Chapter 10: Making Changes to Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Projects

1. Purpose of this Chapter

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the process and potential requirements for proponents seeking to make one or more changes to their renewable energy project after the final public meeting¹ or after the issuance of an REA. It also describes the process to be followed when a proponent is seeking to alter the terms and conditions of an REA. While this chapter is written to provide detailed information about the project change process and requirements, it is general commentary only, and does not constitute professional advice, or advice about any specific situation. Readers must obtain their own professional advice about each individual case.

Proponents of renewable energy projects who have not yet started the REA process should refer to O.Reg. 359/09 for the requirements that apply to such changes, specifically sections 16.0.1 and Part IV.1 (sections 32.1 to 32.5). In addition, earlier chapters of this Technical Guide to Renewable Energy Approvals also provide guidance and direction on how to prepare an application for an REA.

1.1. Structure

This chapter begins with some general comments on making changes to a project in section 1. Section 2 describes the categories of changes and provides some examples. The categories are intended to be a guide as to what requirements for further documentation, notification and consultation will typically be imposed. Section 3 outlines the typical requirements and their applicability to the different categories at various stages in the REA process. In this respect, section 4 provides guidance on making changes to a project before an REA has been issued by the Ministry of the Environment (MOECC); and section 5 provides guidance on making changes to a project after an REA has been issued. Finally, section 6 provides a brief note on fees.

1.2. Proposing Changes to a Project

The objectives of the process for dealing with changes to renewable energy projects are similar to those underlying the process for initially obtaining an REA itself, namely, the investigation of negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur and a description of measures to mitigate those effects, as well as ensuring transparency with the public, municipalities, and Aboriginal communities. The change processes outlined in the following sections are designed to ensure that applicants identify and consider how the change(s) to their project may impact the environmental effects of the facility.

Requirements for additional documentation, notification and consultation may be imposed by the Director where a change is proposed to a project (see O. Reg. 359/09, sections 16.0.1 and 32.1 to 32.5). Typically it is expected that additional documentation, notification and consultation requirements will vary according to the nature of the proposed change(s). If the proposed change(s) result in negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur beyond those that were previously identified, documented and consulted on, the additional requirements will provide interested persons with an opportunity to submit comments and concerns regarding a proposed change to the applicant and to the MOECC for consideration since the Director may impose them wherever failure to do so, in the Director’s opinion, might result in an adequate understanding by the public of negative environmental effects of the proposed changes.

1.3. Operational Flexibility

Operational flexibility allows applicants to make some modification to their facility’s operations or works without having to seek an amendment to their REA. Operational flexibility refers to changes that may be pre-approved as part of an applicant’s renewable energy project when the REA was first issued. These pre-approved changes are intended to apply to routine maintenance adjustments and other environmentally insignificant operational changes.

Examples of operational changes that may be permitted as part of an REA include:

• Routine modifications to the facility with predictable effects that are environmentally insignificant and do not extend the project location, such as replacing a fence or resurfacing an existing parking lot;
• Seasonal changes to facility hours of operation;
• Decrease in the Project Location size;
• Decrease in the number of project components or infrastructure, including:
  • Transformer substation(s)
  • Wind turbines
  • Solar inverter/transformer cluster(s)
  • Generating unit(s)
• Decrease in the amount of waste to be processed daily and/or annually.

The approval of operational flexibility is assessed on a project specific basis by the Director as part of the initial REA application review for the project. Proponents must describe any desired operational flexibility parameters for their project in their REA application for consideration.

A proponent can avoid triggering the need for amendments, and the consequent fees, by ensuring that a sufficient degree of operational flexibility is described and assessed in the original application for many types of minor program changes. Proponents are therefore encouraged to carefully consider and plan in advance, what degree of operational flexibility they will require, before submitting an application to the MOECC. Additional information on operational flexibility can be found in Chapter 1 of this guide.

By contrast, examples of changes that would not be allowed within the terms and conditions of an REA are:

• Changing facility classification (e.g. from a Class 2 to a Class 3 Anaerobic Digestion facility or replacing a Class 2 wind facility with a Class 3 wind facility);
• Proposing the movement of a project to a completely new location.

These would not be considered a project change but instead would be considered a new project and would require a new application.

1.3.1 Specific Activities Exempt from REA Amendments

Developers making specific changes to a project may be exempt from having to obtain an amendment to a REA. These specified changes cannot be within any of the setbacks in Part V of O.Reg 359/09 or rely on any exemptions that may be contained within those sections.

Eligible activities include:

1. A change to the size or location of an area used for temporary storage of equipment or supplies.
2. A reduction in the size of the project location, as long as there are no changes to the infrastructure or equipment that forms part, or is proposed to form part, of the renewable energy generation facility.
3. A change to the location where the renewable energy generation facility connects, or is proposed to connect, to,
   1. a transmission system with respect to which, pursuant to agreements, the Independent Electricity System Operator has authority to direct operations, or
   2. the distribution system of the distributor in whose distribution service area the renewable energy generation facility is located.
4. A change in respect of a communications tower.
5. A change in the location of fencing.
6. A change to the make, model, arrangement, tracking system, number or name plate capacity of solar photovoltaic collector panels used, or proposed to be used, at the renewable energy generation facility, as long as there is no increase in the noise emissions from the facility.
7. A change in respect of a fiber optic communications line.

In addition, the following conditions apply:

• Changes must take place on the same parcel of land where the project was approved to be engaged in.
• For changes made, any required authorizations for properties protected from a heritage perspective must have been obtained.
• The proposed change must take place at a location at which a natural heritage assessment was conducted and a confirmation was issued by MNRF.
• The person must obtain, where an archeological assessment report was required, the opinion of a consultant archeologist that the proposed change would not alter the conclusion of the report that was prepared and would not result in any additional archaeological concerns.
• Where an archeological assessment report was not required based on the determination of low potential for the presence of an archeological resource, the person must be of the opinion that proposed change does not alter that determination.
• The person must obtain, where a heritage assessment report was required, the opinion of the persons who prepared the report that he proposed change would not alter the recommendations set out in the report that was prepared and would not result in any new or increased impacts to heritage attributes that are subject to evaluation.
• Where a heritage assessment report was not required based on the determination of low potential for the presence of a heritage resource and no abutting protect properties, the person must be of the opinion that proposed change does not alter that determination.

Developers are required to provide written notification of the change to the Director and the ministry’s District Manager in each district in which the project is situated for record-keeping and monitoring purposes within 30 days after making the change. Developers are also required to post the notification of the change on their website to ensure public awareness. As a best practice, developers should also post the Modification Document on their website for at least 60 days.

1.4. Other Permits and Approvals

Applicants should consider how changes to their project may affect other provincial and/or federal permitting and approval processes that apply to the project. This could include processes that are often undertaken concurrent to the REA process, such as potential permits, approvals, or authorizations which may be required from the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNRF). For example, changing a project design after an Endangered Species Act, 2007 authorization has been obtained may result in the need for a new or updated authorization.

The renewable energy generation facility may also be subject to review and approval processes subsequent or concurrent to the REA process, and proponents need to consider if these processes could be affected by modifying the project design after an REA has been issued. For example, making changes to electricity distribution or transmission components of a project may affect assessments that are often conducted by the local distribution company or independent electricity system operator in respect of distribution or transmission infrastructure needed to connect the facility to the electrical grid. Proponents contemplating changes to a project should discuss those changes with the local distribution company or independent electricity system operator, particularly if connecting the project to the grid will require the upgrade, construction or installation of electricity distribution or transmission assets.

2. Categories of Project Changes

Changes to a project can be thought of as being on a spectrum representing the overall degree of environmental impacts they are likely to present. Project changes can be grouped into four categories based on the degree of negative environmental effects that will or is likely to occur. Categorization in turn will usually impact the requirements for documentation, notification and consultation a proponent will be expected to undertake (and that may be imposed by the Director) with respect to the change:

1. Administrative Change
2. Technical Change
3. Project Design Change
4. Major Project Design Change

The categorization and final requirements, if any, which may be imposed for additional documentation, notification and consultation is at the discretion of the Director. Proponents seeking to make a change are encouraged to speak with the Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch of the MOECC as soon as possible if clarification or further guidance is required in determining the category of proposed change(s). MOECC will receive and review the proposed changes and determine if further involvement from MNRF is required to meet the REA requirements for natural heritage assessments. In addition, proponents are also advised to contact the MNRF and Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport (MTCS) to determine impacts to the archaeological and/or cultural heritage assessments, respectively, prior to communicating proposed project changes to the MOECC.

Please note: The examples listed in this chapter are not exhaustive and are provided for illustrative purposes only.

2.1. Administrative Change

Administrative changes are those that have no bearing on negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur, including mitigation measures in respect of those effects, and would not result in any discernible physical change in the design, construction or operation of a project.

Examples of administrative changes include:

• Change of owner or operator;
• Change of address of owner or operator;
• Change of partners where the owner or operator is or at any time becomes a partnership;
• Any change of name where the owner or operator is or at any time becomes a corporation;
• Change in record keeping location;
• Administrative corrections (such as revoking spent or obsolete terms or conditions);
• Typographical corrections to ensure clarity and/or consistency that would not result in an alteration to the project.

2.2. Technical Change

Technical changes are those that will not result in increased negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur beyond those that were identified, documented and consulted on during the REA process for the original project. Proposed changes that will result in improvements to the environment are also included in this category.

Factors for consideration in determining if a change falls into this category include:

• No increase to the Project Location size;
• No increase (same or lower) in the overall impact at the receptors (e.g. noise, odour, etc.);
• No additional lands require archaeological assessment and there are no changes to previous recommendations for further assessment;
• Reconfirmation of written confirmation and comments for cultural heritage;
• No change to/ or reduction in regard to natural heritage requirements (i.e. unchanged reduced project location footprint, no previously unidentified natural features/ no new impacts).

• Reconfirmation of written confirmation and comments for natural heritage (i.e. no change) or reduction in requirements (i.e. reduced footprint, reduced environmental effects, monitoring plan requirements).

Examples of technical changes, subject to the factors listed above include:

• Change in access/emergency access road;
• Change in volume/type of material used in anaerobic digesters where there has been demonstrated evidence of no environmental impact as a result of the anaerobic digestion process;
• Change in location and/or equipment (e.g. technology type) of the following project components or infrastructure that will not result in increased negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur beyond those originally identified:
  • Transformer substation(s);
  • Wind turbines;
  • Solar inverter/transformer cluster(s);
  • Gas engine generator(s) and flares.

2.3. Project Design Change

Project design changes are those that result in minimal increases in negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur. Factors for consideration in determining if a change falls into this category include:

• Change occurs in and around the original Project Location (i.e. extending the boundary of the original project location);
• Minimal increases in the overall impact at the receptors (i.e. noise, odour, etc.);
• Requires undertaking archaeological assessment (Stage 1 and/or 2) on lands not previously assessed that does not identify resources and impact to previously identified archaeological resources remain unchanged or requires undertaking a Stage 2 archaeological assessment within a previously assessed area and impacts to previously identified archaeological resources remain unchanged;
• Reconfirmation of written comments for cultural heritage;
• Additional natural heritage work is required only within a previously assessed area.

Examples of project design changes, subject to the factors listed above include:

• Increase in the Project Location size or change in the Project Location from its originally proposed location that results in minimal increases in negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur;
• Change in biomass storage capacity of the facility;
• Increase in quantity of biomass to be processed at the facility by 100 tonnes/day or less;
• Increase in the number, location and/or equipment (e.g. technology type) of the following project components or infrastructure that result in minimal increases in negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur:
  • Transformer substation(s);
  • Wind turbine(s);
  • Solar inverter/transformer cluster(s);
  • Gas engine generator(s) and flares.

2.4. Major Project Design Change

Major project design changes are those that result in substantial increases in negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur, beyond those that were previously identified, documented and consulted on during the REA process for the original project. Factors for consideration in determining if a change falls into this category include:

• Change occurs in and around the original Project Location (i.e. extending the boundary of the original project location);
• Substantial increases in the overall impact at the receptors (i.e. noise, odour, etc.);
• Requires undertaking an archaeological assessment (Stage 1/2) on lands not previously assessed that identifies resources or requires a Stage 3 archaeological assessment that was not previously required;
• Requires that new lands be assessed with respect to cultural heritage or previously identified cultural resources are impacted in a different way;
• Additional natural heritage work required within a newly assessed area.

Examples of major project design changes shall include:

• Increase in the Project Location size or change in the Project Location from its originally proposed location that result in substantial increases in negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur;
• Increase in quantity of biomass to be processed at the facility by more than 100 tonnes/day;
• Increase in the number or a change in location and/ or equipment (e.g. technology type) of the following project components or infrastructure that result in substantial increases in negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur:
  • Transformer substation(s);
  • Wind turbine(s);
  • Solar inverter/transformer cluster(s);
  • Gas engine generator(s) and flares.

3. Typical Project Change Requirements

The additional work a proponent will need to do when proposing a change will depend on the timing of change and decisions by the Director, and also on the timing of the change.

As described in sections 16.0.1 (changes after a final public meeting but before the issuance of an REA), and 32.3 to 32.5 (changes after an REA is issued) of O.Reg.359/09, the Director has the authority to require a proponent to:

1. update project documents;
2. provide notification; and,
3. undertake additional consultation including public meetings in response to the proposed changes.

The categories of project change are intended to provide a guide as to what requirements might typically be imposed by the Director where a proponent seeks a change that fits within a particular category. It is also important to note that the process for change will vary depending on whether the change is proposed before or after an approval.

While the project change requirements outlined in sections 3.1 to 3.3 of this chapter are typical of what can be expected, it is important to note that the Director may or may not impose any of the additional requirements noted in sections 16.01, and 32.3 and 32.5; and the Director may impose them when of the opinion that the public would have an inadequate understanding of negative environmental effects of the proposed changes without requirements being imposed. A summary/reference chart can be found in Appendix 6 of this guide.

Diagram 1 illustrates the correlation between the potential increase in negative environmental effects from the change that will or are likely to occur, the typical requirements for documentation, notification or consultation which would be imposed with respect to the proposed project change, and how the categories of changes fit in this spectrum.

Diagram outlining the project change spectrum.

* This shows typical documentation requirements which would be imposed when a change is proposed after an application has been deemed complete and after the issuance of an REA. If the change is proposed before the original REA has been deemed complete by the MOECC, proponents will be required to update all required documentation in respect of the proposed change.

3.1. Documentation

3.1.1. Description and Rationale

See paragraphs 16.01(3)4, 32.3(1)4 and subsection 32.4 of O. Reg. 359/09.

Whether a change is proposed before or after an REA is issued, proponents must provide in writing to the Director a document setting out a written description of and rationale for the proposed change.

This is described in more detail later as the “Modification(s) Document”, and may be prepared in an iterative fashion over several versions. Depending on the context, the document may summarize, record and propose additional or updated documentation, notification and consultation, and will be utilized in determining if the Director must impose additional requirements with respect to these things. For project changes proposed after the issuance of an REA, this could include one or more reports.

MOECC will receive and review the proposed changes and determine if further involvement from MNRF is required to meet the REA requirements for natural heritage assessments.

Proponents are also encouraged to seek guidance from MTCS with regard to the potential impact of the proposed change on cultural heritage work and assessments, respectively, prior to communicating the proposed project change(s) to the MOECC.

The initial version of the Modification(s) Document (referenced going forward as the draft Modification(s) Document) will help to inform the Director’s choices concerning the imposition of additional formal requirements for documentation, notification and consultation, and will also help to determine into which category of change the proposal fits for the purposes of identifying the requirements which would typically be imposed. It is therefore important to provide as detailed and complete information as is available with respect to the contents of the final Modification(s) Document in the draft version.

The final Modification(s) Document should include:

• A summary of the proposed project change(s), including the reason for the change.
• An explanation of how the desired change will resolve any issue(s) identified, whether there are any new negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur as a result of the proposed change, and if required, how those effects are proposed to be mitigated.
• A list of each report and study submitted with the REA application and a description of the amendments/updates to each, including:
  • Where reports or studies do not require a material change to the content, explain how the proposed change does not impact the document.
  • Where requirements for notification and/or consultation are imposed by the Director and an REA is under MOECC technical review or where an REA has been issued, a copy of the notice and evidence that it was published in accordance with the regulation should be included.
  • Should include a table that shows the page number, section, original text and revised text, where appropriate.
  • If the project changes require involvement from MNRF; a summary of the discussion with MNRF with respect to the proposed change(s) and additional work in order to meet the REA requirements.
  • A summary of the discussion with MTCS with respect to the proposed change(s) and, if required, what additional work was required.
  • Any new letter or addendum to the original letter issued by MNRF and/or MTCS
• Identification and a summary of new documents that are now required with respect to the proposed project change(s) that were not part of the consultation process.
• A copy of the original site plan, and a revised site plan if it has been changed.

Once a draft Modification(s) Document is submitted to the MOECC, a discussion with respect to the proposed change(s) may be initiated between the proponent and the MOECC.

Sections 3.1.2, 3.2, and 3.3 below set out requirements which may typically be imposed under section 16.0.1 or Part IV.1 (section 32.1 to 32.5) of O. Reg. 359/09. The Director retains discretion to determine what, if any, requirements to impose in any individual case.

3.1.2. Additional Documentation: Reports, Studies and Written Confirmation/Comments

The typical requirements the Director may impose for updating or creating new documentation will depend on (a) where in the REA process the change is proposed and (b) into what category it fits. Below are the typical requirements that the proponent can expect to undertake.

Where the change is proposed after the final public meeting but before an REA application is deemed complete by the MOECC

If changes are proposed to a project after the final public meeting but before an REA application is deemed complete by the MOECC, a proponent should generally expect that it will be required to:

1. provide a final Modification(s) Document
2. revise/update all documents described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of subsection 16 (6). The intent is to accurately reflect the project design inclusive of the proposed change(s) and
3. provide any new documents that may be required as a result of the proposed project change(s), as part of its REA application or for any exemption it may be seeking.

The extent of substantive revision or updating will depend on the nature of the change. Very minor changes may, for example, only necessitate updates to one report (e.g. the Project Description Report) but more significant changes could lead to extensive revisions to multiple reports and assessments.

Where requirements for notification and/or consultation are imposed by the Director, the Consultation Report must be revised to include:

1. a copy of the notice under 16.0.1(3)1 or 32.3(1)1, whichever applies, and evidence that it was published in accordance with the regulation, and
2. a description of the public meeting(s) held as a result of the project change, a summary of comments received at the meeting(s), and a description of how those comments were considered.

Where there is no content change to a specific report/study in respect of the proposed change, the report should be updated to indicate that the proposed change has no impact on the report/study. To increase transparency, proponents should attach an addendum to each report that describes how the proposed change impacts that report and the contents of the report itself must also be revised accordingly.

Where the change is proposed when the REA application under MOECC technical review or after the issuance of an REA

If changes are proposed to a project while the REA application is under MOECC technical review or after the issuance of an REA, proponents will prepare a final Modification(s) Document. The final Modification(s) Document is required regardless of the categorization of change, except in certain circumstances with respect to administrative changes.

For proposed administrative, technical and project design changes, it will typically not be necessary to update the documents submitted with the initial REA application, however, the Director may request that certain reports be updated as a result of the proposed change(s), regardless of categorization (i.e. Archaeological Assessment, Noise Assessment Report). In certain cases, the Director may impose the requirement for the proponent to update all documents submitted as part of the initial REA application.

For major project design changes, in addition to the Modifications(s) Document, proponents should expect that the Director will impose the requirement that all original documents that were provided with the initial REA application submission, as described in paragraph 1 and 2 of subsection 16(6) of O. Reg 359/09, must be updated. Where requirements for notification and/or consultation are imposed by the Director, the Consultation Report must be revised to include:

1. (a) a copy of the notice under 16.0.1(3)1 or 32.3(1)1, whichever applies, and evidence that it was published in accordance with the regulation, and
2. (b) a description of the public meeting(s) held as a result of the project change, a summary of comments received at the meeting(s), and a description of how those comments were considered.

Additionally, some proposed changes, depending on the nature, may necessitate new reports that were not previously required or submitted as part of the initial REA application. These new reports should also be provided with and documented in the Modification(s) Document, regardless of where in the process the proposed change is requested.

Typically, proponents should expect to be required to make all updated reports/studies in respect of the proposed changes to the project and any new reports/studies prepared in respect to the proposed change available to the public as described in paragraphs 16.0.1 (3) 3 and 32.3 (1) 4, as appropriate, of O. Reg.359/09 for a period of time specified by the Director. The draft Modification(s) Document is expected to be included in the documents made available to the public.

Determining impacts to the Natural and Cultural Heritage Documentation

When considering project changes, proponents must also determine if further work is required in addition to the original natural heritage, archaeological and cultural heritage assessments and whether these assessment reports will need to be revised, or in the case where one was not previously done, whether one is required. For example, moving part of the project to within the setback of a significant natural heritage feature (e.g. significant woodland) would require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study Report if the original Project Location was not within the setback area. MOECC will receive and review the proposed changes and determine if further involvement from MNRF is required to meet the REA requirements for natural heritage assessments.Proponents are strongly encouraged to also contact the MTCS to determine impacts to the, archaeological and/or cultural heritage assessments, respectively, prior to communicating proposed project changes to the MOECC.

Natural Heritage

If the proponent has already obtained written confirmation and comments from MNRF, the proponent may be directed to contact MNRF to discuss how the Natural Heritage Assessment (NHA) and the Environmental Effects Monitoring Plan (EEMP) are affected by the proposed project changes.

Proponents should provide MNRF with the draft Modification(s) Document, and identify whether, and if so how, any previous studies, evaluations and reports associated with the NHA would be affected as a result of the proposed change. Once the proponent has provided MNRF with all necessary information, MNRF will assess the extent of the proposed changes to determine if further work is necessary to meet the NHA requirements of the REA regulation (e.g. field studies).

After review, if MNRF determines that further work is not required, the applicant will be provided with a letter which states that nothing further is required beyond the original confirmation and comments.

Where MNRF determines there is a need for further work, applicants will be required to provide MNRF with the necessary information, studies, or reports to ensure that the requirements of the REA regulation are met. Once the requirements are met, MNRF will provide the applicant with an addendum to the original confirmation and comments, which is specific to the proposed project changes. The addendum must be submitted to MOECC at the time of REA application, along with the original confirmation and comments².

Cultural Heritage

If the proponent has already obtained written confirmation and comments from MTCS, the proponent should contact its consultant archaeologist and/or heritage consultant to discuss the impact of the proposed project changes on Heritage and/ or Archaeological Assessments. Consultants will determine if further assessment(s) is required, and can confirm this in discussion with MTCS.

If MTCS has previously provided written comments letters with respect to the Archaeological Assessment and further assessment is now required, MTCS will issue an additional written comment letter for the new assessment report.

If MTCS has previously provided a written comments letter with respect to the Heritage Assessment and further assessment and revisions to the report are required, MTCS will provide a revised written comments letter. If the consultant determines that the project changes will not result in changes to the conclusions or recommendations of reports, MTCS will re-confirm in writing that the original written comments letter is still valid.

3.2. Notification

This section deals exclusively with the typical requirements for notification which would likely be imposed on the proponent under paragraph 16.0.1 (3)1 or 32.3 (1)1 of O.Reg.359/09. The typical notification requirements outlined below are applicable to changes proposed after the final public meeting and/or after the issuance of an REA, unless otherwise clarified.

Proposed administrative changes will typically not require notification to the public, municipalities and Aboriginal communities; however, administrative changes, such as a change in a company’s name should be posted by the proponent on their website for public awareness.

Proponents proposing technical changes may be required to notify the public, municipalities and Aboriginal communities of the proposed change(s) to the project. This requirement may be imposed where the Director’s opinion is that the public requires additional notification to acquire an adequate understanding of negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur as a result of the proposed change.

Proposed project design or a major project design changes will typically require notification to the public, municipalities and Aboriginal communities.

If the requirement for notification is imposed, the notice of project change must be in a form approved by the Director (per paragraphs 16.0.1(3)1 and 32.1(1)1). Templates for a notice of a proposed project change 1) prior to the issuance of an REA and 2) for an approved REA project, can be found on the MOECC’s website and in Appendix 3 of this guide. The notice of proposed project change(s) must include the following information:

• Renewable Energy Approval number (only applicable where an REA has already been issued)
• IESO Reference Number
• Name and contact information of the applicant;
• A brief description of the project;
• A map identifying the project location;
• A description of the proposed change(s) and rationale for the change(s).
• A description of where information and documentation regarding the proposed change(s) can be located.

The notice must be published and circulated in accordance with paragraph 16.0.1(3)1 or 32.3(1)1 of O.Reg.359/09, whichever applies. These notifications constitute the minimum requirements for notice. Proponents are encouraged to give copies of the notice to other potentially interested persons or groups.

3.3. Consultation

This section deals exclusively with the typical requirements with respect to consultation, in accordance with the directions given under whichever of subsection 16.0.1 (3) or 32.3 (1) of O.Reg.359/09 applies. The following are consultation requirements which may be typically imposed where a change is proposed after the final public meeting and/or after the issuance of an REA however, the Director has the authority to request such activities depending on the potential for the public to have an inadequate understanding of negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur of the proposed change.

Public meetings will typically not be required for proposed administrative or technical changes.

Proponents proposing project design or major project design change(s) will typically be required to hold at least one additional public meeting. Proponents are encouraged to hold more meetings if there is a great degree of interest in the project or if negative environmental effects that will or are likely to occur as a result of a proposed change are particularly substantial. It is important to note that the Director also has the authority to require additional public meetings where he/she is of the opinion that failure to do so might result in an inadequate understanding by the public of negative environmental effects of the proposed change. The typical consultation requirements would be those described in section 16.0.1 and 32.3 of O.Reg.359/09 concerning public meeting(s), including provision of notice at least 30 days prior to the meeting.

3.3.1. Notification of Proposed Change and Public Meeting(s)

The notice of proposed project change(s) under whichever of paragraph 16.0.1(3)1 or 32.3(1)1 of O.Reg.359/09 applies must be in a form approved by the Director (per paragraphs 16.0.1(3)1 and 32.1(1)1). To prevent confusion, the notice must include a statement that the additional public meeting is being held as a result of proposed changes to the project. Templates for a notice of a proposed project change and public meeting 1) prior to the issuance of an REA and 2) for an approved REA project, can be found on the MOECC’s website and in Appendix 3 of this guide. The notice of proposed project change(s) and public meeting must include the following information:

• Renewable Energy Approval number (only applicable where an REA has already been issued)
• IESO Reference Number
• Name and contact information of the applicant;
• A brief description of the project;
• A map identifying the project location;
• A description of the proposed change(s) and rationale for the change(s);
• A description of where information and documentation regarding the proposed change(s) can be located;
• The date, time and location of a meeting where members of the public may attend to obtain further information regarding the proposed project change and provide comments to the proponent.

3.3.2. Conducting Public Meeting(s) Concerning a Proposed Project Change

In general, proponents required to hold a public meeting should expect to also be required to make all updated and new reports/studies in respect of the proposed changes to the project available to the public (i.e. the Director is likely to impose a requirement under whichever of paragraph 16.0.1 (3) 3 and 32.3 (1) 4 of O. Reg.359/09 applies). The draft Modification(s) Document is expected to be included in the documents made available to the public. Please refer to section 3.1 of this chapter for documentation requirements.

The public meeting should be planned, scheduled and located as described in paragraph 16.0.1 (3) 3 or 32.3 (1) 3, as appropriate, of O.Reg.359/09.

At the public meeting, it is strongly recommended that the proponent provide a detailed description and explanation of the project change(s) and the rationale for the change. If the changes to the project are related to, or may have an impact on, concerns and comments previously raised during the consultation process, this should be discussed at the meeting as well. While the focus of the meeting should be the proposed change(s) to the project and how it impacts the original reports and studies, proponents are well advised to be prepared to address questions regarding all aspects of the project.

4. Making Changes to a Project Prior to the Issuance of an REA

This section describes the process for proponents seeking to make a change(s) to a proposed renewable energy generation facility before an REA has been issued, either prior to an REA application being deemed complete or where an application is under MOECC technical review. Section 3 of this chapter should be referred for documentation, notification, and consultation requirements. Readers should refer to section 2 for details concerning categorization of proposed change and to section 3 of this chapter for details concerning typical documentation, notification and consultation requirements.

To save time and help avoid delays, proponents are encouraged to bring forward and notify the public, municipalities and Aboriginal communities of changes to a project before the final public meeting, particularly if the change substantially differs from information previously made publicly available.

4.1. Making Changes Prior to the Issuance of an REA

See section 16.0.1 of O. Reg. 359/09.

A described in section 3.1.1 of this chapter, proponents proposing changes to their project must provide a draft Modification(s) Document for the proposed change with sufficient information to allow the Director to categorize the proposed change. Once the Director has obtained sufficient information with regard to the proposed change, the proponent will be advised of the category of project change and give notice of documentation, notification, and/or consultation requirements, as described in section 3 of this chapter.

Once requirements have been completed, the proponent may then submit the appropriate documentation, as described in section 3.1 of this chapter.

Upon receiving the application or documentation, the MOECC will conduct a completeness check to determine if it can be accepted for review. If the application or documentation is not complete, it may be returned to the applicant with a list of deficiencies that must be addressed prior to the application or documentation being resubmitted. If the application or documentation is determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified and MOECC technical review will begin, continue or resume, as appropriate.

Proposing Changes prior to an Initial REA Application Being Deemed Complete

When a proponent proposes changes after submitting an initial REA application but prior to it being deemed complete, it will need to submit any required documentation, updated and/or added to in respect of the proposed change(s), to the MOECC. In this case, proponents will not be required to re-submit an REA application for a project change.

In the case where a proponent seeks to make changes after the final public meeting but an application has not yet been submitted to the MOECC, it is required to submit an application for an initial REA (not for a project change), required documentation, updating in respect of the proposed change(s), and applicable fee to the MOECC.

Diagram 2 describes the typical change process and requirements that proponents should expect to undertake when proposing changes to a project after submitting an REA application but prior to an initial REA application submission being deemed complete. While the diagram 2 and section 3 of this chapter describes the typical process and requirements, it is important to note that in each case the Director has discretion whether and what requirements may be impose concerning documentation, notification and consultation.

Proposing Changes once an REA Application has Been Deemed Complete and is Under MOECC Technical Review

If changes are proposed when an REA application is under MOECC technical review, it is not necessary to re-submit the application form, however proponents will need to submit any required documentation, as described in section 3.1 of this chapter.

Diagram 3 describes the typical change process and requirements that proponents should expect to undertake when proposing changes to a project after submitting an REA application but prior to an initial REA application submission being deemed complete. While the diagram 3 and section 3 of this chapter describes the typical process and requirements, it is important to note that in each case the Director has discretion whether and what requirements may be imposed concerning documentation, notification and consultation.

4.2. Impact on Service Standards

Changes proposed to a project after an initial REA application has been deemed complete by the MOECC but prior to the issuance of an REA could have an effect on service standards.

For administrative changes, if the appropriate documentation has been provided, the MOECC technical review will continue and no impact to service standards is expected.

For technical or project design changes, the MOECC technical review will continue, if possible, or may be stopped; and if so, this period of time will not be counted for the purposes of the MOECC’s 6 month service standard for reaching a decision on the REA while the proponent completes the appropriate project change process.

For major project design changes, depending on the scope of the change and the degree of negative environmental effects the change will or is likely to cause, the clock may be stopped or the application may be returned to the proponent while the proponent completes the appropriate project change process. Where an application is returned, the clock on the MOECC’s 6 month service standard for reaching a decision on the application will start (i.e. reset to day 1) once the application is re-submitted and deemed complete.

4.3. Environmental Registry

Changes proposed while an application is under MOECC technical review may be subject to additional Environmental Registry postings. Changes proposed prior to an REA application being deemed complete will not be subject to additional Environmental Registry postings beyond those required in the normal REA process.

Additional Environmental Registry postings for administrative and technical changes are unlikely, however, will be assessed on a case by case basis. If approved, the MOECC will notify the public of the change in the Decision Notice that will be posted on the Environmental Registry when a decision has been made.

For project design changes, it is expected that the MOECC will either notify the public of the change in the Decision Notice, as described above or post a Proposal Notice of the amendment/change to the registry for a minimum 30 day public comment period. If the MOECC posts a Proposal Notice, it will include a statement that the proposed project has been changed and that a description of the change(s) can be found in the Modification(s) Document. A proponent will be expected to post the Modification(s) Document and, if applicable, must post all documents that were required to be revised by the Director, and any new documents prepared in respect to the proposed project change, on its website, if one exists, within 10 days of the proposal notice being posted on the Environmental Registry.

For major project changes, it is expected that the MOECC will post a Proposal Notice of the amendment/ change for a minimum of 30 day public comment period. The contents of the notice, as described above, remain the same. A proponent is expected to post the Modification(s) Document and must also post all revised documents submitted as part of their application and any new documents prepared in respect to the proposed project change, on its website, if one exists, within 10 days of the proposal notice being posted on the Environmental Registry.

For further details regarding the MOECC’s technical review process, Environmental Registry postings, Director’s decisions and third-party hearing provisions, readers should refer to Chapter 1 of this guide.

Diagram 2: Typical change process prior to an REA application being deemed complete

Diagram 3: Typical change process during MOECC technical review

5. Making Changes to a Project after the Issuance of an REA or Altering the Terms or Conditions of an REA

This section describes the typical process and requirements that a proponent can expect when proposing changes to a renewable energy project after an REA has been issued, or seeking to have the terms or conditions of the REA altered, as described in section 32.1 of O. Reg. 35/09. These requirements apply regardless of whether construction has commenced or not, including if the facility has been fully constructed.

It is important to note that if a proponent intends to change a project that had been previously issued an REA, it may still engage in the aspects of the approved project that have not changed. However, a proponent is not authorized to proceed with the proposed changes until it has complied with the change process described in this section and an amended or new REA has been issued by the MOECC in respect of these changes. For example, if a proponent wishes to add turbines to an already approved wind facility, it may still construct or install the original turbines that were previously approved as long as it does so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the REA that had been previously issued. However, a proponent is not permitted to construct or install the additional turbines until an amended or new REA addressing these additional turbines has been issued.

It is strongly recommended that a proponent of a renewable energy project should make every effort possible to ensure that it can construct its project in a manner that is consistent with the information contained in the reports and studies prepared as part of the initial application for an REA. The description of operational flexibility at the beginning of this chapter and in Chapter 1 of this guide provides advice and guidance on how proponents can incorporate a limited amount of flexibility with respect to project parameters into their REA application so as to avoid the need to make project changes at the construction stage.

Nevertheless, significant periods of time can elapse between the initial preparation of reports and studies for an REA application and the start of project construction. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that certain changes are required to be made as to how the project is proposed to be engaged. For example, certain materials and equipment originally planned to be used as part of the facility may no longer be available. Conversely, more advanced technology, better construction materials or more efficient operating practices may have become available to the project proponent since the original project was approved. It is also possible that external environmental or land-use conditions in the area surrounding the Project Location may have changed, thus requiring aspects of the project to be revisited. For example, changes in nearby residential or commercial development patterns may warrant revisions to where road access is provided at a facility. The start of construction can also reveal previously unknown environmental factors such as the presence of artefacts that were not discovered during the project’s original archaeological assessment.

In situations where a change is required that is outside operational flexibility and where changes to a project that has received an REA are unavoidable, a proponent will be required to follow Part IV.1 of O. Reg. 359/09.

5.1. Change Process After the Issuance of an REA

In this situation, a proponent must submit an application using the REA application form to request a proposed change to a project and/or alter the terms or conditions of an existing REA. The application form can be found on the MOECC’s website. When completing the application form, proponents must clearly indicate in section 2.1 of the form that it is for an amendment to an existing REA and provide the approval number.

Typical documentation, notification, and/or consultation which may be required by the Director in a notice under section 32.3 or 32.4 is outlined in section 3 of this chapter. These are outlined to provide proponents with an expectation of the typical requirements so they may adequately complete them prior to submitting an application for a proposed project change to the MOECC. This is intended to help mitigate and/or avoid altogether the need for the Director to issue a notice under 32.3 and 32.4 of O. Reg. 359/09.

Thus a proponent seeking a change in this situation is strongly encouraged to speak with the Environmental Approvals Access and Service Integration Branch, Service Integration Unit of the MOECC before submitting its application under section 32.2 if clarification or further guidance is required in determining the category of proposed change(s) and in confirming what additional documentation, notification and/or consultation would typically be required. This may mitigate the potential need to go back and complete additional requirements after submission. The MOECC may also, at this time, request a draft Modification(s) Document for the proposed change(s) to assist in discussions with respect to the anticipated categorization of the proposed change(s).

Proponents are also encouraged to seek guidance from MNRF and MTCS to determine impacts to the original natural heritage, archaeological and/or cultural heritage assessments, respectively, prior to contacting the MOECC.

Once the work necessary for an application under section 32.2 has been completed – it is strongly recommended that this include the typical requirements for a project change in the category proposed - the proponent may then submit the application form, appropriate documentation as described in section 3.1 of this chapter, and applicable fee to the MOECC (see section 6 of this chapter for information on fees).

As required in section 32.2 and described in section 3.1.1 of this chapter, the documentation must include the final Modification(s) Document (this could be one or more reports) that provides sufficient detail to allow the Director to categorize the proposed change.

If no additional requirements are imposed by the Director under section 32.3 or 32.4, the MOECC will conduct a completeness check to determine if the application can be accepted for review. If the documentation is not complete, it may be returned to the applicant with a list of deficiencies that must be addressed prior to the documentation being resubmitted. If the documentation is determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified and the MOECC technical review will begin.

Diagram 4 describes the typical change process and requirements that proponents should expect to undertake when proposing changes to a project after submitting an REA application but prior to an initial REA application submission being deemed complete. While the diagram 4 and section 3 of this chapter describe the typical process and requirements, it is important to note that in each case the Director has discretion whether and what requirements may be imposed concerning documentation, notification and consultation.

5.2. Environmental Registry

All changes proposed to a project after the issuance of an REA will likely trigger additional Environmental Registry postings. The nature of the posting will differ based on the proposed change categorization.

Regardless of the type of posting, it will include a statement that the project is proposing a change and that a description of the change(s) can be found in the Modification(s) Document and identify any revised and/ or new reports/studies, if applicable. A proponent is expected to post the Modification(s) Document and all documents that were revised or required to be revised by the Director, and any documents prepared in respect to the proposed project change, on its website, if one exists, within 10 days of the proposal notice being posted on the Environmental Registry.

For proposed administrative and technical changes, it is expected the MOECC will post an Information Notice to the Environmental Registry to notify the public of the proposed change and the decision.

For proposed project design changes, it is expected the MOECC will either post a Proposal Notice for a minimum of 30 day public comment period or an Information Notice to the Environmental Registry, depending on the nature of the change.

For major project changes, it is expected the MOECC will post a Proposal Notice of the proposed change for a minimum of 30 day public comment period. The contents of the notice, as described above, remain the same.

For further details about the MOECC’s technical review process, Environmental Registry postings, Director’s decisions and third-party hearing provisions, readers should refer to Chapter 1 of this guide.

Diagram 4: Typical change process after the issuance of an REA

6. Fees

Applicants requesting a change(s) to their project are required to submit an additional fee along with their REA application.

If a major project design change is proposed while the application is undergoing MOECC technical review, depending on the type of facility, a portion of the application fee will be returned, if the application is considered to be incomplete. The proponent will be required to pay the full amount for that class of facility when the application is resubmitted.

Applicants proposing to make changes to a project after the issuance of an REA that go beyond altering the terms or conditions of an REA and require the Director to revoke and replace an existing REA are required to pay the full fee for that class of facility when the new application is submitted.

More information on application fees for REAs can be found in the following MOECC publications:

“Renewable Energy Approval (REA) Fees,” 2011 Publication #8139e

“FAQs on REA Fees and Refunds,” 2011 Publication #8141e

These publications can be obtained from the MOECC’s website.