Is the PUC a Public Institution?
Why answering simple questions is not so simple in Sault Ste. Marie.
In a recent story for Sault This Week, I showed that Sault Ste. Marie’s public utility - the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) - is constructing new electricity infrastructure with a total carrying capacity that vastly exceeds what Algoma Steel needs for its ongoing transition to electric arc furnaces.
The announcement of the PUC project was a classic example of local media reprinting press releases without asking any questions. Since it’s unlikely that residential electricity demand will drastically increase soon, that extra carrying capacity – roughly double what’s needed – required further investigation.
A potential explanation is that the massive new level of electricity supply could be beneficial for another project that also uses electric arc furnaces: Noront’s proposed ferrochrome smelter.
Noront has since been acquired by Wyloo and the latter hasn’t exhibited much interest in developing chromite deposits in the contentious Ring of Fire region of Northern Ontario. If the project materializes, however, it’s slated for construction on Algoma Steel’s property and a lease agreement has already been inked.
Development of the Ring of Fire is still in its infancy stage and there’s some doubt that it will come to pass. However, given the players behind its momentum – including Doug Ford’s majority government and a deep-pocketed mining lobby – it’s not inconceivable.
So, my earlier story was based on a simple question: is it possible that the excess carrying capacity on these new electricity lines can supply a ferrochrome smelter adjacent to Algoma Steel if such a project eventually came to fruition?
Getting an answer to this question was (and is) much more difficult than I expected.
But it’s an important question to ask for at least two reasons.
First, the proposed ferrochrome project is controversial, to say the least, and has therefore animated significant resistance in the community.
Second, local policymakers have consistently told the public that the project will be subject to a robust environmental assessment and ample public consultation. If public resources are being invested in infrastructure that’s not subject to these promises, it would raise questions about the sincerity of local policymakers.
As I lay out in the Sault This Week story, there’s an apparent conflict.
The PUC explicitly says that the excess carrying capacity could be realized by additional industrial development in the future.
However, it’s adamant that the excess carrying capacity isn’t intended for a potential ferrochrome smelter. Further, it says that the excess carrying capacity provides ‘redundancy’ to facilitate necessary maintenance and mitigate potential interruptions.
So, the question becomes: is the excess carrying capacity for ‘redundancy’ or future growth in industrial electricity demand (or both)?
Since my story was published, the PUC has downplayed the latter.
The PUC’s project is currently at the environmental assessment stage and information for the public can be found on its website. Here’s what the website mentioned when it first launched (take a look at the last bullet point):
And here’s what it mentions now:
Interestingly, the PUC deleted its earlier reference to “a total ultimate capacity of 600MW.”
It’s now unclear if that’s still the case, as there’s been no explanation of the change.
The President and CEO of the PUC, Rob Brewer, earlier mentioned the proposed ferrochrome smelter when speaking with the local media. In a SooToday story from December of 2021, Brewer raises the prospect of additional industrial players that could take advantage of the drastically increased electricity supply. Brewer told David Helwig this:
“Bringing power into the west end would enable other opportunities in the west end, which could be things like businesses associated with steelmaking. Once Algoma makes the transition to [electric arc furnaces], there may be other businesses that end up co-locating. Having a power source there will enable that... There’s been previous announcements from the city with respect to a smelter in the west end.”
What hadn’t yet been publicly reported is the fact that the PUC’s new electricity infrastructure was first pitched in the context of the proposed ferrochrome smelter. As I learned from freedom of information requests, Brewer and the PUC were intimately involved in the City of Sault Ste. Marie’s successful proposal to Noront (to host the smelter), because favourable rates on electricity delivery through a public source formed a part of the City’s competitive advantage.
This means that the total carrying capacity (at 600MW) is unlikely to be some arbitrary number.
There’s a reason for it, even if the PUC’s communication for the project has changed over time.
The PUC no longer responds to my questions, so I filed some freedom of information requests to fill in the blanks and write a follow-up story. I want to further fact check the story since it’s impossible to do that without relying upon inconsistent messaging from the PUC.
The PUC initially said that they would process the requests, but that it would take between eight and nine months.
That seemed excessive considering that the records sought are likely easy to locate and prepare for release (sometimes redactions are necessary, in accordance with the legislation).
I appealed the PUC’s time extension to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario. I was expecting the appeal to result in a slightly faster processing of the requests.
I was wrong.
Astonishingly, the PUC is now arguing that the legislation that allows members of the public to submit freedom of information requests does not apply to them.
That’s right.
The Public Utilities Commission is arguing that it’s not really that public.
While it says that it’ll process the requests as a ‘courtesy’ to me, it’ll only do so on its own terms.
The PUC is a private corporation, but it’s owned in whole by the City of Sault Ste. Marie.
Its board of directors is public, appointed by City Council.
Its mandate is to provide public goods as a public utility.
The purpose of municipal freedom of information legislation is ensuring public accountability and transparency. Since government unfortunately tends to shield the public from its decision-making, the legislation provides us with resources (imperfect as they are) to better understand what’s done on our behalf and with our money.
The consequence of the PUC being exempt from this legislation is clear: the public has less access to information related to municipal decision making and public expenditure.
If the PUC responds to the requests on an ad-hoc basis – rather than hewing closely to the legislation – it could potentially withhold information arbitrarily without leaving the public with a recourse to challenge that.
Although that would be a shame, it’s unclear if the PUC will change its mind or the IPC will decide whether the legislation applies without a lengthy adjudication process.
In any case, I’ll keep readers apprised as this story develops.
Stay tuned.