Community pushback stops Bluewater energy storage project

By Dan Rolph

A large-scale energy project has been turned down by Bluewater council after residents rallied in opposition to the proposal.

The project would have made use of two depleted natural gas caverns between Bayfield and Varna off Goshen Line, pulling power from the grid to compress air into the caverns that could be released later to move turbines, effectively storing the energy for times when demand increases.

The proposal has been floating around the area since 2023, when Bedrock Energy Corp. first approached council and the public with the idea.

Since then, updates about the project have remained limited until it returned to council this year when Bedrock, alongside their partner Capstone Infrastructure, were seeking council’s support in applying for Ontario’s IESO long lead-time energy storage procurement, asking council to pass a willing host resolution that would formalize their support.

According to Bedrock, the proposed facility would have been capable of storing enough energy to power 624,000 homes. They estimated that the project could have contributed about 40 full-time jobs once operational, as well as hundreds of jobs during the construction process.

If the application were successful, the project timeline aimed to have facility open in 2032. If the project were given the greenlight, it would be considered one of the first of its kind in the world.

Compressed energy storage has been implemented in globally on a smaller scale, including locally in Goderich, but the technology has been widely limited to underground salt caverns, not depleted natural gas reservoirs like the proposed Bluewater project.

Councillors unanimously passed a motion during an Aug. 13 special council meeting cementing their opposition for the project in a decision that was influenced in part by resistance from residents.

Before that special meeting, Bluewater resident Joanne McCann made a delegation to council at the Aug. 10 council meeting, speaking on behalf of a group of residents opposed to the proposal.

McCann pointed to a loss of farmland as a particular area of concern for residents, noting that protecting prime agricultural land should be a focus in the community.

“Our farmland is one of the most valuable resources,” she said. “As our population grows and food security becomes increasingly important, protecting prime agricultural land should be one of our highest priorities. We have a responsibility to preserve this land for future generations, not replace it with industrial development.”

Between the proposed Goshen facility and pipelines to the reservoirs, the future of about 300 acres of farmland was in question.

According to Bedrock, the location was chosen because of its access to the Bayfield and Stanley reservoirs that once held natural gas, but also because of its proximity to a nearby high voltage Hydro One transmission line that runs adjacent to the proposed site.

McCann said safety was also an area of concern for residents despite assurances that the technology would be implemented safely, and she pointed to the project’s unique use of natural gas reservoirs.

“Before compressed air can safely be stored in a former hydrocarbon reservoir, there are significant questions about how much residual gas and hydrocarbons remain underground,” she said. “The reality is that when a gas field is considered economically depleted, residual gas can still remain underground.

“How can we say that the risk is remote when we don’t know exactly what remains in the reservoir, or what will happen when huge amounts of compressed air are repeatedly pumped into it?”

In addition to McCann’s words, council received a petition including more than 1,300 individuals from the region and beyond who were opposed to the project.

During the Aug. 13 special meeting, Coun. Bill Whetstone commended Blackrock for answering questions and clarifying areas of confusion around the project. He said councillors have a responsibility to make decisions based on reasoning and data, though they also have a responsibility to look beyond the data they’re presented.

“We don’t live on spreadsheets,” he said. “Our role around this table is to look beyond the immediate merits of this proposal and consider the full economic, agricultural and long-term food security implications of permanently removing 300 acres of productive farmland from agricultural production.”

Whetstone said 300 acres of farmland represents roughly $790,000 of annual farm cash receipts.

“That’s just 300 acres.”

Coun. Winona Sangster also spoke in opposition to the project while noting that projects like it, though she noted there is a need for similar projects in Ontario.

“I am not prepared to support this project on prime agricultural land,” she said. “Energy storage capacity is a real need, but it doesn’t have to come at the cost of the farmland that the municipality has committed to protect.

Mayor Paul Klopp spoke about the community’s resistance to the proposal. He said he particularly had concerns regarding the proposal’s 40-year plan, noting that any future beyond that would remain undetermined.

“You build things to last,” he said. “You don’t build things just to tear them down.”