Q&A

Bedrock is proposing an energy centre on one site about six kilometres east of Bayfield. It would be built around long-duration compressed air storage in gas reservoirs that already exist more than 500 metres underground, together with firm generation, fast-response batteries and a data campus that would buy its power on site. All four would meet the grid at a single switchyard on the 500 kV lines that already cross the property, so no new transmission line would be built across anyone’s farm. If approved, it would be built in phases: the batteries and a first phase of the campus in 2029, the generation in 2030, and the storage plant in 2031.

No. The proposal is being studied by Ontario’s electricity system operator, the IESO, and nothing has been approved. Before it could proceed it would need that study to conclude favourably, the support of the Municipality of Bluewater, approvals from the Ontario Energy Board and the Ministry of the Environment, and a connection agreement with Hydro One. Bluewater’s support is a condition of any contract with the IESO, so council’s decision is a real gate, not a formality.

By storing energy Ontario already generates and using it when it is needed. That is a far cheaper way to cut carbon than building more generation and curtailing that too.

The hard part was never generating clean power. The hard part is having it at six o’clock on a still January evening, when the province needs it most and the wind has dropped. That gap is what keeps something burning, and it is the gap long-duration storage is meant to close.

Ontario regularly produces more electricity than it can use. When the grid cannot take it, that output is curtailed: spilled, unpaid for, gone. Storage is the place to put it. Every megawatt-hour of wind or solar that is stored instead of spilled is a megawatt-hour that can displace something burning later in the day. The turbines and panels across the province would not change; more of what they generate would reach someone.

No. Every parcel in the proposal would be used only under a voluntary agreement with a landowner who has chosen to take part, and no one would be compelled. The ten landowners over the reservoirs have held agreements with Bedrock since 2017. The storage itself is underground; the surface footprint is being defined in the current study and would be published before the proposal returns to council. Bedrock is also proposing a restoration bond, so that the land could be returned to agriculture at the end of the project’s life. The concerns council heard in August about farmland and food security are the ones this proposal must answer in full.

No. That is the finding of the independent reservoir engineers who have studied these formations, and Bedrock will keep testing and publishing what it finds. The reservoirs sit more than 500 metres down, well below the aquifers that supply local wells, separated from them by the same natural rock seals that held natural gas in place for millions of years. They no longer hold commercial gas and are no longer licensed for gas storage. The wells that reach them carry multiple cemented casing strings, and a water-well monitoring program was part of the earlier gas-storage approvals and would be again.

Because that is our claim and not yet a municipal finding, Bedrock is proposing an independent review of the reservoirs by a reviewer the municipality helps choose, published in full whatever it finds, together with baseline testing offered free to neighbouring wells.

In part, yes. The compressed air storage burns no fuel. The proposal also includes gas turbines to provide firm power to the campus and the grid, and those would. Bedrock is proposing to design them to accept hydrogen blends and to be ready for carbon capture. Their air and noise emissions would be assessed under Ontario’s environmental approvals and permitted publicly before anything could operate, and the storage and batteries are intended to reduce the hours the turbines run.

A Community Benefits Agreement with the Municipality, property taxes at the industrial rate, several years of construction employment and permanent operating roles once the site is running. Bedrock is proposing to base the agreement on $5,000 per megawatt per year for every megawatt of power on the site, indexed to inflation and paid for the life of the project — about $6.5 million a year on the proposed 1,300 megawatts — and to have an independent financial report on those figures prepared and shared. How the agreement would be governed is being worked out with the municipality and with neighbours, not announced ahead of them. A Road Users Agreement would cover the repair of any municipal roads used during construction. We are not putting a number on jobs until the phasing is fixed.

No tenant is signed. The campus would be a large, continuous electricity customer sitting on the same ground as the generation that serves it, which is what would keep a load of that size from landing on the rest of the grid. A first phase of around 50 megawatts is proposed for 2029. Discussions with prospective operators are under way, no agreement has been signed, and anyone telling you a tenant is confirmed is ahead of the facts.

The Municipality of Bluewater decides whether to support the project, and that support is required for any IESO contract. Bedrock is proposing to hold public open houses before returning to council, to publish the technical study results and the footprint, and to keep a single point of contact for residents’ questions. Landowners and rights holders in the area already receive notices directly from Bedrock, and any resident can ask to.

Questions asked publicly get answered publicly, including the uncomfortable ones. Write to us and say who you are, and your message will reach the right person rather than a general inbox.