|EBR Registry Number: PO05E0001
||Type of Posting: Policy|
|Ministry: Energy Science and
||Status of Posting: Proposal|
|Date Proposal Loaded: 2005/12/14 |
|Comment Period: 76 day(s)
Written submissions may be made between December 14, 2005
and February 28, 2006.
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FOR POLICY
© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2005
This notice has been updated to extend the public consultation
period until February 28, 2006.
-February 6, 2006
Authority responds to Minister's Directive to begin the process of developing a
proposed Integrated Power System Plan.
This notice was originally
published to the Environmental Registry on December 14, 2005. It is being
re-published to provide an email address to which comments may be sent.
Integrated Power System Plan - Supply Mix
that you mention that "there has been an ongoing e-mail and write-in
opportunity since Dec 9 (?) when the report was released."
guess that would have clashed with the report headline, "Energy consultations just 'lip service,' critics
say," and May's
sound bite, "Twelve cities in three days is not a
public consultation or proper public process."
But again, the note
at the end of the report, that "The Ministry of Energy is also accepting
feedback on its website," doesn't say that its been going on since early
December of last year. In this case it would have clashed with the
report headline, "Consultation too short,
nuclear critics say."
May's & her colleagues' performance at the hearings, they are clearly
deserving of the annual "Order of Rude Canada" prize.
few of us went to Ottawa to the Ministry of Ottawa hearings. As Jeremy
noted, Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club (?) leapt to the mike and
interrupted the chair right off the bat, saying that an environmental
assessment was the only way to have sufficient time to speak. She
evidently forgot that there has been an ongoing e-mail and write-in
opportunity since Dec 9 (?) when the report was released. Ms May
addressed the crowd (strongly partisan, or at least noisy, in favour of
conservation [who wouldn't be] and anti-nuclear) to applause. A real
soap box opportunity. She interrupted the process again later, with
the same comments.
The deputy leader of the Green party said that the
Ont gov't doesn't have a hierarchy for the OPA plan (though the plan does!),
and wanted the order of: conservation, then renewables, then "clean" fossil
if necessary, but absolutely no nuclear. He said there is "no such
thing as clean nuclear".
When a woman got up and spoke in favour of nuclear
(she mentioned medical isotopes), John Bennett (I think) of the Sierra Club
told her to "shut up" because she was "telling lies". Someone nearby
said "She must be paid by the nuclear industry". These
comments reiterated an earlier comment that the video produced by Donna
Cansfield's ministry was flawed and full of misrepresentations (the
video spelled out the needs, and the multi-faceted approach to
Ont's electricity future). I thought it was very telling that people
who, interspersed with their arguments, had been calling for democracy
(i.e., saying these public consultations weren't democratic) were unwilling
to allow anyone to speak who might be pro-nuclear.
Near the end a math prof expressed his
deep concerns about the world his grandchildren faced, where they might
be asphyxiated with pollution. Then he said his conclusion was the
need for more nuclear.
didn't speak at the microphone, I'm afraid, but I did pass some info on
CANDU reliability to Ministry officials (and expressed my thanks to them for
holding the forum). I (and the others) got into discussions with
individuals, which was much more tame and worth the
was worthwhile attending, though it was a bit depressing to see some of the
antics. I empathize with people who are concerned with the fate of the
planet (that's why I'm in the nuclear field in the first place), but have a
hard time reconciling emotional comments and abuse of the forum chair with a
cohesive rational process.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE
This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission,
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.
AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE
Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen,
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.