Liberal leadership briefing Kathleen Wynne

January 7, 2013 Kristopher Stevens and OSEA members and allies Kristopher@ontario-sea.org

2  2013-­‐04-­‐08  

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  communi;es  across  Ontario.    Who  we  represent:    Members  include  individuals,  manufacturers,  installers,  developers,  municipali<es,  First  Na<ons,  farmers,  co-­‐opera<ves  and  other  community  organiza<ons  suppor<ve  of,  and  engaged  in,  the  full  porColio  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,  contribu<ng  to  the  rapid  transi<on  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  <mely  informa<on  and  an  unparalleled  network  of  community  and  commercial  sector  supporters  and  par<cipants.    

Who is the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association

Visionary

The leadership shortfall: Implementation and accountability

Getting it Right, Not Quite, by Marion Fraser - 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 ✓

Dilapidated…to a smart, resilient, distributed and sustainable

Preben Maegaard, 2010 – Nordik Folecenter, Denmark

Commercial and community constituents + communications

-­‐$2.89  

-­‐$0.71  

-­‐$2.53  

-­‐$4.00  

-­‐$3.00  

-­‐$2.00  

-­‐$1.00  

$0.00  

$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

010)  

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

©  2011    ClearSky  Advisors  Inc.  

What’s possible?

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

Truly engage and support communities

Kristopher Stevens, 2012, M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario

Stability and predictability means jobs, investment and manufacturing

Over $27 billion invested due to FIT

Solu;ons  and  opportuni;es  

Increased  energy  efficiency  

Infrastructure  

CHP  &  district  energy   Monitoring  

Waste  capture   Storage  

Renewable  heat  and  electricity  

E-­‐mobility  

Labour  force  transi<on    

….more!  

We need to support the development of an export market in Ontario!

Export to the world by supporting players and by shaping new markets

The Roadmap to 2020

Ontario Sustainable Energy Association – http://www.ontario-sea.org

Envisioning  A  Greener  Energy  System  for  Ontario  Good  jobs,  Resilient  Communi<es,  Healthy  Environments  

The Roadmap to 2020

•  A  leader  with  vision  •  Overcome  the  leadership  shorCall  •  Smart,  resilient,  distributed  and  sustainable  energy  networks  

•  Cons<tuents  and  communica<ons  •  Be[er  op<ons  •  Engage  and  support  communi<es  •  Stability  and  predictability  •  Market  development  and  exports  •  Develop  the  roadmap  to  2020  and  beyond  

Kristopher Stevens Executive Director

info@ontario-sea.org

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

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

New opportunities

David Roberts, 2002 (Grist News) - http://tinyurl.com/cwn9w6o

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      

Neutralize RFP’s failure to meaningfully engage and benefit communities

July  2012  

Stability and predictability drive down costs!

Ontario’s options

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

12.60  

10.74  

15.76  

13.00  

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

FIT  Wind   All  Wind   New  Nuclear   Natural  Gas  

Cost  (¢

/kWh)  

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  

©  2011    ClearSky  Advisors  Inc.  

Ontario’s Long-Term

Energy Plan

18 19

Build

ing

Our

Cle

an E

nerg

y Fu

ture

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:

Threats and opportunities

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

Grid requirements (smart grid)

Smart  sustainable  networks   Relevance  

Monitoring  system  (load,  genera<on,  voltage,  frequency,  etc.)   Must  

Smart  metering   Op<onal  

Power  management  (peak  genera<on  cutoff)   Ul<ma  ra<o  (in  case  of  emergency)  

Power  genera<on  <me  shig  (bio-­‐energy,  hydro)   Must  (smart  market)  

Load  <me  shig  (hea<ng,  cooling,  exis<ng  physical  storage)   Important  (smart  market)  

Adjustable  transformers  in  distribu<on  grids   Important  

Voltage  control  by  induc<ve  load  regula<on   Low  cost,  easy  to  handle  

Addi<onal  physical  storage  (pumped,  ba[eries,  power  to  gas,  etc.)  

Necessary  in  long  term  scenarios  

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

Community level power balancing

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

Heat + Electricity + Mobility

Peak power transfer Peak power transfer

Liquid fuel Gas fuel

Resources: natural gas biogas biomass …

Offpeak retransfer

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

And exceed the electricity system boundary

P

t

 Power demand

Demand of Storage capacity: 60%

Power curve Installed capacity: 150%

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

28  

http://tinyurl.com/d52cnkl

2013-­‐04-­‐08  

OSEA builds community and commercial capacity and collaboration

29  

Ontario  Electricity  Demand  

0  

20  

40  

60  

80  

100  

120  

140  

160  

180  

2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018  

Elec

tricity  (TWh)  

Year  

Ontario's  Electricity  Generation  Forecast  2010-­‐2018  Biomass  Generation  

Solar  Generation  

Wind  Generation  

Coal  Generation  

Natural  Gas  Generation  

Hydroelectric  Generation  

Nuclear  Generation  

Required  Generation  

Sources:  ClearSky  Advisors  Inc.  2011;  OPA,  IPSP  Planning  and  Consultation  Overview  2011;    OPA,  Ontario’s  Long  Term  Energy  Plan  2010;  IESO,  18  Month  Outlook  December  2011  

©  2011    ClearSky  Advisors  Inc.   30  

Demand/Supply  Outlook  -­‐  Scenarios  Short Term (now to 2014)   Medium Term (2015 – 2018)   Long Term (2019 & beyond)  

•   Phase  out  remaining  coal-­‐fired  genera<on  (approx.  3,500  MW)    •   Up  to  7,500  MW  of  non-­‐hydro  renewable  genera<on  installed  capacity    •   Installed  wind  genera<on  capacity  approx.  1,500  MW  today    •   Surplus  Baseload  Genera<on  occurring  more  frequently    •   Embedded  genera<on  increasing    •   Conserva<on  and  Demand  Management  targets  

•   Rate  increases  (approx.  45%  by  2014)    

•     Coal  phase  out  complete    •     Up  to  10,700  MW  of  planned  non-­‐hydro  renewable  genera<on  capacity    •   Exis<ng  Bruce  and  Darlington  nuclear  units  out  of  service  for  upgrades;  no  capacity  gap  assuming  opera<on  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.,  a[ri<on)            

•   Capacity  gap  up  to  2,400  MW  un<l  nuclear  units  return  to  service  in  2023    

25000

27000

29000

31000

33000

2012 2013 2014

MW

Capacity  Available  at  Peak

Demand  +  Reserve  Reqt

2015 2016 2017 2018

Without  Pickering  

Ext.  

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Source:  OPS  IPSP  Planning  and  Consulta<on  Overview  ,  May  2011  

Scenario  1:  Genera<on  oversupply  con<nues  to  2019  (nuclear  availability  and  liGle  FIT  aGri<on)  

 

Scenario  2:    Genera<on  capacity  needed  by  2016  or  sooner  (nuclear  unavailability  and  major  FIT  aGri<on)  

www.poweradvisoryllc.com/