, the mercury methylation risk and the predicted seepage-face exceedances are resolved by precautionary conditions and best available treatment to background rather than post-hoc monitoring, tailings dam safety is brought to the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management, climate change is incorporated into the cumulative effects analysis, and the ecosystem services value of what will be destroyed is honestly weighed against the economic value of what will be gained.

Continue reading →

IAAC: Great Bear Gold Project – Impact Statement Summary, Registry No. 85832

By Linda Heron on Friday, May 29th, 2026

Posted in IAAC, ORA Submissions, Regulatory, River Concerns, Rivers at Risk, Industry, Fisheries, GHG Emissions, Mining, Species at Risk, Water Quality, Watershed Planning, Impact Assessment Act

Great Bear Gold Project proposed site development.

ORA wishes to express its strong support and alignment with the submissions and recommendations of CELA on behalf of ANA/Grassy Narrows First Nation.

The Ontario Land Tribunal’s (OLT) engagement with this project reinforces these concerns and bears directly on the adequacy of the Crown consultation record. In 2025, the OLT granted ANA leave to appeal water-taking permits issued by the Province of Ontario to Kinross, finding that “no reasonable person” would have issued those permits in light of ANA’s documented mercury concerns. Kinross subsequently withdrew the permit application before the appeal could be heard. A new permit application was filed; on May 7, 2026, ANA filed a new application for leave to appeal the new permits, again on the grounds that sulphate discharge will drive mercury methylation in the Chukuni-English River system and produce elevated methylmercury concentrations in fish consumed by community members downstream.

Continue reading →