Dear Editor,

I enjoyed reading the Taylor Raffy analysis as it was complete and enlightening. Great work and thorough. Unfortunately, when it gets right to the nub, all the debate primarily rages around jobs, financial benefits and other concerns that I would characterize as shuffIing deck chairs on the Titanic. I like to keep it simple. If a project is to be viable it must satisfy two criteria.

1. It provides an overall cost effective benefit i.e. something is created which has value and addresses a problem
2. It eventually pays for itself

First, and I want readers to remember this thought, that TC Energy does not talk “COST” as they claim in their slick presentations. They talk SELLING PRICE … i.e. the price we pay at peak periods and the price we pay during light load periods; in other words, the price the producer decides to charge the consumer. This figure, as always, is totally arbitrary. This dissertation will talk about true “COST”.

To accurately describe the “COST” of the TC Energy proposal the following “COSTS” have to be applied:

1. The cost to build the site … my guess is several hundred million dollars,
2. The cost to operate and maintain the site … my guess is several million dollars per year, and
3. The cost to pump water up to the reservoir.

This money will ultimately be paid by consumers in Ontario. For that sum of true “COSTS” the Ontario consumer will, for every two megawatts of energy consumed to pump water up, get a return of perhaps one megawatt back. One has to wonder, where is the up side to this proposal? I suggest that to satisfy number one criterion, the price at peak period would have to be pretty well triple or more the off-peak price. Indeed if you assess this proposal closely there is no option but to raise the overall price of hydro to the Ontario consumer simply to cover the additional “COSTS” this facility will incur. There is NO cost benefit and there is NO payback … just more payout by the Ontario hydro consumer.

Paul Wehrle
Meaford