Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
10 Appendix A............................................................................................................. 9
List of Stakeholders/Participants in the ETF Sustainable Energy Use Workgroup ....... 9
11 Appendix B: Consultants’Comments ................................................................... 12
Greg Allen ................................................................................................................ 12
Stephen Hall.............................................................................................................. 12
Judith Ramsay........................................................................................................... 13
12 Appendix C: Summary of Reviewers’Comments.................................................. 16
1 Chicago Brightfields Initiative
Overview
In August 1999 Mayor Daley of Chicago and US. Energy Secretary Ricardson announced
that Chicago will be recycling a West Side brownfield into a centre for “green” industry.
The urban redevelopment will establish a solar photovoltaics manufacturing facility on
the site, a community gardening and job training program, housed in a state-of-the-art
building of environmental design.
The local utility, Commonwealth Edison and the City of Chicago will purchase $8
million worth of solar systems from Chicago Solar over the next five years. The solar
systems will be installed on the adjacent neighbourhoods homes, schools, office
buildings, transit facilities and municipal properties.
A two-story building on the site will be rehabilitated into the headquarters of Chicago
Solar and Greencorps of Chicago. It is being designed through a partnership of the
Chicago Departnment of the Environment and the American Institute of Architects
Environment Committee. The site design includes a greenhouse, rooftop solar cells,
energy efficient landscaping and reuse of captured rainwater. The headquarters of
Greencorps Chicago, which trains low-income Chicagoans in landscaping and
horticulture, will include a community garden design studio for the public.
Lessons Learned
According to the Worldwatch Institute, wind energy is fastest growing electricity source
in the world. The industry grows on average at 25% per year and in 1998 grew at 35% .
New technological developments have brought the cost of wind electricity down from 30
cents in 1988 to 5centsUS/kWh today. The American Wind Energy Association is
expecting further cost declines to 3-4 centsUS/kWh by 2002. The LeNordas project on
the Gaspe Pennisula is expected to generate power at a cost of C5.8cents/kWh. A 133
turbines generating 100MW are now in place with a further 450MW of additional
commitments to proceed over the next 9 years.
Based on the long term growth of wind in the province of Quebec, the Danish wind
manufacturer NEG Micon has established a wind turbine manufacturing plant in
Montreal, creating a 100 new jobs. A wind manufacturer , generally speaking, needs
guaranteed orders of 60MW each year for 5 years in order to establish a plant.
Lessons Learned
The LeNordais project is the best Canadian example of renewable energy development
and demonstrates that long term power purchase agreements in renewable energy
technologies can lead to establishment of local manufacturing facilities.
Overview
Starting in May 1999, all LADWP customers will be asked to purchase at least 20 percent
of their power from renewables - close to double the level of clean power in the current
generic mix sold through investor-owned distribution utilities such as Southern California
Edison. Those volunteering to pay a larger premium - up to 30 percent- will be supplied
with 100% renewable energy, which will initially come from existing hydropower
facilities but will soon be supplemented by 20MW of new solar photovoltaic and wind
resources. LADWP plans to add additional 100 MW of green capacity by 2003. Unlike
any other utility green power program in the U.S. , LADWP will supply its low-income
customers with 100% percent green power at no extra cost.
Lesson Learned
The LADWP green power program is an excellent example of promoting green power
without raising the customers electricity bill. Even though the customer pays more in
rates, the premium for green power, the energy efficiency measures lowers the
consumption thereby maintaining or lowering the bill amount.
4 City of Calgary
In September 1998, a similar program was implemented in the residential sector under
the GREENMAX brand name. The GREENMAX program procures all of its green
energy from wind resources. Under the program, residential customers can purchase
monthly blocks of green power for a premium price. Residential customers are offered
the following two choices:
One of the marketing tools that the GREENMAX program used was to communicate that
1,000 kWh of fossil fueled generation results in approximately 1 tonne of CO2 emissions.
Therefore a customer who purchases a 125 kWh/month block of wind-generated power
for one year displaces 1.5 tonnes of CO2 emissions. To date, the GREENMAX program
has sold approximately 1,100 - 125 kWh/month blocks of wind-generated power to its
approximately 300,000 residential customers (i.e. resulting in an annual CO2 emissions
reduction of approximately 1,650 tonnes).
The GREENMAX program supplies its customers exclusively from new green generation
projects. In the case of the federal government, the program has helped finance the
construction of two - 600 kW wind turbines as well as a 2.5 MW upgrade to an existing
biomass fueled generating station. On the residential side, the GREENMAX program has
helped finance the construction of two - 660 kW wind turbines. The GREENMAX
program is currently being launched in the commercial sector as well.
In 1994 the City of Edmonton established The Energy Management Revolving Fund to
finance EE projects. The fund’s initial borrowing limit was $1 million funded from 1993
operating reserves. From 1994 to 1997, 44 projects affecting more than 70 city buildings
were approved with a total cost of $1.08 million. These projects are estimated to be
saving the city $361,000 per year (with annual CO2 reductions of 2,546 tonnes).
Under the program, facilities use energy cost savings to repay borrowed retrofit costs
(plus interest) over a standard five year term. Project paybacks of up to 8 years (including
interest) are considered but must be justified. At the conclusion of the repayment period,
the continuing energy savings continue to accrue in favor of the department responsible
for the project. The “revolving” aspect of the fund is based on applying the principal
repaid by existing projects to future EE projects (i.e. as existing projects repay the
principal portions of their loans, these funds are reinvested in new projects).
Given the initial success of the fund and the large number of potential EE projects within
the city, the fund’s borrowing limit was recently increased to $5 million. The fund’s
expansion will be financed via short term (5 year) borrowing from the Alberta Municipal
Finance Corporation at attractive interest rates (4 to 6%). The expanded fund is expected
to finance approximately $1.5 million of new city EE projects each year (i.e. it is
expected that a $1.5 million annual expenditure will be sustainable given the projected
energy savings, repayment schedules and interest rates).
The City of Edmonton has taken an incremental approach to the development of The
Energy Management Revolving Fund. It was important to the city to prove the fund’s
performance at the $1 million level before committing to the $5 million borrowing limit.
Also important to the program’s success was the ability to quantify the energy savings
realized and incorporate these savings in the city’s overall climate action plan.
6 City of Saarbrücken
Since 1986 Saarbrücken has undertaken a comprehensive solar energy program including
the following initiatives:
• Swimming pool solar heating retrofits: three out of four city owned public
swimming pools have been retrofitted with black absorption tubes which heat the
pool water as it passes through the tubes. The simple payback period for the heating
system is about five years.
The total investment since the solar energy program began has been approximately
US$1.7 million. Approximately US$0.65 million has been received from the State and
European Community. The city expects that by the year 2000 solar energy will displace
approximately 5.3 GWh of electricity from fossil fuels annually and reduce CO2
emissions by approximately 2,000 tonnes per year.
Phoenix is the seventh largest city in the US with a population of over 1 million. In order
to lower energy costs and increase efficiency, Phoenix developed an energy management
program which incorporates a revolving energy fund. The fund started in 1983 when the
city established the Energy Conservation Savings Reinvestment Program. The initial
funding was generated out of annual energy savings of just over $200,000 (i.e. there was
no initial seed money). By 1995, a total of $5.5 million had been spent on approximately
1,000 EE projects via the revolving fund. These projects had resulted in a total of $30
million of energy savings through 1995. (Put another way, the city has been able to reach
a level of annual savings which is approximately 10% of its annual energy expenditures.)
The balance of the savings (i.e. approximately $24.5 million) have been allocated to the
city’s general fund (i.e. to increase funding available for other important city services).
The state of Iowa imports 97 percent of its energy requirements. To reduce the State’s
dependency on imported energy and to reduce public sector expenses, the Department of
Natural Resources established the non-profit State of Iowa Facilities Improvement
Corporation (“SIFIC”) and the Energy Bank Program. The program was initially aimed
towards state agencies but has since been expanded to include local governments in Iowa.
SIFIC finances, installs and leases EE equipment to state agencies. The SIFIC program
was initially financed by a $12.2 million sale of state energy conservation bonds. The
proceeds of this bond offering were utilized by SIFIC to purchase and install the initial
EE equipment. The savings from the EE improvements are used by the state agencies to
make the lease payments back to SIFIC. The lease payments and debt amortization
schedule were designed to allow the energy conservation bonds to be retired via the EE
improvements (i.e. cash flow neutrality is key to the program’s success) and to provide
maximum security to bondholders. The bond issue was rated “A-” by Standard and Poors
based on the credit of the state and the strength of the lease. The budgets of the lessees
(Iowa’s state agencies) are not impacted by the financing structure. If energy savings are
greater than expected during the debt / lease amortization period, the budget impact on
the state agencies is positive. When the leases are completed in 2000, the improvements
become the property of the state.
The SIFIC model is very interesting. The experience of the program to date should be
discussed with the program participants to see whether it is a model that the City could or
should consider. (From a structuring point of view, the United States has some
advantages available to it that are not available in Canada such as the issuance of tax-
exempt municipal bonds).
The Energy Bank Program helps facilitate energy management program improvements in
state hospitals, schools and local governments. Lease or debt financing is provided by
local financial institutions at group municipal financing rates.
To facilitate these initiatives, the State legislature passed a law allowing state agencies to
use lease purchase financing for energy management improvements with an average
payback period of six years of less. In Toronto, the City and its agencies are permitted to
enter leases provided that they are within the City’s debt and obligation limits.
9 The City of Oslo
The City of Oslo in Norway has also had considerable success implementing an EE
program. In 1982, the Oslo Ekon Fund was established to assist in financing EE
programs. The fund is administered by the Oslo municipal utility and was capitalized
through local rate increases (about 0.166 ¢/kWh). In the first year of the fund about $10
million was made available for improvements. Since 1982, the fund has continued to
grow to the point were there is more than enough capital to finance efficiency
improvement projects.
The Oslo example is directly applicable to the establishment of a system wide public
benefits charge on Toronto Hydro’s distribution billing.
10 Appendix A
Chairs
Lois Corbett, TEA
Joan King, Counsellor Ward 12
Co-ordinators
Eleanor McAteer, City of Toronto
Drew Shintani, City of Toronto
Consultants
Greg Allen, Allen Kani Associates
Stephen Hall, Local Solutions
Bridget Haworth
Rob McLeese, Asset Capital
Judith Ramsay, REIC
Terry Vaughan, Asset Capital
Workgroup
Nick Arrizza, Sierra Club
Sherry Bagnato
Michael Berger, Sierra Club
George Bober, OPG
Suzanne Borup, City of Toronto
Daniela Bozic
Jake Brooks, IPPSO
Danielle Buklis
Steven Carrasco, MOE
Maureen Cartner-Whitney
Carman Chisamore
Frank Condlin
Geeana Cruz, Waste Watch
Kevin Devitt, IPPSO
Joan Doiron
Per Drewes, OPG
Jose Etcheverry, University of Toronto
Linda Fair
Heinrich Feistner, City of Toronto
Dennis Fotinos, Councillor Ward 21
Marion Fraser, Enbridge Gas
David Gourlay, Greenpeace
Tooker Gomberg, Greenpeace
Angela Han
Franz Hartmann, City of Toronto
Danny Harvey, University of Toronto
Karl Hemmerich, City of Toronto
Fred Hendriks, City of Toronto
Ken Hogg, City of Toronto
John Hopkins
Wendy Jackson
Philip Jessup, TAF
Chaitanya Kalevar
Jim Kamstra, City of Toronto
Stephen Kishewitsch, IPPSO
Roza Kohen, Enbridge Gas
Eric Krause, City of Toronto
Stephen Lam, Lamson Transit Inc.
Sylvia Langer, Greenest City
Jack Layton, Councillor Ward 25
Kevin Loughborough, TDHC
Bruce Lourie, CEEA
Hon Lu
Rob MacDonald, York University
Dania Majid
Grace Mazzone
Andrew McCammon, PME
Megan McGarrity
Steve McKenna, City of Toronto
Joyce McLean, Toronto Hydro
Rob McMonagle, Prometheus Energy
Kai Millyard, Green$aver
Chris Morgan, City of Toronto
Richard Morris, City of Toronto
Miriam Mozes, En En Tech
Mike Nelson
Murray Paterson, OPG
Kim Perrotta, City of Toronto
Sandra Rodrigues, City of Toronto
Jim Salmon, CWEA
Al Seskus, ICLEI
Angela Simone
Ross Snetsinger, Transport 2000
Tracey Steele
Tammy Sutherland
Andrea Sutton
Catherine Tafler, OAA
Tom Tamblyn, Duke Solutions
John Taylor, Petro Canada
Stephanie Thorsen, TAF
Mary Ellen Warren, MOE
John Warren, City of Toronto
Jane Weninger, City of Toronto
Chuck Wilson, Green$aver
Michael Wong
Brian Young, TREC
Laura von Zittwitz, City of Toronto
Marlena Zuber
11 Appendix B: Consultants’ Comments
After submitting the first draft of the Sustainable Energy Plan, meeting with the
Sustainable Energy Workgroup, and receiving commentary from a number of reviewers
(summarized in Appendix C), the consultants have responded with comments and
clarifications.
Greg Allen
1. Reductions in water usage may have large energy savings benefits in pumping
power and sewage treatment and deserve further investigation.
2. Distributed generation with renewables has large long term benefits to the whole
distribution and transmission systems. Their deployment is unlike central plants and will
impose higher costs on the early implementers. However, their extensive application
over time will replace retiring plants and should be viewed as large projects with high
initial development costs and declining unit costs. Financing should reflect this such that
early investors and contributors share in the long term economic benefits. For example,
green power purchasers of PV supply should either be subsidized based on revenues from
future lower cost offerings, issued credits against future green power offerings, or some
other mechanism that recognizes their contribution to the future supply system. A level
playing field based on customer choice and user pay would never have resulted in the
system we now have.
3. The next stage of sustainable energy planning should fully integrate transportation
and embodied energy with buildings and infrastructure. It should also extend the
implications to the region and higher levels of government. Toronto should press this
agenda to garner cooperation at all levels of government and to be an inspiration for
everyone to participate. We need City Council to champion the vision and mobilize
Toronto citizens, companies, organizations, and its own operations to fulfill it.
4. The mix of renewable energy technologies as we approach full sustainability will
need to consider the optimum selection that matches demand. Wind and photovoltaics
are a somewhat better fit to daily and annual load profiles. Cogeneration with biofuels
tends to follow peak loads with thermal demand. Deep lakewater cooling is available on
demand. Load shifting, shedding and other demand management strategies can help to
match supply. Ultimately, however, energy storage will need to be deployed for
dispatchable renewables. To some extent, this is currently done with hydraulic stations.
Hydrogen generation, storage, and fuel cell conversion will likely play an important role.
Biofuels represent storable chemical energy. Flywheels, batteries, and other emerging
storage means are anticipated. Finally, some contend that the grid should go global,
sharing generation around the world with a levelized demand and supply.
Stephen Hall
1) The Sustainable Energy Plan implies a tremendous new effort in capacity - building
and development of market infrastructure aimed at the building industry professions and
colleges and universities. Linked to this, there is a great need to educate the public about
solar energy and solar technologies as a first step towards a “ solar culture ”
2) The Sustainable Energy Plan has still yet to address a new performance and/or
prescriptive standard for new residential construction.
3) The Sustainable Energy Plan did not elaborate on a key policy issue - the social and
environmental externalities costs of energy production and consumption and implications
internalizing those costs in energy prices and rates. This policy issue has direct bearing
on the penetration rates of sustainable energy technologies.
4) The Sustainable Energy Plan could have an even stronger message if it could elaborate
in more detail the economic development and job creation benefits of the Plan.
Judith Ramsay
This document is the first iteration of a sustainable energy plan for Toronto. The task put
to the Working Group was to “recommend a Strategic Plan for sustainable energy for the
City of Toronto that enables the City to:
• Reduce the energy component of the Corporation of the City of Toronto’s emissions
of greenhouse gases 20% by 2005 from a 1990 baseline,
• Facilitate a reduction of the community’s emissions by a minimum of the Kyoto
target by the year 2008-2012, and
• Achieve related corporate or community targets for reducing air pollution and
procuring “green energy”.
Within the time and resources available, new research was not possible. This report
reflects information that was readily available from previous research and from meetings
with city staff and other stakeholders. Within these limitations, this report outlines a
broad strategy that will enable the City to achieve the stated objectives.
Achieving the near-term objectives listed above represents only the first step. Ultimately,
to achieve a state where the Corporation of the City and the community as a whole are
using only energy from sustainable sources will require far more than a 20% reduction in
CO2 emissions.
In the long term, achieving a sustainable energy future will require reinventing and
rebuilding the complete energy infrastructure in the city. Further research and planning
will be required to support the ongoing development of a long-range sustainable energy
plan for the City. For example, systems will be required to monitor energy use by source
and by sector and to monitor population growth and other trends affecting energy use.
On a community-wide basis, a full sustainable energy plan for the city should be
developed and reviewed every 5 years as part of the Official Plan review cycle.
A good deal of discussion following the draft report has focused on the concept of the
Sustainable Energy Agency. Some questioned why the agency should be independent of
the city and others questioned whether it is needed at all.
The central role of the Sustainable Energy Agency is to act as a catalyst, a community
development agency, to bring about a sustainable energy infrastructure in the city. This
will involve brining energy users, suppliers and developers together in new business
relationships. If the agency were to be located within a city department, it could be
constrained in some of its activities because of the limited mandate of the city in such
matters and / or because of necessary internal approvals processes.
Further, the City as a level of government has very little direct control over or
responsibility for energy supply and demand. However, it can wield considerable
influence in two areas: as owner of Toronto Hydro and as a major energy consumer in
the Toronto market.
As envisaged, the energy agency would leverage the City’s influence. By joining
together with other major power consumers in the city (government, NTOs and private
sector companies), the city can form a body with considerable purchasing power and
market impact.
There is no need to decide the issue of the Sustainable Energy Agency immediately. The
agency could develop in several stages as needed with the parties free to stop at any stage
along the way. The first step would be for the City to aggregate green power purchases
with the agencies, boards and commissions, the School Boards and other interested
parties. This ad hoc green power “buyers club” could form the nucleus of a later
Sustainable Energy Agency, if desired.
3. Management Issues
In developing this report and reviewing comments it has become clear that some
management issues are impeding the City’s ability to respond concertedly to the
challenge of achieving the corporate objectives. It is beyond the scope of this report to
suggest organizational or management structures within the City. However, it is hoped,
that by identifying these barriers, the City will take steps to develop appropriate
structures and procedures that will support early achievement of its objectives.
• Responsibility for energy related matters is fragmented amongst different divisions
and departments. This fragmentation and the amalgamation exercise has resulted in
some overlapping responsibilities and in a situation where some sections pursue the
objectives with one approach, while others pursue a different, sometimes
contradictory path.
• The implications of decision-making, as they affect the achievement of sustainable
energy objectives, are not understood or considered in the decision making process
by all departments.
• There is no method for accounting for energy expenditures or savings on a
departmental basis.
• Departments have no incentive to achieve further efficiencies, as savings are all
returned to general revenues.
Three mechanisms were suggested by the Working Group as partial solutions to the
management issues.
• Include sustainable energy and energy efficiency improvements as part of the
performance contract of department heads.
• Change the accounting system to allow for tracking of energy expenditures and
savings on a departmental basis.
• Allow departments to retain some of the energy savings to reinvest in further
efficiencies.
12 Appendix C: Summary of Reviewers’ Comments
The following table summarizes many of the comments of reviewers of the first draft of
the Sustainable Energy Plan. Comments are roughly classified under six headings:
footnote or reference needed, clarification needed, suggested change to style or format,
additional background needed, comment on situation analysis, comment on
recommendations.
Clarification Needed
In Section 3.3, p. 8, I am curious to know what is meant by "interim target". Eric Krause
This implies that there will be a future target. Do we need a recommendation on
future targets? If we truly want to be sustainable at some point, perhaps we do
need a long-range "sustainable" target such as 60% reduction of CO2 by 2050.
In section 4.1.1, on p. 12, last paragraph. Is this statement, not in fact, "Factor Eric Krause
Four"?
In Section 4.3.2, on p. 15, it would aid the reader to have a definition for a Eric Krause
"sustainable energy conversion".
In Section 6.2.4 Other Impacts on p. 36, second paragraph, Ontario Hydro Eric Krause
Energy Services should be changed to Ontario Power Generation.
In Section 7.11, p. 43, What is meant by “inside the gate”? Eric Krause
4.2.4 End-Use effects - I don't understand first two sentences or the rest of the Jim Kamstra
paragraph. Presently TDHC does not operate a closed system and hot
condensate is put into the sewer at many locations. TDHC should be encourage
to run condensate return lines from all buildings on its steam distribution
system.
6.1.1 Reduced Energy Demand - a 15% reduction is sited here while in 4.5 a Jim Kamstra
20% is mentioned.
the City may have 6000 properties but has less than 2000 buildings. I don't Jim Kamstra
think the EEO will auditing the 2000 facilities, much less the 6000 properties.
6.1.2 Reduced Emissions Jim Kamstra
- The paragraph refers to "this strategy", which strategy is being refered to?
- this paragraph needs some work
6.2 Meeting the City-wide goal Jim Kamstra
- It is not clear to me what this paragraph is saying
a23 - how does the Energy Centre differ from Howland House, Ecology Al Seskus
House, CMHC sustainable green house demo., etc?
Net billing is a much misunderstood term. Net billing is a financial arrangement Per Drewes
whereby a small utility customer generates a bit of his own electricity and uses a
single meter to measure the net electricity purchased from the utility. There will
be times when the instantaneous electricity produced by his PV or wind turbine
exceeds his own demand and the power will go out to the utility making his
meter run backward. However, most times such as at night or in calm periods,
he will be purchasing utility power. At meter reading time, most often one
month, the meter will show a net purchase from the utility. If he has been away
for a particularly sunny month and the meter shows a negative value, it will be
read as zero...the utility will not send him a cheque! The advantages to the
owner are that he does not have the cost of a second meter and he effectively
sells his electricity to the utility at retail rates. The advantage to the utility is
that it can use normal billing procedures and has no cost of producing a
cheque...probably far exceeding the value of the power. Net billing is intended
for people who are not in the electricity generating business...they are just utility
customers with excess sustainable power at some time. The wind turbines in
Toronto do not fall into that category. They normally do not consume power,
that is they are not customers. They wind turbines should be considered a co-
operative marketing wind energy for a "green pool".
Page A7: first paragraph, develop what that are envionmentally benign Drew Shintani
Page A26: need many examples of barriers to efficiency technologies Drew Shintani
Page A31: “direct creation of … jobs”: how many? Methodology? Drew Shintani
4.1 (B) TAF: there were $394 000 performing loans in the portfolio? Drew Shintani
Toronto must consider that almost 85% of energy use within the GTA is derived
from fossil energy. In 20 years there will be 2 million more people in the GTA
and 1.5 million more vehicles on the road. Electricity demand will likely
increase to be 60 terawatt hours more than the current demand. We must
consider that nuclear may not be a likely energy supply option for the province
and that there is little further expansion of hydroelectric possible. It would take
20 fossil plants with the same current output of Lakeview to supply the
additional energy or the power from 60,000 wind turbines sited on the north
shore of Lake Ontario. Without a doubt there is a need to address energy
efficiency and conservation and promote renewables, but we must also consider
the scale of energy demand in the future
12.1.3
The following information may aid in the development of the recommendations Eric Krause
for Section 7 starting on p. 38:
Perhaps, an iteration of the above can lead off Section 7 and guide the reader
through the section, while also serving to describe how the recommendations
may be enacted within our administrative structure.
In Part C, I know of an excellent Sustainable Energy Plan that was done in
British Columbia in about 1996 (I can provide references if desired). Cities and
counties in California have also done some work with comprehensive energy
planning.
Section 4.2 could spell out more clearly how coal-fired power plants contribute
to global climate change (more than 18% of CO2 in Ontario in 1995; 31% of
CO2 in the United States in 1995), smog and acid rain (more than 12% of NOX
and 22% of SOX in Ontario; and more than 26 of NOX and 63% of SOX in the
United States), and to the release of persistent toxics (at least 10% of mercury in
Ontario; and 21% of mercury in the United States).
I do not think I would divide section 4.2 into media -- air, water and terrestrial --
as it currently done. I think the arguments are more powerful when divided by
environmental issues such as — global climate change, acid rain, smog,
persistent toxics, and radioactive materials — which all have some impact on
air, water, and terrestrial ecosystems. Under each of those subsections, a
sentence or two could be provided about environmental, human health and
economic concerns.
I think it is useful to take on the nuclear power issue up front (as has been done)
but I think that a number of human health arguments could be added to
subsection 4.2.5 including: human health concerns related to the release of
tritium into the air and water for the community that lives adjacent to the
nuclear plant; the increased cancer rates and reproductive concerns of workers
involved in the mining and processing of uranium; and the long-term human
health concerns of the larger community related to the long-term storage of
radioactive wastes.
Given the work that Toronto Public Health has done on air quality, particularly
on the electrical sector, it would be nice if our reports were mentioned along
with OMA’s when discussing human health concerns (Toronto Public Health,
“Ontario’s Changing Electrical Sector: Implications for Air Quality & Human
Health, March 1999).
12.1.4
6.2.2 Emissions Reduction Jim Kamstra
- It might be a good idea to elaborate on the very last sentence. $60 million
= 3 billion in economic impact.
I have reviewed the eCO2 reduction numbers from the Summary Report Ken Hogg
EPS 2/AP/1 dated March 1995 from Environment Canada as they relate to
composting, landfilling, anaerobic digestion etc; Suffice to say the
calculations of eCO2 are obscure at best. Therefore in the limited time
available to submit comments prior to the October 8 meeting of the steering
committee, I suggest the following paragraph replace point 2 on page 22
part A:
> The RFP for long term disposal of Toronto's wastes was issued on
October 6, 1999 with responses due December 15, 1999. The RFP for
diversion is planned to be issued by the end of November, 1999. The
diversion RFP will prescribe the manner by which approximately 250,000
tonnes of organic material is to be diverted from disposal. The organic
stream of Toronto's solid wastes can be converted aerobically to compost or
digested anaerobically to form methane which can be utilized directly or in
gas fired cogenerating plants to generate heat and electricity. Three
facilities using anaerobic digestion technologies will be commissioned
within a year at the Dufferin Transfer Station in Toronto, Newmarket and
Guelph. Whereas landfills convert organics to methane over an extended
period of time (30 years), anaerobic digesters convert organics to methane
in a matter of days within a sealed environment and hence ensure the
maximum capture and utilization of the organic 'resource'
Page A5 “methane from waste” could read “energy from waste,” which would Drew Shintani
include methane recovery. This is common language used by the MOE
Page A6 The workgroup met 6 times Drew Shintani
Page A6: The role of corporate donations to this project to be used “to further Drew Shintani
research into this project”
Page A10 embodied energy will be covered in green economy report? Drew Shintani
Page A10 explain the gap in shipping into and out of the city. Shipping what? Drew Shintani
Page A11 include percentage of wasted energy and its change since 1988 Drew Shintani
Page A12 end load analysis being done by EEO? Drew Shintani
Page A19 BBP was a 3 year pilot Drew Shintani
Page A19 under local developments, we could include some reference to the Drew Shintani
official plans of the former municipalities with respect to their policies on
energy as provided at one of the consultative meetings.
Page A20 some mention of the competitive environment between TH and Drew Shintani
Enbridge
Page A22 gassification as a means of waste management that captures embodied Drew Shintani
energy, zero emissions, eco logo definition of green energy
Page A22 community organizations should include TEA Drew Shintani
Page A26 what success has the BBP had in leveraging City funds? Drew Shintani
Page A29 facilities and real estate has hired MCW consulting to audit city- Drew Shintani
owned buildings to determine energy-savings potential
Page A30 “incineration and landfill will increase emissions” what about Drew Shintani
gassification technology used in europe that claims no smoke stack and zero
emissions?
Page A32 some discussion of selling off utilities as a result of de-regulation, eg. Drew Shintani
Mississauga
Page A36 some mention of Sunoco’s fuel additive that reduces Nox emissions Drew Shintani
3.2.2 (B) Page B6 include BBP loan recourse fund details Drew Shintani
3.2.3 (B) “There is not a current market for emissions trading in Ontario”… .not true. 30 Drew Shintani
trades have passed through PERT to date.
3.2.3 (B) EEO has since joined PERT as a member and represents the City of Toronto on
all matters regarding emissions trading.
3.2.8 (B) The city is required by law to maintain a minimum $ value in reserves
A4.1.1 “Energy accounting” An inventory of all the commercially available renewable Richard Morris
energy technologies could also be developed to support their promotion in the
decision-making process
A4.4.2 “Utility restructuing” The institutional and industry barriers overcome to date Richard Morris
by Enbridge and City of Toronto could be mentioned in this section of the report
A4.4.2 It should be emphasized that the City holds the key to sustainability given its Richard Morris
direct involvement in various areas such as EEO, TAF, Fleet management, Solid
Waste, Water andWastewater, land use planning, district energy, DLWC, TH,
TTC, TDHC, GTSB.
A4.4.3 It should be noted that the EEO has to date focussed mainly on the Richard Morris
implementation of projects that realize actual CO2 emissions reduction. The
EEO has in the past done only a limited amount of promotion. In the near
future, the EEO is planning to significantly increase activities in both areas in
conjunction with BBP partners
A4.5 The City’s Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for CO2 reduction with was endorsed by Richard Morris
the New City Council in July 1998 might hold a few additional suggestions that
could be included in this section.
A4.5 Other opportunities that have been discussed in the past include: the Richard Morris
construction of bike paths along the OHSC transmission corridors and the
development of minimum system efficiencies for newly built energy supply
infrastructure (distributed generators).
B4.6.2 The report suggests that TAF has contributed $2 million to the BBP loan Richard Morris
recourse fund while Enbridge Consumers Gas has contributed $739 000. A
more accurate description:
- Role of TAF: At the direction of City Council, TAF has provided $2
million to Enbridge Consumers Gas in the form of a letter of direction to
provide securitization in the event of loan defaults.
- Role of ECG: Enbridge, in its role as a BBP sponsor has agreed to provide
market rate repayable loans primarily to small/med sized building owners
and managers for building renewal and energy efficiency projects. The
leverage ration agreed to by Enbridge is approximately 5:1. This means
that an amount of up to $10 million could be loaned by Enbridge or a third
party lender as designated by Enbridge and agreed to by the City.
Furthermore, Enbridge has agreed to contribute $0.125/cu.m. of gas
efficency of all BBP projects completed. This arrangement resulted in
cumulative contribution of Enbridge to date of $739 000.
- Role of the City City Council has committed itself to reimburse TAF in the
event that there are any loan losses, which erode the TAF $2 million
investment
Having the two target split, differentiates the abilities to control energy use. The
former Metro governments did have two separate 20% targets (the former City
of Toronto had only a single target) . The CO2 target was reaffirmed in July
1998, and an encompassing target was chosen. The City as a corporation has
control over its fleet, buildings, landfill operations, etc. and can enact reduction
strategies to realize targets set. In this way the 20% target and CO2 emission
reduction is a performance measure of progress made towards fewer CO2
emissions. By realizing this 20% reduction target, leadership can be
demonstrated by the Corporation of the City of Toronto. The City has varying
degrees of influence over what it can deliver as far as greenhouse-related
policies, programs, by-laws, etc. to the community-at-large. As the City does
not have complete control, the 20% target is more of a gesture of City Council
as to show political commitment. At some point soon, I think that these two
separate intents for setting targets should be separated and reflected in the re-
wording of the City's CO2 target and goal.
I am intrigued by this update to the Energy Balance diagram and am particularly Eric Krause
interested in the source(s) for this information. As I am sure you are familiar,
Metro Works compiled an Energy Balance for Metro Toronto (see attached). It
appears that the Transportation component is not estimated for the 1998 update
version. So subtracting the transportation component from the 1988 version in
order to directly analyze the trends from 1988 - 1998, I calculate Raw Energy
Input to be (148524 - 27639) or 120885 GWh; Unused (waste) Energy to be
(74118 - 20729) or 53389GWh; and Usable Energy Output (74406 - 6910) or
67496 GWh. Therefore, two new calculations of Community Energy Efficiency
(less Oil - Vehicles) are 55.83% for 1988, and 58.03% for 1998.
With further analysis of the trend of the decade from1988 and 1998:
Raw Energy Input has decreased 3.5% from 120885 to 116699 GWh
Unused Energy (waste) has decreased 8.3% from 53389 to 48983 GWh
Usable Energy has increased slightly by 0.3% from 67496 to 67716 GWh
Community Energy Efficiency went from 55.83% to 58.03% (does this mean
that we are in fact more efficient in 1998 than 1988?)
Why doesn't the 1998 Energy Balance for Toronto include oil-vehicle energy?
N.B. There are conflicting data sets between what is reported in the 1995 State
of the Environment Report and the 1995 Metro Works Report “The Potential for
District Energy for Metro Toronto” (I have used the later in the above analysis).
For Section 4.5, on pp. 21-22, another opportunity for the City may be tax- Eric Krause
related incentives to assist with financing residential retrofits (e.g. a property
tax-break or a fee-bate/rebate).
How should the City look at Life Cycle Analyses and embodied energy for Eric Krause
future energy planning? I think that embodied energy is an important topic and
although the consultant did not address the subject, they should recognize that
there is a need to conduct future research.
How would Wind/Solar Power displace "conventional", primary sources on the Eric Krause
grid? For example, if green power is used to supply 25% of the primary sources
used to generate electricity, what fuels would this displace -- 15% fossil-based
and 10% nuclear? Are there any scenarios available?
In meeting with you, I understand that there will be development of a section Eric Krause
that will discuss EFW as an energy option. As per your request, the EP&SB
would be pleased to review and comment on this new section.
6.1.3 Savings on Energy Costs Jim Kamstra
- I'm not sure if a 10% premium for renewables is realistic. It will most likely
be higher.
page a21 - double counting in the economics of point 4. "In 5 years it may Al Seskus
> be possible for the corporation to purchase 100% green power out of
> savings from efficiency improvements". This would only be true if the
> measures were implemented out of capital budget (unlikely). Most likely
> money was borrowed, from internal funds, from TAF, ESCOs, banks,
> leases - the money from energy efficiency would be used to pay back the
> measures. And this most likely would take 8-10 years meaning green
> power premiums would have to be a budget item.
a21 - most regulations and no-fiscal incentives are not in the city's Al Seskus
jurisdiction. Need provincial cooperation and we all know what the
province thinks of the city and more regulations.
a28 - as in comment a21 above, the table lists "savings to apply to cost Al Seskus
of retrofit" is almost all committed money to pay off the implemented
measures which won't be paid off for another 5 years. This is not yet
available for further investments. One day, if accounted for correctly,
it will be available for further investment but not by 2005 unless you encourage
cherry picking. Also, buying green power is a 7 million dollar drain
every year whereas demand management/energy efficiency is forever.
> a31 - same as above, 68% emission reduction is at a cost of $7million every Al Seskus
year in green power premiums.
a36-end of second paragraph, Ontario Hydro Energy Services is not who runs Al Seskus
the plants, it is Ontario Power Generation that runs the plants. And lakeview
would still keep running as long as it could sell power, even if Ontario Power
Generation has to buy emission credits to keep it running therefore not
benefitting the air around Toronto.
a36 - job creation. If 72,000 tonnes means investment of $60 million and Al Seskus
3,000 person years than 3,000,000 will take a lot more labour to achieve
(more than 30,000 person years) as the easier projects are done. Not a
linear relationship.
Regarding bringing a wind turbine manufacturer to Toronto...Ontario Hydro Per Drewes
convinced Tacke to set up a blade manufacturing shop in London Ont. when
we bought the 600 kW machine for the Bruce. It of course exports all its blades
since the market did not develop here.
Page A14 Nuclear Power is Not the Answer Councillor King is concerned that Drew Shintani
this statement is too strong and that the issue of waste heat water not being
captured has been missed altogether.
A3.3 Page 8 , Objectives. Near term objectives should include reducing smog and Richard Morris
reference to the City’s smog plan
Section “Context and Rationale” The report suggests that an evaluation of Toronto’s Richard Morris
A4 embodied energy should be part of a comprehensive analysis of Toronto’s
energy responsibilities. The report should further suggest that a study of this
type can be very time consuming and therefore on-going and planned programs
and projects should not be suspended or adversely affected should this study be
carried out. It should also be clearly stated that energy efficiency would in all
cases be a major focus in the planning of supply side options. This is necessary
as the optimization of the end use equipment/systems is of significance in
determining the economic feasibility, the overall efficiency and ultimately the
environmental impact of the options being evaluated.
B3.1.2 Debt financing. In general the report should be edited to distinguish the Richard Morris
differences between financing proposals for the public/non-profit sectors versus
the private sector, and distinguish between the financing needs fo small, med,
and large building owners with respect to the implementation of building
renewal and energy efficiency projects
There was no emphasis on private label financing. This type of financing
typically refers to third party non-recourse financing where the source of
financing is transparent to the borrower. In most cases organizations such as
Toronto Hydro, TAF and the private sector firms can utilize this arrangement to
increase the offerings of their business by providing “one stop shopping” with
direct access to financing. This practice should be explored in this report.
B3.2.3 “Emission Trading” replace “ pollution rights” with “emission reduction Richard Morris
credits”
B3.2.5 “Levelization payments” The report refers to a levelization loans/payments Richard Morris
fincing mechanisms that TAF could use to fund programs. This appears to be
feasible, however the funds being held by TAF are not sufficient for the strategy
to make a significant difference. A greater impact would be made in the
marketplace if the levelization strategy was accompanied with a securitization
strategy. This combination could leverage a greater amount of private sector
financing. The BBP loan recourse fund / credit enhancement facility could
serve as one of the securitization mechanisms that could be combined with
levelization.
B3.2.8 “Use of Building Reserve Funds” The uses of buildings’reserve funds in an Richard Morris
area of significant importance to public non-profit/multi-residential (condo)
building owners and managers given that this sector has a high level of technical
potential for retrofit but experience difficulties in securing finanacing. The
report make general references without fully explaining the consultant’s
findings conclusions and recommendations. Furthermore the consultant should
explain what policies, by-laws and other legislative changes are needed in order
to create the climate required to foster the implementation of more buildings
renewal and energy efficiency retrofits.
B4.1 TAF The report suggests that TAF assets could be used to support initiatives Richard Morris
such as the Portland Co-generation Project, the Lakeview Repowering Project,
the Northwinds Cooling project and the TDHC Deep lakewater Cooling project.
It might be of greater strategic importance to examine which of the above
projects could proceed as a commercial entity through the use of standard
financial commercial arrangements without the support of TAF. Clearly,
DLWC appears to be a good candidate for TAF assistance. However it is not
evident that the other projects mentioned would require TAF assistance. The
difficulty in addressing the issue is driven by the need of organization such as
the City and TAF to act in a strategic manner to transform the marketplace as
opposed to displacing traditional sources of financing.
B4.2.5 The report suggests that the Northwinds Project is complementary to the Deep Richard Morris
Lakewater Cooling project. This should be elaborated.
a41 - NEW 7.7.7 The City should institute a no regrets Residential Energy Al Seskus
Conservation Ordinance (RECO)and a no regrets Commercial Energy
Conservation Ordinance (CECO) like Berkeley California. On sale of property
a checklist of no regrets measure is prepared and the seller and owner have to
agree to make sure that the checklist of low cost, no regret measure are
implemented or will be so within 2 years. This is analogous to the Drive Clean
program. The house has to be inspected to meet minimal requirements. It also
forces the owners to save money because all the measures would be ones they
should to anyway and ones which payback within 2-3 years.
If Toronto wants a Sustainable Energy Centre, be aware that the largest Per Drewes
such centre is Kortright, a part of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.
Why not just support it with funding for increased projects?
Page A38 Sustainable energy agency should read “department” in the city’s Drew Shintani
language and perhaps a one page situational analysis on how the responsibility
of “energy” is presently divided up between many units at the City.
7.4.3 Need some discussion andy analysis of facilities and real estate’s role in city- Drew Shintani
owned buildings
7.5.1 I don’t think the depts have the staff or the expertise to do this Drew Shintani
7.6.1 Already in the works but I thought at an earlier workgroup meeting, it was Drew Shintani
agreed that 25% doesn’t exist in the grid if you exclude old hydro at the present
time. This is what was reported to Countil by the Healthy City Office earlier
this year
Page A40 Green power purchase proposal: who takes lead? Drew Shintani
7.7.5 Exact reference for recent TAF report Drew Shintani
7.11.1 Locate trec within the gate: what does this mean? Drew Shintani
7.15.1 EEO intervene at OEB meetings: CAO’s office is already there Drew Shintani
Financial recommendations: Drew Shintani
“TH and TDHC working together” is too vague
“Using its vast purchasing power… ” does TH take the lead? Roles? eg. Bulk
purchasing of T8s that would be delivered just in time to avoid warehousing
costs
“establish a central energy efficiency coordination office” too vague. The EEO
has this role already? Is this the same agency proposed in Part A?
“System wide public benefits charge” intriguing, but we need an exact case
reference and some analysis on how it could work for Toronto.
“Encouraging other net billing projects such as TREC” too early to use TREC as
an example? Other case study references?
“Employing long-term fixed contract approach” too vague. Examples/ Build a
case.