The underlying goals of the energy ministry are to provide enough electricity to keep Ontario running up for the next 20 years and how that energy is to be generated. To that end, as I understand it, the province is currently considering as much as $40 billion worth of renovated and new nuclear facilities. Not only does nuclear energy come with great adversity and risk, it comes with unacceptable solutions to long-term waste management and the unknown financial commitments with which our unborn generations will be burdened.

Certainly if clean alternative renewables^{¶ Δ §} did not even exist, nor showed any promise of reducing, if not totally eliminating the need for having such dirty or hazardous methods of power generation to be in place some 15 years from now, it would be a totally different ball game. That is by no means, today's emerging reality of …

Short-term conservation and long-term development of countless alternatives

A recent article in our local papers revealed one registered patent for energy generation through various applications of what is referred to as an "energy carpet". According to the Fort Erie patent holder for KinergyPower, energy carpets employing a series of small pistons, are capable of capturing otherwise wasted energy, thus creating substantial amounts of inexpensive, clean energy.

I look at my city's downtown, like so many others that exist throughout the province: I can't help but wonder the amount of solar energy^{¶ Δ §} that could be captured by this vast, otherwise underutilized real estate.

It has only been 2 years since I heard of the overwhelming success of the Woodstock, pay-as-you-go metering system. This model saw average reductions of energy consumption by as much as 27 percent - and without special education or incentives. This 'smart card meter' with its special display unit increased the local multiplier effect of area retailers from which users could refill their smart cards, as well as offered many of its users a way of managing tight budgets. According to a January 2005 article in Municipal World:

"Woodstock Hydro estimates that if 25% of Ontario's 4.5 million homes went to a pay-as-you-go metering, with an in-home information display unit, the environmental impact would include the shutting down of two of the province's six coal-powered generation plants."

Within less than ten years, through the efforts and worldwide proliferation of green building councils^{¶ Δ §}, the entire building sector has contributed substantially to reducing new building energy consumption by amounts well surpassing 40 percent. New technologies and sustainable design ^{Δ §} strategies are being developed and employed monthly. Furthermore, the healthier work environments created through sustainable designs, markedly increase worker productivity, and reduce employee turnover and sick days.

These all represent very small pieces of a much larger, socioeconomic development puzzle that seems to be totally discounted from the province's power strategy. This goes to the heart of the socioeconomic sustainability our governments should not be ignoring. From the perspective of alternative energy and conservation gains proven within the last 10 years alone, I can't help but wonder what long-term socioeconomic gains could be swiftly realized by the determined leadership of our provincial - and national - governments.

I ask - no, correction - I expect this government to consider more seriously the arguments made by more knowledgeable experts than myself for establishing long-term socioeconomic activities represented by making conservation and alternative energy generation the larger portion of this provincial government's energy mix.

Finally, one of the most visibly lacking portions of the power strategy is the economic business model of power supply related to costs. Ontario Hydro has run up a massive debt that future generations will continue to directly pay for as part of their consumption bill. In all other government programs that have failed, the debt was essentially written off and was reflected in higher non-specific taxes. The debt of Ontario Hydro should be "written off" in the same manner. The debt reduction charges of a former body should not be included in the bills of present and future utility users. Power is a necessary public utility and should be regulated as one. We need to know that the power supply will be available at a reasonable cost to all residents of Ontario - at least for basic service.

Perhaps an argument can also be made for lower prices based on a proximity to supply. The people living in the Niagara Falls area, one of the largest suppliers of hydro-electric power should receive some economic benefit for being close to the power source. Perhaps the same should hold true for Pickering and Darlington, when it comes to their existing Nuclear Power. These lower costs may provide some commercial economic benefits for cities and towns located near a power source. As we add alternative energy resources to the power mix, additional benefits for "proximity to Power" should emerge as well.

I thank you for the opportunity to provide my input into the Ontario Provincial Power Strategy - and take these closing words to repeat my challenge to all our political leaders: If ever there was a moment in history to inspire a people to action and reaffirm hope, it is now.