The Neoen Battery Proposal

Protecting farmland

Farms matter, and Ontario is losing farmland at an alarming rate. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture reports that Ontario’s total farm area declined by approximately 582,000 acres between 2016 and 2021—an average of 319 acres per day. Although not all of that land was necessarily developed, the trend reinforces the need to scrutinize proposals that would remove productive agricultural land from use. While energy is needed, so is food.

Battery storage may have a role in Ontario’s future electricity system, but a project of this size must earn community confidence through a rigorous, transparent and independent review. Before supporting or opposing it, I want clear answers about fire and emergency response, protection of neighbouring residents, noise and lighting, agricultural land, insurance, decommissioning, the financial implications for the municipality, and the environmental effects during the project and for decades to come.

Listening to neighbouring farmers

Particular attention must be given to the farmers and rural families closest to the proposed site. They could experience the most direct effects from construction traffic, noise, lighting, altered drainage, emergency-access requirements and disruptions to normal farming operations. The review should also consider potential effects on livestock, wells and groundwater, soil and crop production, farm access, property values and the ability of neighbouring farms to expand or continue operating.

Affected farmers should have meaningful representation throughout the process. Baseline testing of wells, drainage, noise and other relevant conditions should be completed before construction. If the project proceeds, there must be enforceable procedures for investigating complaints, correcting problems and compensating neighbouring property owners for any documented damage or loss.

Workforce and housing pressures

At the August 13 community meeting and again in follow-up email communications, I challenged Neoen to provide a credible workforce and accommodation plan. The company says construction would take approximately 18 months and require about 200 workers at peak activity. That raises two important questions: where will the required skilled workers come from, and where will workers recruited from outside the region live?

Bruce Power is already undertaking workforce planning for the proposed Bruce C project. Neoen could therefore be competing with Bruce Power, its suppliers and other local employers for electricians, equipment operators, civil contractors and other skilled workers. Council needs more than a general commitment to prioritize local workers. Neoen should identify the trades required, the number of workers needed at each stage, how many it realistically expects to recruit locally and how it will avoid drawing workers away from other essential employers and municipal projects—especially those needed to build housing in Saugeen Shores.

If workers must be brought into the area, Neoen must provide a detailed accommodation strategy. Saugeen Shores already faces an acute shortage of attainable housing and long-term rental accommodation. A major influx of temporary workers could increase rents, reduce vacancies and make it still harder for local families, seniors, health-care workers, hospitality employees and other residents to find homes.

The company should disclose how many incoming workers it anticipates, where they would be housed and what effect that demand could have during the tourism season. Statements that workers may use existing regional housing and hotels are not sufficient without evidence that this capacity exists and can be used without displacing residents, tourists or workers needed by other local employers.

Any workforce plan should include commitments to local hiring, apprenticeships and training, coordinated labour forecasting with Bruce Power and the building trades, worker transportation, and company-funded accommodation solutions that do not consume the community’s limited rental housing. Project costs must not be transferred to tenants, local employers, municipal services or taxpayers.

Preparing for every possible outcome

We must be realistic about the limits of municipal authority. Regardless of council’s decision, the Province has powers—including the ability to issue a Minister’s Zoning Order—that could permit a land use despite conflicting municipal zoning. An override is not certain, but it is a possibility that responsible municipal leaders cannot ignore.

For that reason, the Town should use every opportunity available before a council vote to negotiate the strongest possible protections for residents. These should include binding commitments on setbacks, noise, lighting, drainage, groundwater monitoring, road restoration, construction traffic, emergency preparedness, specialized firefighter training and equipment, workforce accommodation, insurance, complaint resolution, neighbour mitigation, financial security and complete decommissioning of the facility.

The proponent—not local taxpayers or neighbouring farmers—must be responsible for the costs of these measures. Any agreement should remain effective if the project ultimately proceeds through a provincial decision rather than municipal approval. Securing these protections would not amount to approving the project in advance. It would be prudent contingency planning to ensure that residents, especially the closest farming families, are not left without safeguards.

Community-benefit payments must be considered separately from whether the proposal represents sound land-use planning and adequately protects public safety, agricultural land and neighbouring residents. Financial benefits must never be treated as compensation for overlooking unacceptable risks.

A related rural perspective

In its September 2026 issue, Rural Voice published “Energy infrastructure should not come at the expense of Ontario’s best farmland,” presenting the National Farmers Union–Ontario’s position on the proposed battery storage facility near Port Elgin.

The organization supports battery storage as part of Ontario’s electricity system but argues that energy infrastructure should not be located on the province’s best farmland when reasonable alternatives are available. It emphasizes that prime farmland is finite and that agricultural landscapes also support groundwater recharge, wildlife habitat, biodiversity and the environmental resilience of rural communities.

The National Farmers Union–Ontario asks Saugeen Shores to reject development on prime agricultural land unless the need for that location is demonstrated and reasonable alternatives have been properly assessed. Its central message is that Ontario should pursue both energy security and food security through careful site selection.

Access the September 2026 issue through Rural Voice subscriptions →

This article is available in the September 2026 subscription edition. Rural Voice does not currently provide a separate public webpage for it.

Editor’s note: The Rural Voice article refers to an earlier “C2” location of approximately 20 acres. Neoen’s current public project information identifies “C1,” at 752 Concession Road 2, as the proposed location and describes a 29-acre project footprint.