Liberal leadership briefing Kathleen Wynne
January 7, 2013 Kristopher Stevens and OSEA members and allies [email protected]
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 $27 billion invested due to FIT
Solu;ons and opportuni;es
Increased energy efficiency
Infrastructure
CHP & district energy Monitoring
Waste capture Storage
Renewable heat and electricity
E-‐mobility
Labour force transi<on
….more!
We need to support the development of an export market in Ontario!
Export to the world by supporting players and by shaping new markets
The Roadmap to 2020
Ontario Sustainable Energy Association – http://www.ontario-sea.org
Envisioning A Greener Energy System for Ontario Good jobs, Resilient Communi<es, Healthy Environments
The Roadmap to 2020
• A leader with vision • Overcome the leadership shorCall • Smart, resilient, distributed and sustainable energy networks
• Cons<tuents and communica<ons • Be[er op<ons • Engage and support communi<es • Stability and predictability • Market development and exports • Develop the roadmap to 2020 and beyond
Kristopher Stevens Executive Director
416-977-4441 www.ontario-sea.org
Kristopher Stevens, 2012 – M’Chigeeng First Nation, Ontario, Canada
New opportunities
David Roberts, 2002 (Grist News) - http://tinyurl.com/cwn9w6o
Washington, DC . Mexico City . San Salvador . Rio de Janeiro . San;ago de Chile . Lagos . Cape Town Nairobi . Addis Ababa . Berlin . Brussels . Warsaw . Prague . Sarajevo . Belgrade . Zagreb . Istanbul Kiev . Moscow . Tbilisi . Kabul . Lahore . New Dheli . Chiang Mai . Phnom Penh . Beijing
Neutralize RFP’s failure to meaningfully engage and benefit communities
July 2012
Stability and predictability drive down costs!
Ontario’s options
Images by Clean Air Alliance, 2011 – http://www.cleanairalliance.org/files/costcompare.pdf
12.60
10.74
15.76
13.00
0
5
10
15
20
FIT Wind All Wind New Nuclear Natural Gas
Cost (¢
/kWh)
Average Cost (in 2010$) 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/