About the results

Information provided by external sources may not be subject to the Official Languages Act and is made available in the language(s) provided. This may result in content being displayed in a language different than that of the web page display.

The result count may differ from the number of unique comments. Similar comments by various authors may be grouped as a single comment; while each comment and attachment count as distinct results. Where applicable, please click on the alternate formats link to view additional versions available.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

Comment Search Mobile

Sort By: Best Match Most Recent Submitted By

1193 results

Attachment Green energy over nuclear

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Marcel de Koning
Reference Number: 166
Submitted: 2026-01-26 - 10:12 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
Attachment Included
1 From: Marcel de koning Sent: Monday, January 26, 2026 10:12 PM To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) Subject: Green energy over nuclear Hello For the future of Ontario and my kids, please get OPG to evaluate whether energy efficiency, renewables, and energy storage are lower-cost, faster, safer, and more secure ways to meet Ontario’s electricity needs than building a massive new nuclear station at Port Hope. We have the space for wind and solar. We have the lakes for turbines and hydro electric. Let's make Canada and Ontario the leaders in renewable energy. Marcel de Koning An engineer and concerned parents. <contact information removed>

Attachment We Say NO to Nuclear Reactors

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Donna and Verne Deneault
Reference Number: 395
Submitted: 2026-01-06 - 11:02 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited on the summary of the Initial Project Description and funding available
See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
Attachment Included
From: donna deneault Sent Date: Mon Jan 26 11:02:22 2026 To: Wesleyville Nuclear Integrated Assessment / Évaluation Intégrée Wesleyville Nucléaire (IAAC/AEIC) CC: donna deneault Subject: We Say NO to Nuclear Reactors Nuclear reactors are the highest cost option to meet Ontario’s electricity needs up to 10 times higher than energy efficiency, and 2 to 8 times higher than new wind and solar energy. They are also far too slow. We understand that these new nuclear reactors would not come online until 2040 2048. That means more than 20 years of construction, cost overruns, and continued reliance on polluting gas. By contrast, new wind and solar projects can be built in 6 months 2 years, reducing emissions and lowering bills quickly. OPG is considering purchasing American-designed reactors from GE-Hitachi or Westinghouse. These reactors would require Ontario to import enriched uranium from the United States to fuel them. Does that seem like a good idea given the current political ...

Attachment Public Commentary on the Proposed Wesleyville Nuclear Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Near-Sight Neighbours West of Wesleyville
Reference Number: 815
Submitted: 2026-04-25 - 7:41 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
To whom it may concern, I am writing as a near-site resident in response to the proposed Wesleyville nuclear project led by Ontario Power Generation. While I recognize the importance of long-term energy planning and infrastructure in Ontario, I am deeply concerned that those of us living in closest proximity to the proposed site are not being meaningfully engaged in a way that reflects the level of impact we will experience. It is encouraging to see that the Ontario Power Generation is pursuing a partnership agreement with the Michi Saagiig Anishinaabeg Nations of the Williams Treaties First Nations. This demonstrates an understanding that those most affected by development deserve a voice, respect, and formalized engagement. However, I was disappointed to see that the most recent report minimally reflected the concerns of near-site residents, while clearly identifying and emphasizing the importance of other concerned parties. The recognition of Indigenous ...

Attachment Alternatives to the New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: David Maffett
Reference Number: 814
Submitted: 2026-04-24 - 10:03 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Hello, I would like to add my voice to those calling upon the OPG to use existing and rapidly developing renuable energy sources to supply new power rather than buildinbg new nuclear reactors in Ontario. I am in full aggrement with the comments made by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance in their submission of 20 April 2026 and will not repeat them here. For OPG to claim that there are no viable alternatives to new nuclear power makes no sense whatsoever given the use of wind and solar in the rest of the world. We have immense opportunity for wind and solar plus battery storage here in Ontario that will be much faster and much cheaper to deploy. I hear the argument about needing base load power but do not agree that renewable energy coupled with battery storage cannot meet that. We still have hydoelectric power to help with the base load issue. Thank you!

Attachment Reduce number of nuclear sites on Port Hope waterfront.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Doug Smith
Reference Number: 813
Submitted: 2026-04-24 - 8:14 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
The existence of the Cameco refinery in the middle of the towns waterfront is a hard pill to swallow. Another large nuclear site a bit further down our waterfront seems overwhelming. If Cameco would relocate to the Wesllyvile site along with OPG would get overwhelming support from myself and the rest of the Port Hope residents. Thank You

Attachment Let's be a lot smarter.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Bob Stuart
Reference Number: 812
Submitted: 2026-04-23 - 10:56 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
In 1965, I took my girlfriend to the parking lot of the experimental reactor at McMaster University, and told her all about the wonders of nuclear power, which was producing a plume of condensation. Since then, my enthusiasm has totally soured. I have never seen an instance of Nuclear power proving to be the economical choice, despite promises of "too cheap to meter!" initially. I have seen huge problems, cost overruns, accidents, and abandoned reactor projects. Even the Western Washington Power System realized that they would save money by just not starting a completely finished and fueled reactor. The accidents, of course, are horrendous - no commercial insurance company will touch reactor liability. There have been many very costly shutdows for maintenance that overrun the estimates. In recent decades, Nuclear has only gotten more expensive, and recently, prices for renewable energy systems have plummeted, making them ...

Attachment New Nuclear is just too expensive

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Bruce Bellaire
Reference Number: 811
Submitted: 2026-04-23 - 5:24 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
The proponent's (OPG's) recent procurement of renewable energy (wind and solar) sources at an average price of 8.8 cents/kWh show that new nuclear is no longer cost competitive. OPG will be raising the cost of current nuclear generation to 21.4 cents/kWh in 2027. The mid-point cost of new nuclear is expected to be 25.3 cents/kWh while new solar + storage is expected to cost 12.4 cents/kWh and new off shore wind + storage is projected at 15.5 cents/kWh. Also, unlike nuclear generation, wind and solar have been decreasing in cost as these technologies evolve. Ontario's electricy consumers will be paying much more for electricity if the new nuclear at Wesleyville project proceeds. Even worse, Ontario will become less competitive in attracting new industry if our electricity rates are driven so high by new nuclear. The sheer size of the proposed build on the Wesleyville site will change Port Hope and Northumberland County forever. The IAAC must ...

Attachment Nuclear Just Doesn’t Make Sense and is Morally Questionable

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Rita More
Reference Number: 810
Submitted: 2026-04-23 - 2:02 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I am very concerned with Ontario's seeming determination to proceed with a new nuclear project at Wesleyville. It seems clear that this kind of mega-project is outdated. From a cost perspective, an individual safety perspective and a national security perspective, it is all wrong. Both IESO and Lazard are clear that sustainable sources of energy are much more cost effective. One says sustainable sources will be 30% cheaper, the other says 50% cheaper. Individuals in Port Hope whose properties are still being remediated because of nuclear waste from refining done decades ago continue to suffer from past nuclear mistakes. Though there have no doubt been improvements since those days, to create more waste that future generations will have to deal with in conditions we cannot foresee seems profoundly immoral. On top of everything else, to depend on unreliable partners (right now the U.S., but who knows who it will be down the road) ...

Attachment No to nuclear

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Janet Duval
Reference Number: 809
Submitted: 2026-04-22 - 3:25 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I used to accept nuclear as a necessary part of our energy system, but not now, in light of recent price changes for safer, better energy sources. Solar panel prices have plummeted, so much so that many countries are restructuring their entire grid to solar (Pakistan, India, Australia, parts of Africa.) Wind and solar with battery backup are now the cheapest form of energy, outside of our aging hydro dam system. Solar and wind farms can be installed quickly and cheaply. Add to them solar rooftops and plug-in panels for balconies. All of these are so much cheaper than nuclear reactors. As I pass those giant hydro towers fron Niagara on north, I wonder why the fields below couldn't become solar parks. Nuclear is inevitably over time and over budget. Historically, I understand, only the Olympics are worse for managing costs and deadlines. The small modular reactors proposed here are untested except in Russia and China, and ...

Attachment Nuclear Waste/Treaty expectation.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Ronald Anderson
Reference Number: 808
Submitted: 2026-04-22 - 12:30 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Including long-term management of waste in section 2.5.1 is commendable. I draw your attention to the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON) position on expansion of Bruce Power. While SON supports expansion they are not supporting it without a specific waste management proposal. I suggest tightening up Section 2.5.1 to be more specific.

Attachment when you are in a hole, stop digging

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Mike Andrade
Reference Number: 807
Submitted: 2026-04-22 - 10:31 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I have been a follower of the electricity system in Ontario for a couple of decades now, a ratepayer for over 40 years. During that time I have seen that our system has moved from being a competitive advantage to being a disadvantage. Our population sees this through their electricity prices, but those have been so obfuscated by shifting costs from consumers to taxpayers (we still owe $13B for the last wave of nuclear build). As a result, we need to look outside to view how we fare, rather than looking internally. To help with this, Ihave attached the most recent Ember global electricity review. It shows that renewables for the first time are the largest provider of electricity globally Renewables and batteries, particularly solar have grown exponentially, and will only increase faster given the current issues in the gulf. This is because they are the lowest cost, fastest to install, most reliable and provide energy security. In fact, now solar ...
Attachment Included
Solar surge halts fossil generation rise as clean power meets all demand growth and renewables overtake coal 21 April 2026 Nicolas Fulghum Wilmar Suarez Katye Altieri Kostantsa Rangelova Global Electricity Review 2026 Ember’s seventh annual Global Electricity Review provides the first comprehensive overview of changes in global and country-level electricity generation in 2025, based on reported data. It presents current trends and implications for electricity sources and power sector emissions in the near future. With the report, Ember is also releasing the first comprehensive, free dataset of global electricity generation in 2025. The report analyses electricity data from 215 countries, including the latest 2025 data for 91 countries representing 93% of global electricity demand. The analysis also includes data for 13 geographic and economic groupings, such as Africa, Asia, Latin America, the EU and the G7. It also dives deeper into the seven countries and regions ...

Attachment We don't need more nuclear

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Kelsey McCalum
Reference Number: 806
Submitted: 2026-04-22 - 10:10 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
We don't need more nuclear! Wind and solar are cheaper and more sustainable, and can easily meet all of Ontario's needs. There are better options than nuclear, and we must consider them.

Attachment The climate crisis demands faster solutions to growing energy demands

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Vanessa Brown
Reference Number: 805
Submitted: 2026-04-22 - 9:25 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Nuclear reactor facilities take a very long time to build and are very expensive. Not to mention the debt we would force our descendents to pay in terms of managing the nuclear waste at the reactor's end of life. Renewables are faster to implement and much less expensive. Climate change is upon us and we must do everything we can to lower the trajectory of warming while meeting our country's increasing enenergy demands. Nuclear is not the solution to this problem--renewables are.

Attachment No nuclear

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Hugo Navarro
Reference Number: 804
Submitted: 2026-04-22 - 9:25 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
To whom it may concern, I wholly agree with the comments made by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and others. New nuclear does not make sense in Ontario which already has a high dependence on inflexible, centralized, out-of-market generation. The recent procurement run by IESO confirms the overwhelming global evidence that renewables and battery energy storage are the lowest cost and fastest-to-deploy supply alternatives. The additional advantage of public, competitive procurements is that the taxpayer/ratepayer is not stuck footing the bill if/when the business case for nuclear collapses. Most of the present politicians probably don't remember that Ontarians are still on the hook for over $13B of debt for the current fleet of reactors. The world is changing at an astronomical rate and it is folly to predict the cost of energy or supply alternatives 10 or 15 years in the future. See Hinkley Point C in the UK for details. In the name of fiscal sanity I ...

Attachment Nuclear is too expensive

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Marie Sydney
Reference Number: 803
Submitted: 2026-04-22 - 7:01 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
The cost of living has and is continuing to increase. As is the province's debt. The servicing of that debt is ridiculously high and is taking much needed funds away from programs that are needed to serve Ontarians. Despite such high costs, the nuclear project will increase the costs even more despite less expensivie, viable, and more environmentally-friendly (no nuclear waste) alternatives discussed in Ontario Clean Air Alliance's submission. I fully support and adopt the submission of Clean Air Alliance. Taking a step back ans re-evaluating a manjor capital project that has been im the works for a long time is not easy. Those involved are invested in the project and will find it difficult to truly and honestly evaluate project alternatives. But this must be done as part of the province's duty to its residents.

Attachment Strongly oppose Large Nuclear Power Staion when there are less expensive and better alternatives

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Norah Menzies
Reference Number: 802
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 10:18 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
- Earlier this month Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) announced that it is procuring new wind and solar power at an average cost of only 8.8 cents per kWh. That is 30% cheaper than OPG’s current price of nuclear energy and 60% cheaper than OPG’s proposed price for its nuclear energy

Attachment Choose renewables over nuclear

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Tyler Rouse
Reference Number: 801
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 10:08 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
To whom it may concern, The creation of a new nuclear facility over renewables is fiscally irresponsible. Simply from a cost standpoint, solar, wind, and battery storage are cheaper (and will continue to get cheaper as technology improves) and is the global future of energy production. The people of Ontario, and Canada, deserve to have our governments invest in renewables. As energy demands continue to increase, we must elect to create an industry that will protect our energy independence and sovereignty. Nuclear has shown time and again to have massive cost overruns and take far longer to come on-line than promised. For the future of Ontario, and Canada, please do the right thing. Sincerely, Dr. Tyler Rouse

Attachment Comments on New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Lee Ramsay
Reference Number: 800
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 6:58 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I am a citizen concerned about the impacts this proposed project, slated to be the world's largest nuclear power plant, would have on Ontario's energy future. Ontario Power Generation contends that there was no other technical or economic solution to this proposal and that is patently untrue. Solar and wind plus battery storage are more than able to meet the energy requirement this project seeks to fill. And they are much quicker to deploy, have less environmental impact since they don't have a mined feedstock and hazardous waste storage requirements, and cost less than half per kilowatt hour than energy produced from this project. Offshore wind in the Great Lakes would be another cheaper, cleaner, faster solution that could also meet the entirety of the proposed energy generation from this project. Ontarians do not need to have higher energy costs foisted upon them by bad planning processes. Nor should we be forced to wait many ...

Attachment Nuclear is a BIG waste of money

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Michael Buckstein
Reference Number: 799
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 5:28 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I agree with the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and others. New nuclear does not make sense. It is inflexible, centralized, out-of-market generation. Renewables and battery energy storage are the lowest cost and fastest-to-deploy supply alternatives. The additional advantage of public, competitive procurements is that the taxpayer/ratepayer is not stuck footing the bill when the business case for nuclear collapses. We are still hungover from $13B of debt for the current fleet of reactors. The world has changed. Look up and reject this waste of money.

Attachment Better Cheaper Proven Technology

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Robert Smith
Reference Number: 798
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 5:14 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I think Ontario should follow Quebec Hydro expansion plans as the model, that is wind and solar and NOT nuclear. These are proven technologies that have demonstrated their effectivness and competative cost advantages and they can be distributed and thus reduce the distribution losses from a system perspectve.

Attachment Right decision

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Dave Alegbe
Reference Number: 797
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 4:43 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
It does not make sense to move ahead with a nuclear power plant when there are renewable options that require less time and money to build, while providing a lower cost of electricity to residents. Please do not set us back by not considering all other options. Thanks

Attachment need to consider alternatives to new nuclear at Wesleyville

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: David Hitchcock
Reference Number: 796
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 4:33 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I understand that Ontario Power Generation claims that there is no technically and economically feasible alternatives to a nuclear power station at the Wesleyville site. That claim needs to be evaluated rather than accepted by a biased proponent. On the face of it, there are many obvious alternatives, the most obvious being a combination of offshore wind power and battery storage. The IAAC should accept and investigate submissions on these alternatives.

Attachment Comments: to the IAAC re: to its Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Belinda Cole
Reference Number: 794
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 3:50 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Hello, Please see may letter attached, re: two issues: 1) Alternatives to the proposed project; and 2) Management options for used nuclear fuel.
Attachment Included
April 21, 2026 RE: Comments: to the IAAC re: to its Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. Hello, I are writing to comment on two issues: 1) Alternatives to the proposed project; and 2) Management options for used nuclear fuel. 1) Alternatives to the proposed project Ontario Power Generation (OPG)’s request for permission from the Impact Assessment Agency ofCanada (IAAC) to build the world’s largest nuclear station in Port Hope, Ontario would cost about $230 billion and cause our electricity rates to skyrocket. The IAAC’s Draft Guidelines state that it is not planning to examine whether there are lower cost alternatives to providing our power since OPG told it that “there are no alternatives to the project that are technically and economically feasible”. However, contrary to OPG’s assertion, the facts are as follows: 1)The Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) recently announced that it is procuring ...

Attachment New nuclear is an expensive waste of ratepayer dollars

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Samuel Buckstein
Reference Number: 793
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 2:13 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
To whom it may concern, I wholly agree with the comments made by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and others. New nuclear does not make sense in Ontario which already has a high dependence on inflexible, centralized, out-of-market generation. The recent procurement run by IESO confirms the overwhelming global evidence that renewables and battery energy storage are the lowest cost and fastest-to-deploy supply alternatives. The additional advantage of public, competitive procurements is that the taxpayer/ratepayer is not stuck footing the bill if/when the business case for nuclear collapses. Most of the present politicians probably don't remember that Ontarians are still on the hook for over $13B of debt for the current fleet of reactors. The world is changing at an astronomical rate and it is folly to predict the cost of energy or supply alternatives 10 or 15 years in the future. See Hinkley Point C in the UK for details. In the name of fiscal sanity I emplore you to ...

Attachment You need to seriously look at alternatives

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Amanda Richards Franco
Reference Number: 792
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 2:12 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I am concerned that extremely expensive nuclear power is being considered so close to where I live (and most of Ontarians). It's irresponsible to not consider cheaper solutions: According to the IESO (https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-l-ahituuy-ijljttidhi-d/), wind and solar combined with lithium-ion batteries can provide Ontario with reliable 24/7 electricity at a lower cost than new nuclear reactors. Great Lakes offshore wind power with a lakebed footprint of less than one square km (https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-l-ahituuy-ijljttidhi-h/) could meet all of Ontario’s electricity needs. Solar farms with a footprint equal to 4/10ths of 1% of Ontario’s land area could also meet 100% of Ontario’s electricity needs. Rooftop, balcony and parking lot solar (https://ocaa.cmail20.com/t/y-l-ahituuy-ijljttidhi-k/) also have huge potential. You need to explore better and more sustainable alternatives ...

Attachment Chepaer options exist that nuclear plant

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: George Iwanchyshyn
Reference Number: 791
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 2:07 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
You need to loook at much cheaper and cleaner alternatives to nuclear generted electricity. You cannot accept nuclear as the only option. Nuclear is very expensive and everywhere in the world runs over budget. Solar & wind power with battery storage and hydro (although Ontarioa has limited new options for this) are all much cheaper. This comment is from 2 people George Iwanchyshyn & Wilma de Groot

Attachment Canada needs vision and leadership, not bureaucratic rubber-stamping of blinkered OPG decisions

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Steve Chalastra
Reference Number: 790
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 1:26 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is stuck in a rut from which it seems unable to escape. Its mantra of "nuclear, nuclear, nuclear" is technologically unsound and economically destructive. The historian Prof. Alfred McCoy of the University of Wisconsin points out (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/11/26/energy-policy-and-the-politics-of-american-decline/) that emerging empires are based on emerging forms of energy (the Spanish on slavery, the British on coal, the American on oil) and we are on the cusp of the latter giving way to the Chinese based on dominance in renewables. Granted that Canada is not quite embracing fossil fuels as wholeheartedly as the US under Donald Trump, but equally we are not displaying the vision required to move forward in the second quarter of this century. To OPG, every problem is a nail for which the only solution is a nuclear hammer. Surely it is the responsibility of the Impact ...

Attachment Healthier more affordable alternatives exist! No to Unnecessary and unwanted nuclear!

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Travis Frampton
Reference Number: 789
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:59 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Hello, I am writing to provide the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) with the Ontario Clean Air Alliance’s submissions with respect to its Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. These submissions are limited to two issues: a) Alternatives to the proposed project; and b) Management options for used nuclear fuel. Alternatives to the proposed project Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking permission from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to build the world’s largest nuclear station in Port Hope, Ontario. The proposed station would cost about $230 billion and cause our electricity rates to skyrocket. According to page 17 of the IAAC’s Draft Guidelines, it is not planning to examine whether there are lower cost alternatives to keep our lights on since OPG told it that “there are no alternatives to the project that are technically and economically ...
Attachment Included
Submission to: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) From: Ontario Clean Air Alliance Re: IAAC’s Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (April 7, 2026) Date: April 20, 2026 Introduction We are writing to provide the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) with the Ontario Clean Air Alliance’s submissions with respect to its Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. Our submissions are limited to two issues: a) Alternatives to the proposed project; and b) Management options for used nuclear fuel. Alternatives to the proposed project Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking permission from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to build the world’s largest nuclear station in Port Hope, Ontario. The proposed station would cost about $230 billion and cause our electricity rates to skyrocket. According to page 17 of the IAAC’s ...

Attachment Full considerations of alternatives to new nuclear

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Robin Wardlaw
Reference Number: 788
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:41 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
To Whom it May Concern, Ontario's proposal to build large and small new reactors for long term energy security seem to fly in the face of both economics and common sense. I believe it is incumbent on the IAAC to oblige Ontario to fully explain the full short, medium and long term costs of its choices, and its seeming tunnel vision regarding alternatives. Economically, new nuclear will commit Ontarians to very expensive energy for several generations, even as the options for energy production continue to get cheaper and more reliable. As others have pointed out, electricity from nuclear sources is already more expensive than the alternatives and the prediction is that this margin will double with new facilities. How does this make for a good business case for nuclear? Common sense says it is wise to put our energy security eggs in many baskets, so to speak, especially baskets that are not wildly radioactive and needing one million year timelines to make ...

Attachment Grave concern with new energy plans

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Ryan Zlatanova
Reference Number: 787
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:35 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
To whomever it may concern: As a resident of Ontario, I am deeply concerned about the plans to build a devastatingly expensive new nuclear facility in Port Hope. It is appalling that IAAC does not plan to carry out an independent investigation into cheaper and more sustainable electricity options simply because a corporation with a vested interest tells it there are not other options. Here are the facts: - renewable energy like wind and solar is significantly cheaper. Creating infrastructure for renewables-produced electricity is more sustainable and a much better long-term investment in energy and energy independence. In fact, IESO just recently announced that the rate at which it is procuring wind and solar power is 30% cheaper than OPG's current announced price. - renewable-generated electricity prokects create more jobs and have a smaller environmental footprint than sprwaling new nuclear facilties which take forever to build and become ...

Attachment No to Nuclear Plant

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Christine Walker-petriw
Reference Number: 786
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:21 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I am a citizen of Ontario and feel like this project will cost toooooo much money. Especially when there are cheaper options to generate electricity that can meet the needs of the province. And options that can be built in a more timely manner. And those options are.....solar and wind. The average person on the street sees the benefits of solar and wind. And ultimately, we are the ones who will foot this costly bill for the nuclear option so please, think of us. Whether it's our cost of living or our health (and the future generations), don't let this nuclear project go through.

Attachment SUPPORT for OCAA submission

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Stefani Celine
Reference Number: 785
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:21 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I fully support the submission made by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance. I urge the goverment to cancel this slow, costly and low benefit nuclear project in favour of clean energy such as wind and solar.

Attachment Alternatives to the Proposed Project

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Peter Nielsen
Reference Number: 784
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:12 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
The IAAC should evaluate if Ontario’s electricity needs could be met at a lower cost through an integrated combination of energy efficiency, demand management, wind and solar energy, water power, and energy storage.

Attachment Nuclear at Wesleyville is a bad idea on so many levels

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Michela Pasquali
Reference Number: 783
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:07 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I don't believe investing in nuclear facilities at Wesleyville, Ontario is a good idea. It's technology that doesn't look to the future of Ontario. It requires Ontario to invest in US reactors and uranium to power the facilities, which is a significant risk. It will take decades to build and a million years to safely store the nuclear waste so it doesn't negatively impact our environment and generations of future Ontario residents. And the economic costs are high and will only continue to rise over decades of construction. Instead, Ontario has the opportunity to be future focused. To look at innovative technology we can build and control here, like wind and solar farms. They can be built and integrated quickly into our existing electric grids using Canadian-made technology and infrastructure. And they cause little to no harm to the environment and people of Ontario. Compared to the health and environmental risks and costs of nuclear energy, wind and solar are far ...

Attachment Support for OCCA Submission

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Graham Flint
Reference Number: 782
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 12:01 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I support the submission made by the Ontario Clean Ari Alliance.

Attachment IAAC’s Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (April 7, 2026)

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Samantha Novak
Reference Number: 781
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 11:59 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Introduction We are writing to provide the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) with the Ontario Clean Air Alliance’s submissions with respect to its Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. Our submissions are limited to two issues: a) Alternatives to the proposed project; and b) Management options for used nuclear fuel. Alternatives to the proposed project Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking permission from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to build the world’s largest nuclear station in Port Hope, Ontario. The proposed station would cost about $230 billion and cause our electricity rates to skyrocket. According to page 17 of the IAAC’s Draft Guidelines, it is not planning to examine whether there are lower cost alternatives to keep our lights on since OPG told it that “there are no alternatives to the project that are technically and economically feasible”. OPG’s ...

Attachment Cost-Benefit Decision-Making

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Idin Fakhrjahani
Reference Number: 780
Submitted: 2026-04-21 - 11:49 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I urge the appropriate government agencies to reconsider this costly and low-benefit energy project. Relative to nuclear energy, clean energy sources such as solar and wind are much more cost-effective in that they are cheaper to obtain/build and would ensure lower electricity costs for Ontarians going forward, relative to the cost of electricity if we build a nuclear reactor. There is a clear cost-benefit difference with clean energy sources which the government should consider in it's decision-making. Governments should spend people's money wisely and based on evidence, as opposed to based on special interests and construction lobbyists.

Attachment a) Alternatives to the proposed project; and b) Management options for used nuclear fuel.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Ontario Clean Air Alliance
Reference Number: 779
Submitted: 2026-04-20 - 12:52 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Please see attached.
Attachment Included
Submission to: Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) From: Ontario Clean Air Alliance Re: IAAC’s Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project (April 7, 2026) Date: April 20, 2026 Introduction We are writing to provide the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) with the Ontario Clean Air Alliance’s submissions with respect to its Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project. Our submissions are limited to two issues: a) Alternatives to the proposed project; and b) Management options for used nuclear fuel. Alternatives to the proposed project Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is seeking permission from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) to build the world’s largest nuclear station in Port Hope, Ontario. The proposed station would cost about $230 billion and cause our electricity rates to skyrocket. According to page 17 of the IAAC’s ...

Attachment Concerns Today

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Norm ORVISS
Reference Number: 778
Submitted: 2026-04-19 - 11:08 AM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Concerns I have are as follows: 1/ Air and Water quality during and after the construction of the project. The environmental impact on both of these items. 2/ Impacts to the ecostructure of the area with such a large and and continuous construction project. 3/ Health concerns regarding Nuclear and the chance of an accident or just the overall health of the immediate population. Is there a specific plan for New Medical Services to be added to the Town to accommodate this additional population increase and the added risk for the area.

Attachment Abandon the proposed Wesleyville nuclear power plant

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Richard Tyssen
Reference Number: 777
Submitted: 2026-04-17 - 3:22 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I have spent decades considering the issue of nuclear power and the production of electricity using nuclear power. I believe that the use of nuclear power for both weapons and for power production is a kind of insanity. The emissions and waste from nuclear power production cannot be contained nor safely managed and stored. The risks are much too high. The consequences of a failure to safely operate and manage nuclear power and its waste products are catastrophic. I recommend that you listen to the brief talk by Dr. Gordon Edwards for a quick overview of the issues I am describing. The link to the presentation is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptY4cLYHM_Q My strong recommendation to both the Government of Canada, Ontario Power Generation, and the Government of Ontario is to abandon the proposed Wesleyville nuclear power plant and find safer and more cost effective alternatives.

Attachment "No" to Wesleyville Port Hope Nuclear: Protect the Ontario Taxpayer

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Terry Marrocco
Reference Number: 776
Submitted: 2026-04-16 - 5:42 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
Comments on process to date: Big problem in that issues are only listed. There is no weighting of how many people reported the same issues. Ie What percentage of people commenting said “No” because the huge financial cost is solely on the backs of us tax payers? This should definitively put an end to the nuclear project right there! Especially when Ontario does wind/solar and battery storage so well. Wind and solar are less than 2 times the financial cost of nuclear, are much safer and cleaner. Do you know how the nuclear storage in Lake Ontario is going to be in several hundred years? OPG hasn’t costed renewable alternatives, let alone projected costs of Wesleyville Port ...

Attachment Letter regarding Assessment.

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Administrator on behalf of Dan Rudka
Reference Number: 795
Submitted: 2026-04-16 - 5:00 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
Attachment Included
Integrated Assessment Team for the Proposed New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Review Panel Division wesleyville@iaac-aeic.gc.ca Dan Rudka August 17 2026 Regarding the proposed Wesleyville Nuclear Project; For over the last 30 years I have been a regular user of the Lakeshore Road through Wesleyville to Port Hope. I have enjoyed the peace and quiet of the area, and ...

Attachment Response to IAAC's Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement guidelines

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Seniors for Climate Action Now! (SCAN!) Ontario Project
Reference Number: 775
Submitted: 2026-04-15 - 4:56 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
see attached file
Attachment Included
1 Response to IAAC’s Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines David Robertson, Chair, Ontario Project -SCAN! April 14, 2026 The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) has posted the Draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines for public comment. The Ontario government is planning to build the world’s largest and most expensive nuclear complex on the shore of Lake Ontario at Wesleyville in Port Hope. Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the government’s wholly owned electricity generating company, is the proponent of the project. The project is subject to the federal Impact Assessment process. There were more than 700 submissions made to the impact assessment process in response to OPG’s initial project description. Many of them were from local residents, and others were from community, environment and climate action groups. Concerns were expressed over health issues and the risks associated with nuclear waste. Many of the ...

Attachment Excellent idea

New Nuclear at Wesleyville Project
Author: Karley Greer
Reference Number: 774
Submitted: 2026-04-14 - 4:25 PM
Project Phase: Planning
Participation Notice: Public Notice - Comments invited and information sessions on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines and draft Public Participation Plan
I think bringing nuclear power to port hope is an excellent idea. clean reliable energy plus more job opportunities in the area will be great. Really positive feelings about the potential of this

Report a problem on this page

Date modified:: 2019-03-01