Last spring, The City of Peterborough’s Committee of Adjustment approved the lease of over 25 acres of land from Trent University to the Trent Rapids Power Corporation. The land is intended for the development of a hydroelectric project that will be located just above the Lady Eaton Parking Lot.
What else is new?
Last spring, The City of Peterborough’s Committee of Adjustment approved the lease of over 25 acres of land from Trent University to the Trent Rapids Power Corporation. The land is intended for the development of a hydroelectric project that will be located just above the Lady Eaton Parking Lot.
The large scale project would involve diverting the rivers flow through a 1.2 km long canal, which will be 80 meters wide, and raised five meters above ground level. The canal will fall through two 4 megawatt turbines, generating enough electricity to power around 2000 homes.
Critics argue that, while the hydro dam has been touted as a ‘green’ development, the environmental risks of the project far outweigh the benefits. Environmental concerns include the destruction of 150 year old sugar maples and wetland habitats, as well as the possibility of groundwater contamination, which could affect the wells of surrounding homes. The site is located on what Trent professor Dennis McGee has called “the best example of a late succession tolerant hardwood stand on campus,” about 8.5 hectares of which will be cleared during the construction phase of the project.
Could this be another example of economics trumping environmental concern?
In addition, Trent lands will ‘accommodate’ the waste from the excavation process. This means the addition of three waste piles north of Lady Eaton college, the largest of which will be 20,000 square meters, and six meters high. While the project’s developers argue that the land will be re-seeded and wetland habitats restored, concerns remain over the environmental impact of such a re-development.
The project has gone through an environmental screening process, which, according to a recent article in the Ontario Planning Journal, “is a proponent-driven, self-assessment process meant to streamline approvals for energy projects.” The project’s critics, including Trent professor emeritus Roger Jones, are calling for a full environmental assessment.
An environmental assesment is a more in-depth process, conducted by a third party. While the process takes more time then the screening, it would go a long way towards meeting the concerns around the potential environmental impacts.
Environmental concerns aside, there are serious questions raised in looking at the process through which this project was granted approval. The land in question is zoned as a ‘major open space’ by the Peterborough Official Plan, part of a natural corridor, which is protected from development under the plan. However, there is an exemption included within the plan allowing Peterborough Utilities to build “ private and public installations such as sub-stations, switching terminals... provided a) that such use is necessary or essential; and b) that the installations can be made compatible with adjacent properties and the neighborhood.”
Critics argue that the project is a misuse of the exemption. In the Peterborough Official Plan, the exemption specified that Peterborough Utilities could use the land to install hydro polls, switching terminals and other small-scale developments. Caroline Tennent, who is currently appealing the approval of the lease with the Ontario Municipal Board, writes that “the staff report wants the public to accept that a development like the one proposed is similar to examples of private utility installations such as substations and switching terminals when the scale and nature of the hydroelectric project as proposed is not in the least bit similar.”
Similarly, critics argue that the project is hardly “necessary or essential,” since the project is a for-profit venture, which will be selling the energy on the open market. Dr. Jones told Arthur “this is a major issue. These exemptions shouldn’t apply to this project, because this is a for-profit venture, and there are private corporations involved.”
The use of this exemption is convenient for the project developers. Since the area is not technically zoned for development, a formal re-zoning process would require an application to city council, and a lengthy public consultation process.
There has been another option put forward, which would greatly lessen the environmental impact of the project without significantly impacting generating capacity. The area under discussion already contains locks 22 and 23, both of which are over 100 years old, leaky and due for major repairs. The projects critics have suggesting retrofitting these dams with turbines and converting them into hydro-generating stations. This would have significantly less impact on the local environment, since there would be no major re-routing of the river or destruction of local habitat.
This option is not under consideration at the present time. Could this be another example of economics trumping environmental concern?
In developing the project, Trent Rapids Power Corporation is taking advantage of the provincial Standard Offer Program, which offers to buy power at subsidized rates from small-scale ‘green’ projects. Under the program, Trent Rapids Power Corporation will be receiving 13 cents per kilowatt-hour, as opposed to the 6 cents a kilowatt-hour, the current market rate. The additional 7 cents will come out of the taxpayers’ pockets.
In the few years it would take to undergo a full environmental impact assessment, or to gain the approvals necessary to retrofit the dams, the provincial subsidy may no longer be available. This would make the project much less attractive to private investors.
Brent Woods, President of the Peterborough Green Party’s Constituency Association calls the project “a shining example of the repercussions of short-sighted policy-making.”
Shortsighted policy making is nothing new, in the hallowed halls of Trent. The University is still struggling underneath a massive debt load. Chronic government under-funding, as well as debt resulting from the sale of Peter Robinson College, and the construction of the DNA Cluster Project, which ran 1.6 million dollars over budget in 2005, have left the university saddled with a multi-million dollar debt.
The university is looking to the Trent Nature Areas as a cash cow, and the hydro project is just the beginning. Reid Morden, Chair of the Trent Board of Governors told the examiner in 2005, “We’re land rich and cash poor. People gave us these endowment lands so they would help the university. Now were starting to see what we can do.”
OPIRG will be sponsering a tour of the proposed site, next Sunday at 2:30 pm. Meet on the North End of the parking lot behind LEC.
Kate Taylor
Last Updated on Tuesday, 02 September 2008 05:42
