Municipality of Port Hope Candidate Responses
Mayoral Candidates
Todd Attridge
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
I’m not prepared to say yes or no to a project of this size before we know what we are actually being asked to accept and how it will impact Port Hope. There is an important distinction between what has been proposed and what has been proven. OPG has proposed the potential for up to 10,000 MW of nuclear generation at Wesleyville, but the reactor technology has not yet been selected and the project is still going through the federal impact assessment process.
I also want to make sure we’re dealing with established facts and not conjecture. The questions you’re asking about cost, alternatives and environmental impact are exactly the questions that should be tested before a decision of this magnitude is made. As you know, Port Hope doesn’t decide Ontario’s electricity generation mix or set electricity rates. Those responsibilities largely rest with the Province, the IESO and other regulators. My responsibility is to protect Port Hope’s interests and make sure our community has the information and independent expertise necessary to judge what this project would mean here. As Mayor, that’s what I intend to do.
I supported the agreement that provides Port Hope with funding to participate meaningfully in the assessment process. The current MOU is explicitly not a host agreement and does not commit Port Hope to hosting the project; it provides a framework for participation and $4.5 million in growth-readiness funding.
I also believe credible alternatives – including energy efficiency, wind, solar and storage – should be evaluated on their actual costs, reliability, environmental effects and ability to meet Ontario’s future electricity needs.
So, to answer your question directly, I have not concluded if a nuclear station is the right use of Wesleyville, and I have not concluded that it is the wrong use. I want the evidence first. If this project can’t demonstrate a reasonable economic case, strong environmental protections and a clear long-term benefit for Port Hope, I would not expect our community simply to accept it.
Angela Grogan
Answer: No
Additional comments:
My answer is no, not without much greater scrutiny and meaningful community involvement.
Ontario has growing energy needs, and I recognize the importance of good jobs and economic development in Northumberland County. However, I do not believe the Wesleyville site should automatically be committed to a massive nuclear development simply because the land is available.
As Mayor, I would ask the questions residents expect: What will this mean for electricity costs? What are the environmental impacts? What are the long-term risks and benefits for Port Hope? What other energy options have been seriously considered? And what will our community receive in return for hosting infrastructure of this magnitude?
Renewable energy, storage, nuclear energy and other options all deserve an evidence-based examination. I would not give any one proposal a blank cheque.
Wesleyville is an extremely valuable asset, and decisions about its future could affect Port Hope for generations. Residents deserve transparency, independent information and a meaningful voice before major decisions are made.
For me, this is not about being automatically for or against OPG. It is about making sure Port Hope is at the table, asking tough questions and protecting the long-term interests of our residents.
Olena Hankivsky
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
Port Hope comes first in this assessment of the potential of the Wesleyville Nuclear project.
I understand community concerns about the potential impact of a Wesleyville nuclear project. However, it is not a done deal.
OPG has owned the Wesleyville site for more than 50 years for electricity generation. Over the next two years, OPG and municipal experts will assess the opportunity and consult the community so we can make an evidence-based decision on the project.
Electricity rates are set provincially, not by the municipality. My responsibility as Mayor with regard to this project is to ensure this municipality is in a leadership position in the evaluations. There are 13 categories that we have agreed to in the IAC assessment process. I will work with the evidence produced to decide on the project after the assessment phase is complete. This process will be undertaken with experts and will ensure meaningful public engagement, including through citizen assemblies and the full inclusion of Alderville First Nation.
Ian West
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
This is a fair question, and honestly, I don’t think anyone should be expected to answer it with a simple yes or no yet.
Wesleyville is a huge piece of land that has been sitting there for decades, already designated for electricity generation. OPG is now exploring the possibility of a very large nuclear development—potentially up to 10,000 MW. That could bring significant jobs, investment and additional tax revenue to Port Hope, but it could also fundamentally change our community.
The question isn’t just a simple, “Is nuclear good or bad?” The question is: what does this actually mean for the people of Port Hope?
What will it cost? Who pays? What will electricity rates look like? What are the environmental and infrastructure impacts? What does our community receive in return? And what other opportunities could that property bring us?
We need to ask more questions, get more facts.
I am not against development, and I’m certainly not against good jobs or investment. But I believe we have to look at the full picture—not just the promise of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
Wesleyville has been part of Port Hope for a very long time. If we’re going to decide what its next 50 or 100 years look like, I think the people who live here deserve a real seat at that table, real information, and a clear understanding of both the benefits and the costs.
Is Wesleyville the right location for nuclear…possibly but at the end of the day we don’t have enough facts to sway the vote to a solid “Yes” or “No”.
Deputy Mayor Candidates
No responses received yetCouncillor Candidates
Les Andrews
Answer: Yes
Additional comments:
Your group is presuming the costs of electricity will be driven up. I feel the more supply of power, that we have, could drive electricity costs down.
Amelia Bray
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
I think the question we should be asking is not simply whether we are for or against a nuclear station but whether any development at Wesleyville is ultimately in the best long-term interests of Port Hope. Wesleyville is a significant opportunity but Port Hope’s character, environment and quality of life have to remain central to any decision about its future. At this stage, I think it is important that we remain open to exploring the opportunity while demanding the facts we need to make an informed decision, including the full environmental, infrastructure, housing and community impacts, as well as what the project would mean for local residents and electricity customers. I would want Port Hope to negotiate from a position of strength, ensuring that if major development proceeds, the community receives meaningful long-term benefits and has the infrastructure and housing capacity to support it. Growth should help us build a stronger Port Hope, not require us to sacrifice safety, environment and unique character that make people want to live here in the first place.
Caleb Carisse
Answer: Yes
Additional comments:
I want to be direct about where I actually stand: I’m not opposed to nuclear power at Wesleyville, and I think a responsibly scaled project could be a real opportunity for this community. What I don’t support is turning the site into what the Ontario Government itself has floated as a theoretical maximum, a 10,000 megawatt facility that would rank among the largest nuclear station in the world. That’s a different thing entirely from a phased, reasonably sized expansion, and I think treating the two as the same thing does residents a disservice.
The cost history is exactly why scale matters here. Darlington’s refurbishment came in near $21 billion, Pickering’s near $27 billion, both real, both already happening at existing, moderate-scale stations. Vogtle in Georgia, the closest comparison to a genuinely massive build, went from a $14 billion budget to nearly $37 billion actual, seven years late. The bigger the project, the bigger the risk of exactly that kind of overrun, and nobody, including OPG, can put a real number on the biggest version of Wesleyville today because it hasn’t been designed.
So my position isn’t for or against nuclear in the abstract, it’s that the scale the Ontario Government has floated is too large, too risky, and too untested, and any real project should be capped well below that, with real cost transparency and real host-community protections built in from the start.
Glenn Deeth
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
Inherently the issue of Nuclear vs other options of energy production are complex and the average person not educated extensively in these areas. Therefore, not the correct people to be making the decisions. Each option has negatives and positives, areas of high maintenance, impacts to the environment, and so on. I also don’t believe that a councillor at the municipal level is going to have any say in the final decisions made on whether or not nuclear energy is to proceed. At my core, I do believe the dangers of nuclear have a much higher potential for catastrophic damage should something go terribly wrong.
Claire Holloway Wadhwani
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
I want to answer this honestly rather than give you the answer the question is looking for.
I am not unconditionally supportive of this project and I have said so publicly and repeatedly. I am also not prepared to declare against it before the impact assessment has produced the information that would let anyone judge it properly. That is not fence sitting. It is the position I think an elected representative should hold at this stage of a federal impact assessment, when the studies that would answer the real questions are not finished.
On the rate question, I would be cautious about accepting that premise as settled. Electricity pricing in Ontario is determined provincially through a mix of generation costs, system costs and policy decisions, and the effect of any one project on what a household pays is genuinely contested among people who study it. I would rather see that examined properly than have it asserted by either side.
What I want is a community conversation that we run, starting now and continuing through the assessment as information becomes available. It begins with understanding where our lines are: what impacts we are willing to bear, and what we expect in return. We have not had that conversation.
And before we consider signing on as a willing host, I want that tested properly, through something like a citizens’ assembly. Residents chosen at random to reflect this community, including the people living closest to the site, paid for their time, hearing from experts they choose rather than experts chosen for them, and writing a report that Council commits in advance to publish and answer point by point.
If that process concludes this is not in Port Hope’s interests, I would stand behind that conclusion.
Miranda Lukaniuk
Answer: No
Additional comments:
Personally, no—I do not like the idea of a nuclear power plant being built in Westlinville.
As a resident and as someone who wants to serve on council, I believe my role is to stand up for the people who already live here and protect the character, culture and quality of life that make Port Hope our community.
That does not mean ignoring the potential jobs, investment or economic opportunities that new industry could bring. But whether this project moves forward or not, I believe residents deserve a strong advocate at the table who doesnt just go along and drink the kool-aid. I will ask questions.
I am not afraid to stand toe-to-toe with incoming industry and use whatever influence and authority I have as a councillor to vote for the best possible outcome for Port Hope and the people who call it home.
Vicki Mink
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
I don’t think a question this complex can responsibly be reduced to a simple yes or no. I am not an energy or nuclear expert, but I have attended seminars and presentations and made a point of learning about new nuclear and the alternatives. I would be much more comfortable hearing a panel present the different options, costs, benefits and impacts together before reaching a conclusion.
I also believe Wesleyville is an exceptionally sensitive site. Its shoreline, valleys and old-growth forests, natural and built heritage, agricultural lands and surrounding community all need to be considered.
As a councillor, I would want to be informed, ask difficult questions and advocate for appropriate protections and modifications as the process develops. I don’t think it would be responsible to promise voters a simple yes or no when the assessment is still underway and Council’s role is more nuanced than that.
One of the most difficult aspects of being a councillor is remaining objective and diplomatic when I may have personal opinions or preferences, and recognizing that my responsibility is to consider all perspectives and make decisions based on what I believe is in the best interests of the community.
Norm Orviss
Answer: Undecided
Additional comments:
We have not seen the full scope of the plan nor do we know if this will be the site, but they will be choosing from one of three sites, that seems to be already decided.