Save the Bala Falls

We have been fighting a proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala falls in Bala, Ontario (in Muskoka) for over four years. For the proposed station:

• The province’s taxpayers would pay the private developer the hugely subsidized rate of 17.685 ¢/kW•h (the base FIT rate of 13.1 ¢/kW•h plus the 35% peak adder for electricity generated between 11:00 am and 7:00 pm) whether the electricity was needed or not, even though just downstream there is an older existing hydro-electric generating station owned by OPG which generates electricity for which OPG is paid the standard 3 ¢/kW•h to 4 ¢/kW•h (for comparison, typical residential home owners in Ontario pay about 11 ¢/kW•h, as this includes the cost of transmission and distribution to homes – that is, the transformers, utility poles, and wires between us and the generators).
• Being hydro-electric, these stations would generate the most electricity in the spring and fall (that is, when there is the most water). Unfortunately the demand is lowest at these times, yet the province would still be obligated to pay this private developer the hugely subsidized rate even when the electricty isn’t needed and must be sold to the U.S. at a much lower rate, and even when “negative pricing” occurs and Ontario must pay the U.S. to take our surplus power.
• So when the electricity isn’t needed, the province (us taxpayers) would still be paying the 17.685 ¢/kW•h to the private developer for energy from the proposed station (the FIT contract requires this), and the OPG station downstream would need to spill the water bypassing their station (the Moon River cannot be used to store water), wasting the resource of the station that is already there and paid for, and wasting the water too.

 But this isn’t just a temporary shame due to a political decision, the proposed station would permanently:

• Make the in-water recreation (swimming, scuba diving, floating on inflatable toys, canoeing … that has been drawing tourists and supporting the local economy for 100 years) too dangerous to continue.
• Make over 500′ of the only publically-accessible shoreline in the area too dangerous to access.
• Require a poured-concrete building over 100′ long in direct view from the most popular vantage point.
• Take 94% of the water over the falls throughout most of the year, leaving only a trickle — nobody will come to see where the falls used to be. The Bala falls are the only attraction that draws tourists to Bala, the area’s economy depends on it.
• And for this, the proponent would receive a subsidy from us taxpayers of $100 million – just for this one 4 MW station – over the 40-year life of the contract.
• Eliminate a historical portage that is part of the cultural heritage landscape of the area. And the daily water level fluctuations due to the cycling operation would affect the fish and shoreline habitat, the siren sounded each day would be annoying. And the barbed-wire fencing would be ugly.

And more crazy than that, over six months ago, the proponent withdrew their “Option 2” proposal (which is the subject of all the environmental assessment information they have provided to date) and yet the Ontario Ministry of the Environment continues to spend staff resources considering approving this abandoned proposal, as they have been for over a year.

And the Ministry of the Environment has said they will accept this Option 2 environmental assessment as a foundation for whatever new proposal the proponent may put forth, even though the existing environmental assessment would have over 133 Sections, Tables, and Figures factually-incorrect as a result of their decision to change the location and orientation of their proposal.

More detail is here and here.

Summary

The proponent has always told the public that their Option 1 proposal could be built solely on Crown land, but we have marked-up the proponent’s Option 1 drawings from their 2007 public information centre and from their 2009 environmental screening report showing the Crown land property boundary – this clearly shows that Option 1 could not be built solely on Crown land.

Also significant is that one reason the proponent rejected Option 1 was that it would be too dangerous for people playing in the water at the base of the north falls. The proponent has stated they have abandoned their proposed Option 2 and will announce some new proposal, and while all we know so far is that this new proposal would apparently be built solely on Crown land, the new proposal would need to be angled towards the base of the north falls and the town docks on the Moon River – and the dangerously fast and turbulent water exiting the tailrace would be even more dangerous to those at the base of the north falls and would also make docking boats at the town docks on the Moon River difficult and dangerous.

For these and many other reasons, whatever the proponent’s new proposal turns out to be, it is not Option 1, and we have never been shown a drawing of it.

The environmental assessment process requires the proponent to conduct meaningful public consultation, and this includes showing the public; in-person, at a public information centre, the main aspects of their plans. This has not been done for the proponent’s new proposal.

Therefore, the proponent should be required to restart the environmental assessment process, beginning with a public information centre showing the actual plans and property boundaries and how public safety and marine navigation would be addressed.

If you agree that the public has never been shown a proposal for a hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls that could be built solely on Crown land, please send an e-mail to the Minister of the Environment stating there has been no meaningful public consultation and that the envrionmental assessment must therefore be restarted, beginning with a public information centre.

Detail

A fundamental requirement of the environmental assessment process is meaningful public consultation.

For example:

• The Province of Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Act notes the Obligation to Consult in Section 5.1. This has not happened, since the public has never been shown plans that could be built solely on Crown land.
• The Ministry of the Environment’s Guide to Environmental Assessment Requirements for Electricity Projects notes in Section A.6.2.1 that “The applicant’s public consultation program should … describe how the project may affect the environment” and “Failure to carry out adequate public consultation or to address public issues or concerns may result in requests to elevate the project”. There has been no such public consultation for the proponent’s new proposal. The document notes that the Environmental Assessment Act provides for an “… accountable, logical and reproducible process of decision making”.
• The Ministry of the Environment’s Preparing and Reviewing Environmental Assessments in Ontario notes in Section 2.1 that “Proponents are required to … Engage in meaningful consultation with all interested persons …” . And in Section 3.2.2 it is noted “The environmental assessment process should be clear and consistent” and “The Environmental Assessment Act should be applied consistently to similar undertakings …”. We understand that all other environmental assessments have begun with a public information centre at which the public could view and ask questions of the plans. However, for this proposed project the public has never been shown any plans that could be built solely on Crown land. In Section 3.2.3 it is noted “The environmental assessment process should be open and transparent. This will enable all interested persons to follow the process through its various stages of planning and decision-making …”. We understand senior staff at the Ministry of the Environment have directly met with the proponent’s hired government lobbyist, yet we have no information on what was discussed. This is not open or transparent.
• For Renewable Energy Projects, as noted in Section 3 (page 24) of the Ministry of the Environment’s Provincial Approvals for Renewable Energy Projects, “Applicants must also hold at least two community consultation meetings …”. This has not occurred for the proponent’s new proposal.
• The Ministry of the Environment’s Consultation in Ontario’s Environmental Assessment Process notes in Section 5.1 (page 43) that “Proponents are responsible for … Initiating meaningful consultation with interested persons …”. This has not occurred for the proponent’s new proposal.
• The Class Environmental Assessment for Waterpower Projects notes Section 6.2.2 (page 63) that “Provision of good quality background information regarding the project is essential”. This has not occurred for the proponent’s new proposal.

Given that it is well-established and accepted that meaningful public consultation is required, let’s look at the information the proponent has presented to the public for their proposed hydro-electric generating station at the Bala Falls:

1. On August 29, 2007 the proponent held their first of the only two public information centres. As the proponent had not yet proposed their Option 2, this public information centre was presenting what has come to be known as Option 1  (which was the original proposal provided by the proponent in their site release program application, which was submitted in July 2005).
   1. The material presented (as reproduced in Appendix D5 of the proponent’s environmental screening report) is here. The main characteristics of Option 1 are that the intake was directly upstream of the north dam (and downstream of the highway bridge) and that the powerhouse would be directly adjacent to the north dam.
   2. Of note is the drawing on page 8 (“Plan and General Arrangement”) where a top view of the area and the proposed powerhouse is shown. What should have been shown on page 8, but was not, is the boundary between the Crown land (owned by the Ministry of Natural Resources) and the municipal land (owned by the District Municipality of Muskoka and by the Township of Muskoka Lakes) – this boundary is shown in Figure 2.12 of the proponent’s environmental screening report, and also in this official surveyor’s drawing.
   3. We have marked-up page 8 here with the property boundary, and this clearly shows what the proponent has never told us; that Option 1 could not be built solely on Crown land.
       
2. On August 13, 2008 the proponent held their second (and last) public information centre.
   1. The material presented (as reproduced in Appendix D15 of the proponent’s environmental screening report) is here.
   2. Note on page 3 they announce plans to “Move the power station a considerable distance further south …”, and this came to be known as Option 2. And on page 4 indeed Option 2 is shown to require municipal land (but as we have shown above, Option 1 also needed municipal land).
       
3. Finally, in October of 2009 the proponent released their environmental screening report. Option 1 (which they here refer to as Alternative 1) was described in Section 1.5.1.1 (where they note “Alternative 1 was presented during the Public Information Centre of 2007”) and shown in page 2 of Appendix A (entitled “Alternative 1, General Arrangement”).
   1. Note that even though this shows the proposed Option 1 powerhouse angled away from the base of the north falls, in Section 1.5.1.1 the proponent notes “The tailrace of the powerhouse would be located in close proximity to the falls which could cause safety issues and public concern”. That is, one of the reasons why the proponent rejected Option 1 is that it would be too dangerous to the public recreating at the base of the north falls. Obviously, if the proposed generating station would be located closer to the north falls, this public safety issue would need to be addressed.
   2. We have here marked-up page 2 of Appendix A of the environmental screening report, showing again, that Option 1 could not be built solely on Crown land. That is, the proponent has never shown the public a proposal which could be built solely on Crown land.
   3. All we know of any new proposal which the proponent may next present is that it could apparently be built solely on Crown land, and as shown in this diagram the dangerously fast and turbulent water exiting the tailrace would be angled towards, and even closer to those recreating at the base of the north falls – and this would adversely affect maring navigation as docking at the town docks on the Moon River would be more difficult and dangerous.

Conclusion

The proponent’s new proposal, which would apparently be built solely on Crown land, has never been shown to the public, and has shown above, such a proposal would have significant public safety concerns.

As there has been no public consultation for the proponent’s new proposal, the environmental assessment process must be restarted, beginning with a public information centre.

Summary
Through many communication channels, the proponent continues to provide incorrect information to the public, to the media, and to the Ministry of the Environment.

Detail
The proponent continues to make statements such as:

• “the flow during the tourist season, which is in the summer, will not change over those falls” (Toronto Star, January 26, 2012).
• “The typical summer flow through Bala’s North Dam will be maintained” (FAQs, BalaFalls.ca, January 27, 2012).
• “flows during the majority of the tourist/summer season (June to October) will not experience any change” (Environmental Screening Report, Section 6.3.5.1).

These statements are simply not true, which we show below in five different ways (and using the proponent’s own information).

1) The proponent’s Environmental Screening Report shows in Table 2.1 that the lowest mean monthly water flow through Bala (which is in August) is 23.1 m³/s. Allowing for the 4 m³/s allocated for the Burgess Creek power station, this shows there currently is a mean flow of over 19 m³/s for the Bala North and South Falls – even in August. Yet, the proponent offers only a total of 2 m³/s or 3 m³/s. Obviously the proponent is “mis-stating” something when they say the flow won’t change.

2) Table 5.2 of the Muskoka River Water Management Plan notes that for the Bala North and South Dams “Minimum outflow of 3.0 m³/s from each dam is to be maintained by leakage or log removal to maintain downstream water quality” and “Burgess Power Station provides an additional minimum flow of 4 cms” . Providing a minimum of 6 m³/s of water flow is not the same as the proponent’s proposal to provide only 2 m³/s or 3 m³/s, even though they are claiming there would be no change.

3) In fact, the proponent’s misinformation even has the Ministry of the Environment contradicting itself. In the MoE’s March 25, 2011 elevation decision letter to all requesters, the Director of the Environmental Assessment and Approvals Branch states “Any incoming flows of 20 m³/s or less (which may occur during the summer season) will be distributed entirely over the two Dams and the Project will shut down until the flow increases to operating conditions, i.e. water flows over 20 m³/s.”

However, on the same date, the same MoE Director sent the same requesters this letter which informed us of the cycling agreement the proponent had signed months earlier. And this agreement requires the proposed plant’s operation be cycled (that is, turned off and on, with no additional water over the falls) during these low-flow times, rather than shut down.

So the MoE is providing mis-information to the public, based on either a misunderstanding or mis-information from the proponent. You can be sure the public is equally flummoxed by this confusing information received.

4) The proposed flow can be examined in more detail. As shown in Figure 2.4 of the proponent’s Environmental Screening Report (below, and click for a larger view – and the information is in tabular form in the “Existing” columns here), even during the driest four weeks of the year (weeks 32 through 35 inclusive), the average flow through the Bala North and South Falls is a total of 10 m³/s. Yet the proponent is offering only a total of 3 m³/s (combined for both Falls). This would be a reduction of 70%.

Again, the water flow through Bala would not be maintained, in the summer or any other time of the year. The proponent is making completely incorrect statements about fundamental issues.

5) We can examine the proposed flow graphically by using the following information:

• The existing weekly flows from the proponent’s Figure 2.4 above.
• In Section 6.3.5.1 and 6.3.5.2 of the Environmental Screening Report the proponent states that the flow over the North and South Falls would usually be 1 m³/s each, with 2 m³/s over the South Falls from the May 24 long weekend to the weekend after Thanksgiving.
• In their Letter of Intent, November 30, 2010, the proponent states that the flow over the North Falls would be increased to 9.5 m³/s for two weeks in the spring for Walleye spawning, and to 2 m³/s for two weeks following this for the Walleye incubation period. Further, their letter states that the maximum capacity of the proposed powerhouse is 96 m³/s, so any flows in excess would be over the Falls.
• Finally, in a letter from the proponent to the Township of Muskoka Lakes, March 18, 2010, the capacity of the south channel is given as 252 m³/s. Adding this to the 96 m³/s capacity of the proposed powerhouse shows the combined flow capacity of the proposed powerhouse and the South Falls to be (96 + 252 =) 348 m³/s. So given the maximum monthly flow of 317 m³/s (April, Table 2.1, Environmental Screening Report), even during the spring freshet, it would not be expected that the North Falls would have any more than leakage flow.

The above information is entered in the “Proposed” columns here, and the resulting proposed weekly flows, are shown below (click for a larger view).

As is clearly shown in the above graph, despite what the proponent says, the flows would be substantially reduced, even in the summer – to a trickle in most all months that people typically visit Bala:

• From mid-December through January, when snowmobiling is common
• From May through October, when most tourists typically visit.

Conclusion
So again we say, the proponent continues to make statements – such as “the flow during the tourist season, which is in the summer, will not change over those falls” – these statements about the most fundamentally important issues of their proposed project, which are simply not true.

Summary
As noted in many recent articles such as this and this, Ontario taxpayers would be paying massive subsidies to private developers so that renewable energy projects would be profitable – hugely profitable. As detailed below, for just the one proposed Bala Falls hydro-electric generating station, the subsidies to the private developer would be over $100,000,000 over the 40-year duration of the supply contract.

So we would be paying a hundred million dollars to a private developer so they can;

• Ruin the Bala Falls and the area’s economy.
• Make in-water recreation that has been going on for over a hundred years too dangerous to continue.
• Make over 500′ of the only publically-accessible shoreline too dangerous to access (plus putting up with the sirens sounded daily throughout the summer and having to look at barbed-wire fencing instead of Muskoka’s natural beauty).

In these times of government cut-backs for libraries, public transit, infrastructure repair and so many other services, we do not want our tax dollars going to a private developer. This project should not be allowed to proceed.

Detail – Run-of-river Regime
In their 2005 proposal (which was for a smaller-capacity station than they are currently proposing), the proponent estimated their proposed station would generate 20.77 GW•h/year of energy (which would be 20,770,000 kW•h per year).

Ontario Power Generation financial reports show that existing hydro-electric generating stations (such as at Ragged Rapids and Niagara Falls – that do not receive the Feed-In Tariff subsidized price) receive between 2.0 ¢/kW•h and 3.6 ¢/kW•h for the power they generate.

When the proponent signed their contract with the Ontario Power Authority in 2010 the guaranteed price for the power to be generated was 13.1 ¢/kW•h (FIT 1 2010 rates are here, IESO/OPA FIT document archives are here). Being very conservative and comparing this to 4 ¢/kW•h for existing stations, would be a subsidy of 9.1 ¢/kW•h, which would be a subsidy of ($0.091 /kW•h x 20,770,000 kW•h =) $1,890,070 per year, and $75,602,800 over the 40-year life of the contract.

However, the actual subsidy would be greater, as the proponent intends to operate the generating station in a cycling mode (as detailed below), which creates additional dangers to the public and impacts on fish habatit which they have not assessed.

Detail – Cycling Regime
We note that in their environmental screening report, the proponent proposed a “Best Management Zone” which would allow them a tolerance of 4 cm to 6 cm in water height in all the months when the proposed station would not have enough water to run at full capacity. And running their station at full capacity for 24 hours with only 10 m³/s of flow into Lake Muskoka would change the water level of Lake Muskoka by about ((69 m³/s x 86,400 s/day) / 120 km² =) 4.97 cm. That is, their requested change to the Muskoka River Water Management Plan would permit them to run their proposed station at full capacity during the daily peak demand period throughout the year.

The proponent has already requested to cycle operation of their proposed generating station during the peak demand period during at least the summer months. If the proponent therefore generated ¾ of their power during the daily peak period of 11:00 am to 7:00 pm, then they would receive the following subsidy per year:

• (0.25 x 20.77 GW•h) at a subsidy of (0.9 x 13.1) – 4 ¢/kW•h, which is $404,495 for the non-peak periods.
• (0.75 x 20.77 GW•h) at a subsidy of (1.35 x 13.1) – 4 ¢/kW•h, which is $2,131,780 for the peak periods.

This would be a total annual subsidy of $2,536,276. Over the 40-year FIT contract, this would be a subsidy of $101,451,065 (that’s over a hundred million dollars). And for the larger-capacity station currently being proposed, the subsidy would be even greater.

But what about the discounted cash flow
And yes, an accountant could talk about the discounted cash flow / net present value of this subsidy. And an environmentalist could talk about the cost of CO₂ emissions that may not be eliminated. But then maybe we should estimate the loss in the area’s residential property values or the lost revenue to local businesses. Or find out if Ontario Power Generation’s Big Eddy and Ragged Rapids hydro-electric generating stations just downstream (which generate electricity for less than 4 ¢/kW•h) would need to shut down in the spring and fall because the government has committed to paying (1.35 x 13.1 ¢/kW•h =) 17.685 ¢/kW•h for the proposed generating station at peak times whether the power is needed or not. So let’s just agree that indeed Ontario taxpayers would be massively subsidizing this proposed  project.

In an opinion piece published in the November 16, 2011 edition of What’s Up Muskoka, the proponent continues to repeat their self-serving mis-information, apparently in the hope that we’ve all gone stupid and will somehow start believing it because we keep hearing it so often.

We are apparently to believe:

• Water-level fluctuations would be reduced even though they now would be cycling the plant off and on daily, at least during the summer.
• That the “Key to Muskoka’s history and future is waterpower”, even though they would ruin the falls (as 94% of the water would instead go through their proposed power station), make over 500′ of the only publically-accessible shoreline in the area too dangerous to access, and make in-water recreational activities that have been going on for over 100 years too dangerous to continue.
• That they would “work with the community”, when we have seen that they completely ignored the work done by the scenic flow committee – this being a committe which they required and had complete control over the membership, mandate, and agenda.

Read it for yourself below, or click here for a higher-resolution version.