The Western Lake Erie WATERKEEPER Association, in partnership with the Lake Erie Charter Boat Association, the Ohio Environmental Council, Sierra Club, Ohio Citizen Action, Izaac Walton League, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, is calling for a dramatic reduction of the number of fish killed every year by the power plant as well as compensation for the citizens of Ohio for any fish killed over the legal limit. The same rules that apply to anglers and to spills in waterways where Natural Resource Damage is assessed should apply to the power plant.

The groups are calling for the state of Ohio to force FirstEnergy to install cooling towers that would reduce fish kills by up to 95%. The economic loss from the fish kills warrants cooling towers. Bayshore appears to be the largest fish killing power plant in the Great Lakes and one of the largest in the US. Bayshore kills more fish than all other Ohio power plants combined and kills more fish than the Ohio Department of Natural Resources raises to release each year.

“Any sport fisherman caught fishing without a license or taking more than six walleye or 25 perch per day is subject to a stiff fine,” said Sandy Bihn, Director of the Western Lake Erie WATERKEEPER Association. “But somehow, FirstEnergy gets away with killing millions of fish each year at its Bayshore power plant. It pays nothing and does next to nothing to reduce the kills. It won’t stop killing until the state of Ohio makes it stop.”

The Bayshore Power Plant is responsible for massive numbers of fish being killed every single day. A study for Bayshore by Kinetrics, estimates that the Bayshore power plant:

• Kills more than 46 million fish per year when fish are slammed and caught (called impingement) against its cooling water system screens; and
• Kills more than 14 million juvenile fish and more than 2 billion fish in their larval form when they pass through the water intake screens and through equipment inside the power plant (called entrainment), during the 2005-2006 sampling period.
• On average, kills 126,000 fish a day by being caught on the screens and 6 million a day of fish that pass through the screens.

The facility is currently testing reverse louvers to reduce the number of fish killed annually, but Ohio EPA’s own consultant, Tetratech, found that louvers would not be effective and eliminated them from further consideration.

“Cooling towers can dramatically reduce the number of fish killed each year by 95%, as well as address the Bayshore plant’s violations of thermal discharge standards,” said Shannon Fisk, Staff Attorney in the Midwest Office of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The science is clear that Bayshore’s water intake and thermal discharges are severely impacting fisheries in Maumee Bay and the law is clear that Ohio EPA must require cooling towers if the Bayshore plant is going to continue to operate.”

The Bayshore coal plant is not only subject to Section 316 of the Clean Water Act, but also must meet water quality standards and numeric criteria for temperature applicable to discharges to Maumee Bay (which is grouped with Lake Erie) under the Ohio Administrative Code. In addition, under Ohio law, the public owns the fish in Lake Erie and it is unlawful to “take in any manner…any number or quantity of wild animals” without a license.

The power plant is located near where the Maumee River meets the Maumee Bay, one of the most ecologically sensitive and biologically productive areas in the Great Lakes region. The Maumee River is Lake Erie’s largest tributary and an important spawning area for walleye. The location of this power plant is unfortunate for marine wildlife, but FirstEnergy can take important steps to make sure that the fish killing is dramatically reduced. Installing the cooling towers is an absolute must for the ecological safety of this Lake Erie watershed and the fish that live within it.

While it is of utmost importance to reduce our societies’ unhealthy addiction to fossil fuels, it is also crucial that each new energy solution be carefully examined. Jumping full force into developing any new project could lead to devastating consequences.

While wind energy may not have the obvious risks inherent in nuclear or coal, there are environmental, social, and economic considerations that must be addressed for potential offshore wind projects.

Michigan, New York, Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin are all in the midst of examining the feasibility of constructing offshore wind turbines in the shallower but more biologically productive areas of the lakes. The attraction to shallow areas is that current offshore wind technology is restricted to a depth of 30-meters. In every Great Lake, and especially in Lake Erie, this depth restriction could limit offshore wind projects to the ecologically sensitive nearshore areas.

There are already a number of potential wind projects being developed for the Great Lakes. This past fall, Canadian Hydro Developers announced it had reached an agreement to construct a 4,400 megawatt offshore wind project in Lake Erie.

This project was eventually terminated in October of 2009 because of a corporate buyout by the TransAlta Corporation. This has not stopped other Canadian firms from looking into the possibility of projects in both Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. Toronto Hydro, SouthPoint Wind, and Trillium Power are all expressing interest in offshore wind projects in Canadian waters.

South of the border, more progress is being made in creating physical projects on the lakes. In Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm has created an advisory board, the Great Lakes Wind Council, to advise the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth on issues of offshore wind development in Michigan waters.

In September, this board found that 20 percent of the 38,000 square miles of state-owned Great Lakes bottomlands has a depth of 30 meters or less. Within this area, 537 square miles are considered to be most favorable to the sustainable development of offshore wind energy.

Governor Granholm has extended the tasks of this board to further explore offshore wind with eventual identification of suitable sites. As further study continues, developers are ready to propose projects. Havgul Clean Energy, a company with proposed projects in Norway, has created a subsidiary company, Scandia Offshore Wind LLC, to look at the potential in Lake Michigan. The company is targeting the region from Ludington, MI to Silver Lake, MI for offshore development.

Outside Michigan, other Great Lakes states are undertaking similar exploration projects and propositions. In Ohio, Cuyahoga County government and private business leaders are considering the construction of offshore wind turbines three to five miles off Cleveland’s coast. The story is similar in Lake Michigan, off the coast of Milwaukee.

The project that is farthest along lies in New York’s Great Lakes. In December of 2009, the New York Power Authority (NYPA) released an official Request for Proposal for a utility-scale offshore wind project in the range of 120 MW to 500 MW in either Lake Erie or Lake Ontario. Throughout the summer and fall of 2009, NYPA has held public meetings to discuss the results of last April’s Request for Expressions of Interest. The deadline for proposals for projects is June 1, 2010.

The arguments in support of and against these projects follow familiar themes. Businesses promote jobs in economically depressed regions, the potential to build the region as a center for a growing industry, and other social-economic positives.

Those critical of the projects counter by citing the potential impact the wind projects could have on bird migrations, fish spawning, recreational fishing and boating, and the aesthetic disruption of the waterscape.

It is unclear what will happen with these projects in the future, but it is a safe bet that offshore wind energy projects are very likely to be on the radar for communities and ecosystems across the Great Lakes for some time.

Further study and research will help us fully understand this innovative but controversial technology. Be sure to follow Great Lakes United’s involvement in and analysis of these projects as they have the potential to forever change our communities and lakes.

Leaders in Water Conservation
Communities across North America are showing that water conservation can have real economic and ecological benefits. Below are a few examples how innovative water conservation and efficiency programs are saving municipalities millions in costly upgrades, protecting their local watershed, and reducing the energy used to pump and treat water.

Guelph, ON: Guelph is undertaking the first grey-water reuse pilot program in Ontario. Through the 2009 pilot program 30 residential grey-water reuse systems will be installed in both new and existing homes.

Albuquerque, NM: A new water pricing system along with educational programs about water conservation for indoor and outdoor projects has successfully slowed the groundwater draw rate for the area to a stable rate. Per capita water use dropped by 45 gallons from 1995 to 2001.

Cary, NC: A multi-program approach to conservation using public education, landscape and irrigation codes, residential water audits, a water reclamation facility and other programs has set the city up to reduce retail water production by a remarkable 4.6 million gallons per day by the year 2028. Not bad for a population of about 100,000.

Goleta, CA: Goleta instituted a residential water efficiency program that included plumbing retro-fits, high-efficiency toilets and showerheads, and a modified rate structure which resulted in a 30% drop in district water use.

Phoenix, NM: Phoenix is another case where pricing reform, along with educational programs, residential and industrial conservation efforts and infrastructure planning has saved citizens money and water. The city saves approximately 40 million gallons per day and estimates that their water pricing structure alone saved 9 million gallons per day.

Barrie, ON: Barrie developed a conservation plan involving replacing inefficient showerheads and toilets. As a result, the city saved 55 liters (15 gallons) of water per person per day. As with many of the above cities, the conservation program allowed Barrie to defer an expensive capital expansion project, saving taxpayers $17.1 million CAD.

Charlottetown, PEI: Charlottetown has an excellent track record of low per capita water use. Listed as one of the lowest regions in the country, the city has recorded a per capita water use of 156 liters per day (41 gallons).

How do you think your community would stack up against these projects? What are you doing to get your community’s daily water usage to a sustainable level? Many states and provinces are taking on projects to encourage their citizens to reach water goals approximately 40 gallons (150 litres) per person per day. Water conservation is happening now- don’t let your city get left behind.

It is apparent from these examples is that these cities are re-thinking much of their water management practices. Most water conservation efforts simply require the collection and redistribution of water, either after it has been used once by consumers or as it falls from the sky. These small and seemingly insignificant steps have the potential to make substantial and significant impacts on our water usage.

It is no longer a question of something we “should” be doing; conservation is an essential tool in our continued struggle to maintain the ecological safety of our environment and our way of life. Water conservation is something that must be done, and for many communities and citizens, it is something that is being done.

How can you conserve water in your home?

There are plenty of inexpensive and easy ways to reduce your water usage. Here are 10 tips that will help you save water and save money:

1. Install low-flow showerheads and faucets, which can both be purchased at your local hardware store, or contact your water utility company to find out if they distribute them for free.

2. Check for- and hastily repair- leaky pipes and faucets. The tiniest leak has far greater impact than you’d think. An estimated 30 gallons of water per day is wasted because of a small leak (and even more water is wasted because of a bigger, more noticeable drip).

3. Consider cutting a little water usage from your morning routine. Keeping a timer in your bathroom will shorten your shower, and may even help get you to work a little bit sooner.

4. When running the dishwasher, make sure it is full before you turn it on, and get the most work out of your water. There is no need to pre-rinse, since most of today’s models can handle any kind of grime.

5. Reduce water use in your own yard: Collect rainwater by placing containers at the end of each gutter, and planting more native species, which are more resilient during summer dry spells.

6. Insulate hot water pipes: Pre-slit foam pipe insulation is cheap and easy to install, and keeps the water in your pipes hotter. This means less time running the faucet and waiting for the water to heat up.

7. If you can’t install a low-flow toilet, reduce the amount of water used by placing a jar or other closed container full of water into your toilet tank.

8. Turning off the water while brushing your teeth can save a family 5 to 10 gallons per day. Rinse hand razors in a filled sink rather than under running water.

9. For cold drinks keep a pitcher of water in the refrigerator instead of running the tap. This way, every drop goes down you and not drown the drain!

10. Know where your master water shut-off valve is located. This could save water and prevent damage to your home.

From environmental concerns with siting to the lack of consistent permitting regulations, there are major challenges involved in developing wind energy resources in the Great Lakes region. Onshore wind development is beginning to expand at a rapid pace and plans for offshore wind turbines in the lakes are proceeding amidst a flurry of issues, and setting new precedents for in-lake turbines.

Formed in May, 2008, The Great Lakes Wind Collaborative (GLWC) is a group established to build consensus and identify and address issues affecting the safe planning, development, and operation of wind power facilities in the Great Lakes region. The group acts as a forum for dialogue and an opportunity to exchange information the sustainable development of wind power in the region.

GLWC members include representatives from a broad spectrum of interests throughout the Great Lakes region, from state, provincial and federal regulators to industry and NGOs. Great Lakes United is serving the coalition as a member of the Steering Committee. Anyone can join the GLWC and receive updates on the group’s work and meetings by signing at www.glc.org/energy/wind/

Watch for information on the GLWC’s 2nd Annual Meeting slated to take place the second week of June in Milwaukee, WI. For more information please visit the GLC website, or contact: John Hummer or Victoria Pebbles, Great Lakes Commission, jhummer@glc.org, vpebbles@glc.org, 734-971-9135.

“Seaway acts to flush Great Lakes invaders”
– Muskegon Chronicle, May 6, 2008

After years of watching new invasive species arrive in the ballast tanks of ocean ships, the St. Lawrence Seaway has finally put in place measures to address ships that arrive in the Great Lakes with “no ballast on board” but still harboring residual water—and invaders—at the bottom of their tanks. In addition to ballasted ships flushing their tanks out in the open sea, these ships are now also required to flush, killing or purging many invaders that may be lurking. While this is not an 100% effective measure, and we must continue to press towards ships meeting national discharge standards, it represents a significant step forward in protecting the Great Lakes.

“IJC abandons gutless plan for dam”
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 18, 2008

Activists from across the region rallied to prevent the International Joint Commission from implementing a management plan for the Moses-Saunders Dam that would have damaging effects on coastal habitat. “Plan 2007” would maintain the status quo for managing Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River levels. American Rivers has suggested that these management practices have made the St. Lawrence one of America’s most threatened rivers. The IJC is now working on a broader, more inclusive, process for developing a water levels plan that would benefit the environment after suffering 50 years of damage.

“Montreal Selects New Sewage Treatment Technology”

On January 30, 2008, the city of Montreal announced that, after years of study, ozone will be the disinfection technology implemented at its sewage treatment plant. According to the Mayor of Montreal, Gérald Tremblay, it is a big step forward in improving the water quality of the St. Lawrence River and for the benefit of Montrealers and residents downstream.

The ozone technology meets the requirements of Montreal wastewater, in addition to dealing with emerging substances. The Montréal sewage treatment plant treats 2.5 million cubic meters of water daily, about 50 per cent of all wastewater in Quebec. From the perspective of sustainability, this disinfection process takes into account the elimination of viruses and bacteria, emerging new compounds, including pharmaceuticals and surfactants (detergents).

“Congress Passes Great Lakes Legacy Act”
–Targeted News Service, October 1, 2008

Before adjourning for the fall, Congress reauthorized the Great Lakes Legacy Act, providing $54 million per year to clean up toxic pollution across the region. Funding from the legislation is being used to clean up such pollution as contaminated sediments Indiana’s Grand Calumet River (an Area of Concern) and Milwaukee’s Kinnickinnic River.

Congress passes historic Great Lakes protection
– Great Lakes News, online edition, September 23, 2008

After seven years of negotiating the agreements and passing them in the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario, and Quebec, the Great Lakes Compact and its sister international agreement became law this fall. The agreements represent the strongest protections in Great Lakes history against harmful diversions and introduce strict conservation standards for the regions most wasteful water users.

“Minnesota Voters in 2008 Approve $5.5 Billion to Protect Land and Water”
Marketwatch, November 5, 2008

The Clean Water, Wildlife and Cultural Heritage and Natural Area amendment to Minnesota’s constitution was passed on November 4, raising $300 million every year for 25 years. The funds will go toward cleaning up polluted waters and lands, establishing conservation easements, and other projects to ensure a environmental legacy for future Minnesotans.

Activists across Canada and the world have derided the environmental devastation that oil sands development is causing to northern Alberta. However, with up to 17 projects planned or underway in the Great Lakes region that seek to increase refining capabilities to process Alberta oil, the Great Lakes will not be immune to the ecological damage that development of the oil sands is wreaking.

Earlier this fall the Munk Centre at the University of Toronto released a report summarizing the various proposals across the region, and exploring the environmental toll expansion will present to the Great Lakes.

According to David Israelson, the report’s author, “[expansion] would add exponentially to emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and water pollution.”

In Alberta, the oil that is extracted is a thick, tar-like substance called bitumen. The bitumen is mixed with sand making it an expensive, energy and water intensive process for separating and refining. These demands make bitumen crude one of the dirtiest oils in the word to produce.

Among the expansion plans investigated is that of British Petroleum’s (BP) facility in Whiting, India. The expansion would increase motor fuels production by 12 million gallons a week. As a result, pollution discharges—toxic sludge and ammonia —would increase by 35 and 45 per cent, respectively.

After a public outcry, with tens of thousands of individuals signing a petition in opposition to the permit, a resolution was passed in the U.S. House of Representatives asking Indiana to reconsider the permit they had granted to BP. After the resolution passed overwhelmingly, BP committed to upgrading the refinery in such a way that would keep pollution discharges at current levels. To date, no such technology exists.

Across the region, falling energy prices and a struggling economy have put expansion plans on hold for now. However, should the economy recover and oil prices rise again, many of these plans could see light.

In Superior, Wisconsin, activists are relieved that Murphy Oil’s $6.2 billion expansion was shelved. The project would have increased the refining capacity of the plant by nearly six times, allowing it to process over 200,000 barrels a day.

The plant was built in 1951 and currently processes 35,000 barrels of crude oil per day. According to the Zenith City Weekly, the refinery is struggling to compete with larger facilities, and is contemplating whether it is viable to continue operating.

The expansion would threaten 300 to 500 acres of Lake Superior wetlands, while withdrawing 5 million gallons of Lake Superior water every day and increasing its energy consumption 12 times.

“We hope that this plan doesn’t come back. It would risk wetlands, migratory birds and the future health of Lake Superior,” said Melissa Malott, water program director for Clean Wisconsin.

Andrew Nikiforuk, author of Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, writes that the expansion would be “the largest wetlands filling in Wisconsin since the passage of the U.S. Clean Water Act of 1972.”

Any expansion of refining capacity means building a pipeline system to move the oil. Enbridge, one of Canada’s largest energy companies, will likely control much of the pipeline traffic into the Great Lakes region. It is currently expanding its pipeline capacity. When it is completed, the Albert Clipper pipeline, which runs 1,000 miles (1,607 km) from Hardisty Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin, is expected to carry 450,000 barrels of oil per day. At its peak capacity, the pipeline is expected to carry upwards of 800,000 barrels per day. This line is just one of many that will zig-zag across the Great Lakes and North America.

For now, the threat of refinery expansion in the Great Lakes is dormant. However, the current dependence of North Americans on oil, and the U.S. strategy to supply its oil from sources closer to home, means that oil sands production will continue to increase in the coming years. Once the economy recovers and oil prices inevitability rise again, citizens across the Great Lakes may be facing refinery expansion and the environmental consequences that come with it.

When: Monday, June 23rd from 7 – 9 PM (refreshments at 6:30 PM)
Where: Delta Chelsea Hotel at 33 Gerrard St West, Toronto, Rossetti Room (Yonge and Dundas subway station)

Opening remarks will be from Bob Seguin, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Forum will be moderated by Michael Hlinka, Daily Business Reporter, CBC One’s Metro Morning.

Panel Presentations will be from David Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Ken Kurani, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California; and Richard Cooper, Executive Director, J.D. Power and Associates Canada.

There is no admission fee and registration is not necessary.

For more information, please contact Rebecca Spring at rspring@pollutionprobe.org or 416-926-1907 ext. 238.

Please pass this message on to your friends.

Thank you.

Jessica Fracassi, Communications & Membership Director
Ontario Clean Air Alliance
402-625 Church St, Toronto M4Y 2G1
Phone: 416-926-1907 ext. 245
Fax: 416-926-1601
Email: jessica@cleanairalliance.org
Website: www.cleanairalliance.org

The Task Force serves as a critical forum for green energy/nuclear free activists throughout the Great Lakes to share knowledge, develop coordinated strategy, and discuss how green energy can become a viable source of power.

Read on for just a small sampling of the issues that a few active Task Force members are currently tackling.

Kay Cumbow represents the Michigan group, Citizens Against Chemical Contamination (CACC). Last fall, Cumbow coordinated a binational forum on nuclear dangers and green energy in southeast Michigan. CACC is participating in a Canadian review process to raise critical health and safety concerns regarding Ontario Power Generation’s proposed deep geological repository less than a mile from Lake Huron at Kincardine, for inaccurately termed “low” and “intermediate” level radioactive wastes from 20 Ontario nuclear plants. Contact her at kcumbow@greatlakes.net.

Gordon Edwards is president and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The coalition has been instrumental in bringing about a moratorium on new reactors in Quebec, moratoria on uranium mining in British Columbia and Nova Scotia, and organizing the Green Energy Conference in Montreal. Currently, CCNR is fighting new reactors in Alberta, New Brunswick and Ontario, and uranium exploration in many parts of Canada. Dr. Edwards is a leading critic on topics ranging from reactor hazards to uranium mining to nuclear weapons proliferation, and a proponent of alternative energy strategies. He is often summoned to give expert testimony on technical, health and environmental issues related to nuclear technology.

Kevin Kamps, of Beyond Nuclear, aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both. Kamps has expertise on all aspects of the nuclear fuel chain. He is particularly concerned about government and industry efforts to establish a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and the risks related to radioactive waste generation, storage, and transportation. He is a frequent speaker at community and governmental forums in the U.S. and overseas, has testified before numerous federal, state, and local government agencies and is regularly featured in the media.

Ziggy Kleinau is with the nonprofit organization, Citizens For Renewable Energy (CFRE). CFRE focuses on promoting effective government programs for increasing the use of solar and wind energy systems for homes, farms and businesses. The organization is also participating in two Canadian review processes associated with nuclear energy – one for the construction of a new reactor at the Bruce facility, another for the proposed deep geological repository, both situated at Kincardine.

Shawn Patrick Stensil is an energy and climate campaigner with Greenpeace Canada. His campaign work focuses on building sustainable, nuclear free and climate friendly energy systems in Ontario. At Great Lakes United’s annual general meeting in 2007, Stensil summarized the problems with nuclear energy: the potential for accidents and their catastrophic consequences; high cost of construction and cost overruns; and, the creation of high-level radioactive wastes that are dangerous for thousands of years. Read his blog on nuclear issues at: blogs.greenpeace.ca/nuclear.

Michael J. Keegan represents the Coalition for a Nuclear-Free Great Lakes based in Monroe, Michigan and Don’t Waste Michigan. The coalition is an association of Great Lakes groups and individuals that exchanges expertise and information across the basin regarding nuclear power while advocating for safe alternative energy sources. Don’t Waste Michigan was originally founded in 1987 to oppose the designation of the state of Michigan as a repository for what was wrongly termed “low-level” radioactive waste from eight states. Keegan has been actively involved in monitoring operations at many Great Lakes nuclear reactors. Reach him at mkeeganj@comcast.net.

John LaForge, represents Nukewatch, a Wisconsin-based environmental and peace action group dedicated to the abolition of nuclear power and weapons. A current focus of Nukewatch is addressing the potential for contamination from barrels of toxic chemicals and possibly radioactive materials, dumped decades ago in Lake Superior.

Pat Lawson and Faye More, representing the Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee in Ontario. The group is urging a thorough and safe cleanup of radioactive contamination in the community from past and current uranium processing facilities and advocating for independent monitoring and health studies.

Victor McManemy, a long-time Traverse City, Michigan citizen activist/musician and member of Citizens Against Chemical Contamination. McManemy is working to resolve lingering concerns relating to the Big Rock Point nuclear power plant site near Charlevoix, Michigan, which was decommissioned in 1997. McManemy is advocating for an independent assessment of historical radioactive contamination at the site and opposing efforts to create either a state park or a real estate development surrounding the site.

With over 100 hazardous air pollutants expected to be released into the environment by the plant, opponents of the proposal are concerned about the health and environmental risks associated with the emissions, which will not require monitoring.

Controversy over the proposed plant increased on January 17 when the Erie County Environmental Coalition hosted a 90 minute forum, a prelude to a hearing held by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection a few weeks later. The proposed plant would cost $235 million, produce 100 megawatts of electricity and employ 60 full-time employees.

The extreme amount of controversy surrounding the proposed plant has caused Erie City Council to recently pass a resolution to draft an ordinance that would require the proposed plant and any future polluter that requires an air quality permit under Act 5 to install continuous emissions monitoring equipment to assure that the plant complies with any permits that it is issued.

For more information visit www.stopburningtires.com.

Nuclear power is the highest-cost, least reliable and least energy efficient electricity supply source. This decision essentially does an end run around the government’s promise to consider all supply sources equally in an integrated plan.

Instead of reserving up to 72 per cent of Ontarios electricity market for nuclear power, the Government of Ontario should allow all energy options to compete fairly to meet our base-load electricity needs.

It doesn’t make sense to build new nuclear power plants if we can meet our electricity needs at a lower cost through:

• energy conservation and demand management
• wind power
• biomass power from our farms
• natural gas-fired combined heat and power plants located in our apartment buildings, recreation centres, hospitals, shopping malls and factories
• water power imports from Quebec, Labrador or Manitoba.

Please contact Energy Minister Phillips and ask him to immediately revoke his decision to grant nuclear power a monopoly for up to 72% of Ontarios electricity market and restore fairness and foresight to energy planning in Ontario. You can reach him at:

Hon. Gerry Phillips
Ministry of Energy
Hearst Block, 4th Floor
900 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
M7A 2E1

Telephone: 416-327-6758
Fax: 416-327-0033
e-mail: gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org