2013 may 7 energy matters

transcript

Power and Prosperity to the People Good Jobs, Resilient Communities and Healthy Environments

Kristopher Stevens Executive Director May 7, 2013 www.ontario-sea.org

Over $27 billion invested in Ontario

OSEA is a respected advocate, facilitator and business catalyst bringing the public, commercial and community sustainable energy sector and their supporters together to address emerging trends and the development of healthy, prosperous and ecologically sustainable communities across Ontario. Who we represent: Members include individuals, manufacturers, installers, developers, municipali6es, First Na6ons, farmers, co-‐opera6ves and other community organiza6ons suppor6ve of, and engaged in, the full por>olio of sustainable energy in Ontario Vision: Every Ontarian conserves energy and generates sustainable energy either as a household or as part of a local community-‐owned business, contribu6ng to the rapid transi6on to 100% sustainable energy. Mission: To be recognized as one of Ontario’s most respected sustainable energy advocates and facilitators by providing credible, accurate and 6mely informa6on and an unparalleled network of community and commercial sector supporters and par6cipants.

Who is the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association

Our track record

•  2004: FIT campaign and report for Ontario government resulting in RESOP

•  2007: Launched Community Power Fund

•  2008: Co-hosted 7th World Wind Energy Conference in Kingston and launched campaign for Green Energy Act

•  2009-2011: Hosted 3 annual Community Power Conferences

•  2011: Defended Green Energy and Economy Act with the WattsNEXT? Campaign and TV commercials

•  2012: Secured partnership with Reed Exhibitions to host the All Energy Canada Conference

A little over four years ago we started the GEA campaign at WWEC 2008 in Kingston

4 World Wind Energy Conference, 2008 – St. Lawrence College, Kingston

We need your help!

www.ontario-‐sea.org

Utilities are already experts at dealing with variability

http://go.ontario-‐sea.org/GlobalFutures2012

“Utility experts pointed out that managing variability is nothing new: utilities have contended with variability since the dawn of centralized power networks, although mostly in terms of demand variability rather then supply variability.”

What’s possible?

Paul Gipe, 2012 – http://www.wind-works.org 7

Energiewende & the Prosumer

http://go.ontario-‐sea.org/TheEnergyRevolution

http://go.ontario-sea.org/CentralizedvsDecentralized2020

Free access to all future webinars and archives for government staff

http://go.ontario-sea.org/past-webinars

Germany Energy Transition, 2012 – www.energytransition.de 9

FITs neutralize RFP’s failure to meaningfully engage and benefit communities

Washington, DC . Mexico City . San Salvador . Rio de Janeiro . San?ago de Chile . Lagos . Cape Town Nairobi . Addis Ababa . Berlin . Brussels . Warsaw . Prague . Sarajevo . Belgrade . Zagreb . Istanbul

Kiev . Moscow . Tbilisi . Kabul . Lahore . New Dheli . Chiang Mai . Phnom Penh . Beijing Germany Energy Transition, 2012 – www.energytransition.de 11

13 Ontario Power Generation, 2013 – www.opg.com

Sir Adam Beck (a Conservative) created a 100% sustainable public

energy system that generated surplus power to drive Ontario’s

economy…

Ontario’s Long-Term

Energy Plan

FIGURE 5: BUILDING A CLEANER ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

Coal Free

The Ontario government is committed to improving the health of Ontarians and fighting climate change. Coal-fired plants have been the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the province and among the largest emitters of smog-causing pollutants. Ontario’s reliance on coal-fired generation shot up 127 per cent from 1995-2003, significantly polluting the province’s air. During that period Ontario also relied on importing coal-fired power from the United States. An Ontario study found the health and environmental costs of coal at $3 billion annually (“Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario’s Coal-Fired Electricity Generation,” April 2005).

Since 2003, the government has reduced the use of dirty coal-!red plants by 70 per cent. Eliminating coal-fired electricity generation will account for the majority of Ontario’s greenhouse gas reduction target by 2014 — the equivalent of taking 7 million cars o" the road.

FIGURE 4: CONTRAST BETWEEN GENERATION AND INSTALLED CAPACITY

Selecting a supply mix and investment in supply is a matter of choices and trade-offs. A variety of power supply sources — some designed for baseload requirements, some designed for meeting peak requirements — is superior to relying heavily on only one source. For this long-term plan the government has considered environmental, economic, health, social and cost implications to come up with the best possible supply mix.

This improved supply mix will be cleaner, sustainable, modern and reliable. It phases out coal-!red generation at a faster pace, it modernizes Ontario’s nuclear #eet, it includes more renewables, it maximizes hydroelectric power over the near term, and it advances Ontario’s conservation goals.

By 2030, Ontario will have completely eliminated coal as a generation source and will have also increased wind, solar and bioenergy from less than one per cent of generation capacity in 2003 to almost 13 per cent. To ensure reliability, the strategic use of natural gas will be required to complement renewable generation. Nuclear will continue to supply about 50 per cent of Ontario’s electricity needs.

The following chapter will include a review of the various components of Ontario’s electricity supply:

Ontario’s evolving electricity pie

Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011 – http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/ 14

The FIT 2.0 recommendations put great emphasis on community

1.  Continue commitment to clean energy 2.  Streamline processes and create jobs 3.  Encourage greater community

and aboriginal participation 4.  Improve municipal engagement 5.  Reduce price to reflect lower costs 6.  Expand Ontario’s clean energy

economy

Ontario’s Feed-in Tariff Program Two Year Review Report – http://tinyurl.com/c6b5d8j

Kristopher Stevens, June 2012 – M’Chigeent First Nation, Ontario, Canada

FIT Contracts and Large FIT Applications as of January 31, 2013

Ontario Power Authority, January 21, 2013 – http://go.ontario-sea.org/FITQupdateJanuary312013 16

MicroFIT project summary

Number of Applications (MicroFIT1.0)

Sum of Applications-kw (MicroFIT 1.0)

Number of Applications (MicroFIT 2.0)

Sum of Applications-kw (MicroFIT 2.0)

Total Applications

47,127 430,352 kw 10,590 98,309 kw

Rejected 23,015 211,553 kw 5,359 49,606 kw Conditional offer

3,679 35,879 kw 3,488 32,748 kw

Connected 56 432 kw 80 680 kw Contract Executed

14,706 128,688 kw 575 4,863 kw

Ontario Power Authority, February 18, 2013 – http://go.ontario-sea.org/microfitfeb2013 17

Small FIT 2.0 Community and Aboriginal set-aside

2/3+ are community/Aboriginal 4000+ applications = ~ 825MW

Aboriginal set-aside 1000+ applications = ~200 MW

Community set-aside 458 applications = ~85 MW

Community & Aboriginal Priority At least another 2-300 MW

18 Ontario Power Authority, January 28, 2013 - http://go.ontario-sea.org/Jan282013smallFITsummary

Small FIT employment potential

5,000.0

10,000.0

15,000.0

20,000.0

25,000.0

200 MW 400 MW 600 MW

Total employment

Derived from OSEA’s Economic Impact Assessment Tool in partnership with the Conference Board of Canada and ClearSky Advisors

OSEA, March 23, 2013 – www.ontario-sea.org 19

impact of the small FIT under 2.0

$1,000,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$5,000,000,000

$6,000,000,000

$7,000,000,000

$8,000,000,000

Total investment Total impact on GDP Wages and Salaries Taxes

600 MW

400 MW

200 MW

OSEA, March 23, 2013 – www.ontario-sea.org 20

Short Term (now to 2014) Medium Term (2015 – 2018) Long Term (2019 & beyond)

•  Phase out remaining coal-fired generation (approx. 3,500 MW) •  Up to 7,500 MW of non-hydro renewable generation installed capacity •  Installed wind generation capacity approx. 1,500 MW today •  Surplus Baseload Generation occurring more frequently

•  Embedded generation increasing •  Conservation and Demand Management targets •  Rate increases (approx. 45% by 2014)

•  Coal phase out complete •  Up to 10,700 MW of planned non-hydro renewable generation capacity

•  Existing Bruce and Darlington nuclear units out of service for upgrades; no capacity gap assuming operation of Pickering units extended •  Without extension of Pickering units, capacity gap starts in 2016 •  Capacity gap will start sooner than 2016 if the 10,700 MW target for non-hydro renewables not being met (e.g., attrition)

•  Capacity gap up to 2,400 MW until nuclear units return to service in 2023

2012 2013 2014

Capacity Available at Peak

Demand + Reserve Reqt

2015 2016 2017 2018

Without Pickering

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Source: OPS IPSP Planning and Consultation Overview , May 2011

Scenario 1: Generation oversupply continues to 2019 (nuclear availability and little

FIT attrition)

Scenario 2: Generation capacity needed by 2016 or

sooner (nuclear unavailability and major FIT attrition)

Jason Chee-Aloy, 2012 – http://www.poweradvisoryllc.com

The deficit cliff…who is served by delays?

Comparing Ontario’s options

Clean Air Alliance, 2011 – http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/costcompare.pdf 22

Getting it right, not quite

Marion Fraser, Getting it Right, Not Quite - http://go.ontario-sea.org/NotQuite

Governance Green economy ✓✗ Conservation ✗ Renewable energy ✓✗ Clean distributed energy & CHP ? Community energy ✓… Aboriginal energy ✓… Procurement and connection priority ✓✗ Grid and market evolution ✓✗ Protect the environment ✓ Protect vulnerable consumers ✓

Remember we need to put greater emphasis on community as orginaly proposed

1.  Continue commitment to clean energy 2.  Streamline processes and create jobs 3.  Encourage greater community

and aboriginal participation 4.  Improve municipal engagement 5.  Reduce price to reflect lower costs 6.  Expand Ontario’s clean energy

economy

Ontario’s Feed-in Tariff Program Two Year Review Report – http://tinyurl.com/c6b5d8j

Kristopher Stevens, June 2012 – M’Chigeent First Nation, Ontario, Canada

A change in scale, distribution, resiliency, ownership and benefit

Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folkecenter, Denmark 25

Copenhagen Thermal Map, 2013 – www.dbdh.dk

Copenhagen’s thermal grid

Danish Heat Supply Act 1979 (Update 2005)

-  Plants larger than 1MW must be CHP -  Heat must be priced to actual cost on a

non-profit basis -  Electric heating in new buildings is

banned -  Obligation to connect to the thermal grid

http://go.ontario-sea.org/DenmarkThermalPolicy http://go.ontario-sea.org/CanadianThermalGrids

Kristopher Stevens, 2009 – Copenhagen, Denmark

Soren Hermansen, 2013 – Samso Island, Denmark - www.energiakademiet.dk 28

Samso Island was a pioneer 20+ years ago

Juhnde’s 750 people are already 100% + 85%

http://go.ontario-‐sea.org/JUHNDE100PERCENT

Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – Juhnde, Germany 29

M’Chigeeng First Nation is one of our pioneers

M’Chigeeng First Nation built small solar projects first and then two 2MW Enercon windmills!

The Mother Earth Renewable Energy project will generate $300,000 annually for 14 years and then $1.2 million for 6 years

Kristopher Stevens, M’Chigeeng First Nation, 2012 – http://go.ontario-sea.org/MChigeengWind 30

To reduce social friction & navigate complex challenges you need to know your values

Kristopher Stevens, 2007 - http://go.ontario-sea.org/socialfriction 31

Value for money Healthy

More jobs Reliable

Resilience Local benefit and control

Pro-sumer Distributed Integrated

Sustainable/Renewable

Our culture is our most powerful technology & this is a story about us

Image by Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folkecenter, Denmark 32

Community Power video http://go.ontario-sea.org/CommunityPowerVideo

Once we know our values we can figure out what services we really need and who/how will we pay

Alargador, 2013 - www.alargador.org 33

This is about shifting paradigms

David Roberts, 2012 (Grist News) - http://tinyurl.com/cwn9w6o 34

Solving problems and creating opportunities

David Roberts, 2012 (Grist News) - http://tinyurl.com/cwn9w6o 35

How our power and thermal system works now

Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folecenter, Denmark – www.folkecentre.com 36

How it could work

Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folecenter, Denmark – www.folkecentre.com 37

This should be about integrated systems Renewables @ 20% + power consumption

Quelle: Prof. Dr. –Ing. habil. Ingo Stadler

trical

] red consumption green wind & solar production only

Based on Germany‘s consumption in 2010

Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de 38

Renewables @ 40% + power consumption El

ectric

red consumption green wind & solar production only

Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de

ectric

Smart Sustainable Energy Networks Heat + Electricity + Mobility

Peak power transfer Peak power transfer

Liquid fuel Gas fuel

Resources: natural gas

biogas biomass

Offpeak retransfer

We need to break out of the electricity only silo

P Power demand

Demand of Storage capacity: 100%

Power curve Installed capacity:

t Johannes Lackmann, 2012 – WestfalenWIND GmbH – www.westfalenwind.de

And exceed the electricity system boundary

Power demand

Demand of Storage capacity: 60%

Power curve Installed capacity:

In this new paradigm load shifting is key

time / h

loadshift loadshift

nominal load curve

PV power curve

Lets talk opportunities! First improve energy management & efficiency

Kristopher Stevens, 2010 –Toronto, Canada 47

District Heating and CHP are the single most important improvement of energy efficiency

40% 100%

Before Now

Conventional Power Plant Combined Heating/Cooling & Power

Don’t waste your heat

Preben Maegaard, 2012 – Nordik Folecenter, Denmark 48

Upgrade your infrastructure

Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario, Canada 49

•  Solar hot water heaters provide 40-60% needs •  Heating water is 25% of residential energy use •  Space heating accounts for 60 per cent of the energy used.

Heat your air or water

Victoria Hollick, 2010 – Solar Wall, Ontario, Canada 50

Harvest the sun for electricity

Robert Garcia, 2010 – Farmers for Economic Opportunity, Ontario, Canada 51

Use your manure, food and forest waste

Kristopher Stevens, 2008 – Heinzel Farm, Prescott-Russel, Ontario, Canada 52

To flare or engine / boiler

Tap into your sewage and landfills

Capture the wind

Graham Findlay, 2012 - M’Chigeeng, Ontario, Canada 54

Use your flowing water

Roberto Garcia, 2009 – Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, Canada 55

Convert old industries

Axion and Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – www.axionpower.com 56

Reservoirs, hills and mines

Heinrich Bartlett, 2009 – Innenburen, Germany 57

Put your heat in the ground - geothermal

Kristopher Stevens, 2010 – Planet Traveler Hostel, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 58

Electrify your transportation

Sun Country Highway, 2012 – Aitikokan, Ontario, Canada 59

www.suncountryhighway.ca

So what do we really need?

1.  Reliable policy 2.  Brave politicians 3.  Long term framework and targets 4.  Reasonable budgets 5.  Bankable and scalable projects 6.  Local integrated sustainable community action plans 7.  Community networks 8.  More local Heroes!

Value for money Healthy

More jobs Reliable

Resilience Local benefit and control

Pro-sumer Distributed Integrated

Sustainable/Renewable A stable market

To know our values!

Image by Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folkecenter, Denmark 61

Work with us to make OUR vision a reality

www.ontario-‐sea.org

April 9 – 10, 2014 / Exhibition Place Toronto

Kristopher Stevens Executive Director

kristopher@ontario-sea.org

416-977-4441 www.ontario-sea.org

Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario, Canada 64

0 20 40 60 80 100

Prairie

Ontario

Atlantic

Increased costs a great deal (7-9) Minor cost change (4-6)

“Thinking about the past two years or so, rate how the following things have impacted your household energy costs?” Electricity you use at home from renewable energy

Don’t assume…set the narrative Get the IESO and OEB facts out!

legitimate

vested

opportunist

Social Friction: Three types of concerned stakeholders

Take time to understand each other

Communities are: •  Misinformed •  Concerned •  Frustrated •  Annoyed •  Fearful •  Suspicious

Developers are:

•  Disengaged •  Divisive •  Secretive •  Non-transparent •  Distrust •  Ignoring (legitimate

concerns)

Panel at FIT Supply Chain Forum, 2012 – Toronto, Ontario Canada 67

Think about how you would like to participate…

Sherry Arnstein, 1969 – Ladder of Citizen Participation 68

FINANCIAL SHARES Price/Vote

Investment varies from one landowner to another based on capacity to invest ROI reflects a competitive investment based on market rates for venture capital

A Preferred share, will be repurchased five years after wind farm is operational

$1/Yes

B Non-repurchasable share along with the purchase of class A

Matched to A/No

LAND SHARES

Shares of Exploitable Area Price/Vote

Shares issued to all signed landowners. Lease option prorates shares according to area suitable for wind development

C Shares of exploitable area (lands potentially capable of accommodating wind mills)

.5 shares per hectare/ Yes

Class D shares are issued to landowners who do not want wind mills on their land, but who promise not to sign with any other wind developer and accept their neighbours project

D Non-competition of exploitable area

.5 shares per hectare/ No

Proximity Shares Price/Vote

To remunerate those making a supplementary effort to live in close proximity to windmills

E Land proximity (landowners situated within a 550 m

.5 shares per hectare/ No

F Residential proximity (issued to proprietors of residences within 700m radius of a turbine

Number of shares dependent on building type/ No

Collaborative/ Land pooling lease table

-‐$2.89

-‐$0.71

-‐$2.53

-‐$4.00

-‐$3.00

-‐$2.00

-‐$1.00

Case 1: New Nuclear Replaced by Wind (in 2018)

Case 2: Natural Gas Replaced by Wind (in 2018)

Case 3: New Nuclear Replaced by Wind and Natural Gas (in 2024)

$CAD (2

Effect on Monthly Household Electricity Bill Prices Comparing Wind Energy Generation Replacing Potential Alternatives

Sources: ClearSky Advisors Inc. 2011; OPA 2010-‐2011; OPA, IPSP Consultation Document 2011; California Energy Commission 2010; Pembina Institute 2010; OPA, Generation Procurement Cost Disclosure 2008; Moody's Investment Service 2008

We have better options

FIT Wind All Wind New Nuclear Natural Gas

Cost (¢

Average Cost (in 2010$) per kWh of Electricity by Generation Type by 2018

Sources: ClearSky Advisors Inc. 2011; OPA 2010-‐2011; OPA, IPSP Consultation Document 2011; California Energy Commission 2010; Pembina Institute 2010; OPA, Generation Procurement Cost Disclosure 2008; Moody's Inverstment Service 2008

Note: The total wind category includes all wind procurement programs in Ontario. The FIT wind category includes FIT and Samsung & KEPCO projects. Both of the 2018 costs for these categories have been discounted to 2010 dollars to allow for comparison with other generation types

Ontario’s Long-Term

Energy Plan

FIGURE 5: BUILDING A CLEANER ELECTRICITY SYSTEM

Coal Free

The Ontario government is committed to improving the health of Ontarians and fighting climate change. Coal-fired plants have been the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the province and among the largest emitters of smog-causing pollutants. Ontario’s reliance on coal-fired generation shot up 127 per cent from 1995-2003, significantly polluting the province’s air. During that period Ontario also relied on importing coal-fired power from the United States. An Ontario study found the health and environmental costs of coal at $3 billion annually (“Cost Benefit Analysis: Replacing Ontario’s Coal-Fired Electricity Generation,” April 2005).

Since 2003, the government has reduced the use of dirty coal-!red plants by 70 per cent. Eliminating coal-fired electricity generation will account for the majority of Ontario’s greenhouse gas reduction target by 2014 — the equivalent of taking 7 million cars o" the road.

FIGURE 4: CONTRAST BETWEEN GENERATION AND INSTALLED CAPACITY

Selecting a supply mix and investment in supply is a matter of choices and trade-offs. A variety of power supply sources — some designed for baseload requirements, some designed for meeting peak requirements — is superior to relying heavily on only one source. For this long-term plan the government has considered environmental, economic, health, social and cost implications to come up with the best possible supply mix.

This improved supply mix will be cleaner, sustainable, modern and reliable. It phases out coal-!red generation at a faster pace, it modernizes Ontario’s nuclear #eet, it includes more renewables, it maximizes hydroelectric power over the near term, and it advances Ontario’s conservation goals.

By 2030, Ontario will have completely eliminated coal as a generation source and will have also increased wind, solar and bioenergy from less than one per cent of generation capacity in 2003 to almost 13 per cent. To ensure reliability, the strategic use of natural gas will be required to complement renewable generation. Nuclear will continue to supply about 50 per cent of Ontario’s electricity needs.

The following chapter will include a review of the various components of Ontario’s electricity supply:

Talk TWh and desired benefits

Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2011 – http://www.mei.gov.on.ca/en/

Year Capacity to replace

TWh to replace

2015 881 MW 6.42 TWh 2017 881 MW 6.42 TWh 2019 881 MW 6.42 TWh 2020 881 MW 6.42 TWh

Wind - $738,300,000 Nuke cheap - $1,011,972,000 + liability

Nuke expensive - $23,754,000,000 + liability

July 2012

Target soft costs: Stability and predictability drive down costs!

2013 may 7 energy matters

News & Politics