See transcript of the December 8 meeting here

Dear Mayor Ritsma and Councillors,

I am writing you about the December 8 meeting of Council, in which a letter of support was approved for a battery storage system at 465 Wright Boulevard, composed of up to 50 shipping container structures. The containers will be installed on land owned by Festival Hydro, through a collaboration with a private company, Cordelia BESS. If this developer wins a contract with the IESO through our support, this company will store and discharge up to 8.8 megawatts (MW) of power.

As Director Betteridge said at the meeting, now is the time to establish procedures for dealing with these new kinds of proposals. His positive approach is an encouragement to consider the project closely and after doing so, I respectfully submit the questions below. It’s important for the community to support Council in its work, and reviewing the rules and procedures should help all of us understand them better.

1. 1. The AMO Energy Procurement Toolkit requires that developers must work in collaboration with the municipality to deliver public engagement, and the municipality must confirm that engagement has taken place as part of the letter of support.(1) 
Has the City done this?
   2. The proposal itself was presented by Director Betteridge. Is it common practice for proposals from the private sector to be made by staff? If staff does this work, will their time be billed to Cordelia BESS?
   3. A letter from Mike Sullivan raised serious questions about Cordelia BESS. Why were his concerns not discussed?
   4. 
Invest Stratford warned that should this project fail after installation there is a risk of creating “an area of the business park that cannot be easily reoccupied/leased by another company or re-purposed/re-developed in the same way as a vacated industrial building.” Is there an existing procedure on vetting companies who are making proposals?
   5. Councillors voted to support the project with the understanding that it could be revisited later. This is not entirely true. Although city councils can still have a voice in land‑use planning, zoning, site plan, building permits, fire safety, and environmental rules, they cannot refuse the project after the contract is awarded. (2) Did councillors understand this when they voted?
   6. Invest Stratford has already reported that shipping containers standing on empty land may not be the best use of the land , and will bring in little in taxes. For the city to benefit from this project, we must negotiate a Community Benefits Agreement. The AMO recommends doing this before giving our consent in a letter of support, (3) but I believe that Council has yet to discuss it. Will this mean we’ve lost our bargaining power?
   7. Consideration of the project seemed to be rushed. It was explained that the company had submitted their proposal in October, and December 8 was the last date in the 2025 window of opportunity to support it. Director Betteridge noted there would be subsequent windows. Why not wait until the next deadline?
   8. Had this project been discussed by the Energy and Environment Committee? If not, do we need a policy to be sure future projects will be considered by E&E before coming to Council?



We are at the beginning of a surge in energy project proposals, some of which will involve technologies we’re not familiar with. Most of these will be beneficial projects from reputable companies, but it’s just a fact of life that some won’t be. I congratulate Mr. Betteridge on his foresight in working toward a standard set of procedures, and hope my questions will be helpful in the creation of sound policies.

If you would like to participate in online discussion of this letter, you are warmly invited to join us. 

Thank you,

Sharon Collingwood
Stratford

References

(1) PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT: The AMO Energy Procurement Toolkit states that developers “are expected to work in collaboration with municipalities to deliver public engagement to the satisfaction of the host municipalities. Municipalities must confirm that this engagement has taken place as part of the MRSPS. (Page 8)


(2) HOW THE MUNICIPAL SUPPORT RESOLUTION WORKS: The Independent Electric System Operator (IESO) plans the province’s grid, and wants good candidates for energy projects. It asks cities to submit letters of support, which will earn points for company applications. If the application is approved, the company will have a contract with the IESO.  Under the law, the city can withdraw its support, but if the contract has already been awarded, this has little effect. Although city councils can still have a voice in land‑use planning, zoning, site plan, building permits, fire safety, and environmental rules, they cannot refuse the project:  “…because the MRSPS is only intended to indicate support in principle prior to IESO issuing a contract, once a contract has been awarded to a project, there is no effect to revoking an MRSPS.”  (See AMO Energy Procurement Toolkit, page 7)


(3) COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENT: Municipalities are increasingly looking to community benefit agreements (CBAs) as opportunities to recover costs, secure meaningful local benefits, and share in project revenues so they can be reinvested into the community in the long-term. CBAs are formal agreements through which municipalities and project developers negotiate terms to ensure that both parties are sharing in the potential benefits of a project, and that all costs can be recovered. Although CBAs are not currently required as part of the procurement process, municipalities may ask for them as a condition of support in providing an MRSPS
 (See AMO Energy Procurement Toolkit, page 15). 

The AMO also suggests that communities negotiate the community benefits agreement as a precondition of support (page 8)