The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

OAKVILLE BEAVER Friday, October 2, 2009 · 6 OPINION & LETTERS The Oakville Beaver 467 Speers Rd., Oakville Ont. L6K 3S4 (905) 845-3824 Fax: 337-5571 Classified Advertising: 632-4440 Circulation: 845-9742 --Open 9-5 weekdays, 5-7 for calls only Wed. to Friday, Closed weekends Editorial and advertising content of the Oakville Beaver is protected by copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited. THE OAKVILLE BEAVER IS PROUD OFFICIAL MEDIA SPONSOR FOR: NEIL OLIVER Vice ­ President and Group Publisher of Metroland West The Oakville Beaver is a division of Media Group Ltd. DAVID HARVEY Regional General Manager JILL DAVIS Editor in Chief ROD JERRED Managing Editor DANIEL BAIRD Advertising Director RIZIERO VERTOLLI Photography Director SANDY PARE Business Manager MARK DILLS Director of Production MANUEL GARCIA Production Manager CHARLENE HALL Director of Distribution SARAH MCSWEENEY Circ. Manager What next? Oakville residents were delivered a nasty surprise on Wednesday with the Ontario Power Authority's (OPA) announcement that the TransCanada site had been selected for the 900 megawatt gas-fired power plant in the southwest GTA. With three of the four sites bidding for the project located in Mississauga, there seemed a 75 per cent chance the power plant would be located on the other side of the border. And since the TransCanada site on Royal Windsor Drive is the closest one to a residential area, the odds were in favour that southeast Oakville residents would be spared having the power plant -- at least in their own backyards. So what happened? The OPA's Ben chin says the TransCanada site was simply the best choice, with one of the most efficient turbine engines in the world today. He says local opposition had nothing to do with the selection. For Oakville's sake, let's hope so. While Mayor Hazel McCallion was a vocal opponent of the plan from the outset, Mayor Rob Burton and his council preferred to work in the background, drafting an interim control bylaw which forbids the construction or expansion of power plants with a capacity of greater than 10 megawatts. That bylaw is going to be quickly put to the test at an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing on Oct. 13. The hearing will be a pivotal legal battle. Burton also tried to introduce a motion at Town Council requiring the OPA to reduce emissions generated by the power plant by a two-for-one ratio. That motion was denounced by residents as inviting the plant to Oakville. If the interim bylaw fails to keep the plant out, government officials owe it to residents to demand rigid restrictions on the TransCanada site to ensure it remains a peaker plant and is only generating power for customers in the area it was intended to serve. As a peaker plant, the generation station would only be running during peak demand periods. Restrictions should also be placed on the plant so that it is not generating power to be exported to northern New York, Michigan, Quebec or even Windsor, Ontario for private profit by TransCanada. If these restrictions are enforced, the impact of the pollution from the plant can at least be reduced through improved energy conservation measures. The Oakville Beaver is a member of the Ontario Press Council. The council is located at 80 Gould St., Suite 206, Toronto, Ont., M5B 2M7. Phone 416-340-1981. Advertising is accepted on the condition that, in the event of a typographical error, that portion of advertising space occupied by the erroneous item, together with a reasonable allowance for signature, will not be charged for, but the balance of the advertisement will be paid for at the applicable rate. The publisher reserves the right to categorize advertisements or decline. Letter to the editor Power plant `stupid' idea I live on Maple Grove Drive, in the shadow of the proposed power plant, so you can accuse me of NIMBYism if you like, but I am also completing a PhD on renewable energy systems, so I fully understand the repercussions of locating a gas-fired power plant in the middle of a residential development. As a homeowner, I am angered by this decision, but as a scientist, I am appalled by it. On a provincial scale, the type of plant being proposed is definitely a valid, cleaner and safer alternative to the existing coal-fired thermal plants that we now have in Ontario. There is a high risk of runaway costs for generating electricity with natural gas that should concern us, but that issue pales in comparison to the potential health issues that this particular plant represents to local residents in its proposed location. Although cleaner than coal, gas plants still emit significant pollutants, and intensity and proximity matter a lot when locating them. The relationship between intensity and distance is not linear; it's a squared function. Moving just five kilometres away from the plant reduces the intensity of and exposure to pollutants to one 25th of what it is within one kilometre of x the proposed location. So, locate the plant up by Trafalgar Road and Hwy. 407 and the risk to the local population becomes negligible. But, putting the plant in an area surrounded by residential development exposes that population to intense levels of emissions. In the scientific community, we have a word for locations like the one being proposed: Stupid. No credible independent scientist would support this location when obvious alternatives are available with a minimal cost impact. Nonetheless, we are probably Letters to the editor The Oakville Beaver welcomes letters from its readers. Letters will be edited for clarity, length, legal considerations and grammar. In order to be published all letters must contain the name, address and phone number of the author. Letters should be addressed to The Editor, Oakville Beaver, 467 Speers Rd., Oakville, ON, L6K 3S4, or via email to editor@oakvillebeaver.com. The Beaver reserves the right to refuse to publish a letter. Watershed yes, airshed no I understand the concept of a `watershed.' For the most part, in layman's terms, it's a constant, stable and fixed piece of terrain drained by a river and its tributaries. It would be helpful if the term `airshed' could be defined when used in your articles. I have trouble imagining the air over southeast Oakville and southwest Clarkson being constant, stable or fixed: The air over the district in question is anything but. I'm also having trouble imagining anything more childish or petulant than Mayor Rob Burton's sly remark about putting a power plant in the Premier's neighbourhood. RONALD REA Ed. note: Dictionary.com defines airshed as a geographical area within which the air frequently is confined or channeled, with all parts of the area thus being subject to similar conditions of air pollution. BY STEVE NEASE snease@haltonsearch.com Pud See Politicians page 10