Still bidding grid batteries without council onside? That is the permitting equivalent of fast-charging a flip phone.

Ontario’s latest long-duration storage push hit a very modern roadblock: local politics. Just weeks before the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) LT2 RFP deadline, the Municipality of Shuniah declined to pass a municipal support resolution for a proposed 400MW/3.2GWh battery energy storage project. The message to developers was loud and clear: municipal approvals are now the bankability gatekeeper for large-scale battery storage in Ontario.

The case study: Shuniah’s 400MW/3.2GWh BESS

PowerBank proposed two adjacent 200MW lithium iron phosphate (LFP) systems in Shuniah, totaling 3.2GWh of storage to help firm Ontario’s grid by shifting energy into peak hours. The project team highlighted coordination with local emergency services and industry standards in their materials, but the council chose not to issue support ahead of the IESO deadline, citing the need for more due diligence and clearer community processes. See the project details and timeline in PowerBank’s public brief, and coverage of the vote in Energy-Storage.news. Shuniah’s public records offer additional context on the materials submitted and feedback pathways (council package, community input page). Local reporting underscores how multiple energy proposals brought scrutiny to timelines and risk management (TBNewsWatch).

Why municipal support now determines viability

For Ontario’s LT procurements, municipal support has evolved from a nice-to-have into a de facto prerequisite. It signals permitting feasibility, de-risks stakeholder challenges, and can be tied to eligibility or scoring under the IESO’s RFP frameworks. The current LT2 process highlights the importance of local approvals and site-specific constraints, with guidance that proponents should demonstrate municipal alignment and land-use compatibility well before bid submission, as noted in IESO’s stakeholder materials (IESO LT2 Q&A). Legal advisories have flagged the same trend for developers and lenders tracking Ontario’s LT procurements (BLG RFP guidance).

Bottom line: without a municipal support resolution, lenders and counterparties often treat a bid as non-bankable, regardless of technology merits.

Common community concerns developers must address

• Safety and fire risk - Residents and volunteer fire services want credible plans for thermal runaway prevention, rapid detection, suppression, and non-propagation. Referencing established standards like NFPA 855 and component-level testing such as UL 9540A builds confidence.
• Noise - Inverters, transformers, and HVAC can hum. Communities expect acoustic modeling and enforceable nighttime limits, not just assurances.
• Visual impact - Screens, setbacks, and vegetative buffers should be designed up front, with photorealistic renderings and micro-siting to protect sightlines.
• Land use and environmental fit - Compatibility with zoning and avoidance of sensitive areas (prime agricultural lands, wetlands) are crucial, per IESO siting guidance and municipal planning policies (IESO LT2 Q&A).
• Emergency response capacity - Training, equipment, ingress/egress routes, and incident command plans must be developed with local responders. Shuniah’s materials and council discussion centered heavily on these readiness questions (council package).

Practical strategies to earn consent and keep bids on track

• Start community engagement the day site control starts - Host monthly info sessions, publish FAQs, and answer hard questions publicly. Provide third-party safety reviews that reference NFPA 855 and UL 9540A test results.
• Co-develop the Emergency Response Plan - Budget for responder training, foam or water supply logistics, and pre-positioning equipment. Invite fire services to co-write SOPs and review egress design.
• Quantify noise and enforce it - Provide pre-bid acoustic studies, specify dBA limits in supplier contracts, and add barriers where modeling shows exceedance.
• Design for screens and setbacks - Vegetation, fencing, and berms are not afterthoughts. Share visual simulations and commit to maintenance plans.
• Choose sites that pass the smell test - Avoid sensitive land use conflicts. Document wetlands and agricultural buffers. Align with municipal Official Plans, and cite IESO siting guidance in your application (IESO LT2 Q&A).
• Put community benefits in writing - Host-community agreements, local jobs commitments, property tax estimates, and resilience perks (backup power for critical facilities) help ground benefits.
• De-risk with certified tech - Favor LFP chemistries and equipment with UL 9540/9540A evidence, and publish the test summaries.
• Plan for end-of-life - Provide decommissioning bonds, recycling pathways, and replacement cycle expectations to address long-term stewardship.

The bigger LDES picture

Ontario is exploring multiple forms of long-duration storage beyond lithium batteries, including compressed air energy storage proposals that underscore the province’s need for firm capacity as renewables scale (Energy-Storage.news on CAES). As solar and EV demand grow, grid-balancing assets with 6-10 hour duration become foundational. That makes municipal alignment not just a permitting step, but a strategic prerequisite for reliability planning.

Takeaway

If you are pursuing Ontario BESS in the LT2 window, treat the municipal support resolution like your interconnection agreement: essential and early. Developers who front-load safety engineering, site selection discipline, and community benefits are the ones whose bids survive the bankability screen. Shuniah’s vote is not an anti-storage verdict. It is a signal that the winning projects will be the ones that make local readiness undeniable.

Further reading: PowerBank project brief, Energy-Storage.news coverage, IESO LT2 stakeholder Q&A, BLG overview.