Developing the 2017 Long-Term Energy Plan: a Special Report of the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario Dianne Saxe Environmental Commissioner of Ontario WEBINAR: December 8 th , 2016
Overview Background: Energy planning in Ontario: then & now Recommendations for 2017 LTEP: 1. Alignment with climate targets Overview 2. Environmental protection 3. Conservation first 4. Evidence-based decision-making 5. Public & stakeholder participation 2
Preface: Who is the ECO? • Impartial & independent • Guardian of the Environmental Bill of Rights Environmental Commissioner • Watchdog on: – Energy use & conservation – Greenhouse gas emissions (climate) – Environmental protection 3
ECO ENERGY USE & CONSERVATION REPORTS 4
ENERGY PLANNING IN ONTARIO – THEN & NOW 5
How did we get here? (2004 - 2016) Electricity Act, 1998 (as amended in 2004) created: – OPA: New agency (post ON Hydro monopoly) to ensure adequacy of electricity supply Energy Planning – then & now – IPSP: Mandated plan would provide OPA with authority to procure electricity resources, aligned with gov’t goals Subject to OEB quasi-judicial oversight, but no EA 6
How did we get here? Cont’d Energy Planning – then & now • IPSP in Practice (2006-2010): – An IPSP was filed with OEB, but never completed & approved …In the meantime: planning by directive with little public review… 8
How did we get here? Cont’d In 2010, a new practice emerges: LTEP – Released after public consultation – Plain language version of subsequent draft Supply Mix Energy Planning – then & now Directive to OPA In 2013, next LTEP does not even reference IPSP… “ a law on the books that is ignored and has been replaced with an extralegal approach under the sole purview of the Minister of Energy – is inadequate. ” -ECO, 2014 9
Where are we now? Electricity Act, 1998, (as amended in 2016) LTEP process legalized, and : Ministry must consider IESO technical report Public consultation via Environmental Registry Energy Planning – then & now Refers to “energy” not electricity Finally, a multi-fuel provincial energy plan? 10
What next? Current legal framework imperfect: 1. Lesser role for IESO & OEB, greater role for Ministry of Energy 2. Lack of transparency on rationale and final decisions Energy Planning – then & now made in LTEP no opportunity to review evidence in quasi-judicial setting 3. Timeframe for LTEP review needs to be set in regulation How to make the new framework work? 12
2017 LTEP development 2017 LTEP has started on the right foot with the release of 2 technical reports: -IESO: Ontario Planning Outlook -Navigant: Technical Fuels Report Energy Planning – then & now As well as a Consultation Discussion Guide to inform ongoing consultations. 11
ALIGNMENT WITH CLIMATE TARGETS? 12
15% by 2020 37% by 2030 Alignment with climate targets 80% by 2050 13
LTEP covers 70%+ of ON GHGs Alignment with climate targets 14
Possible Energy Futures • Technical reports consider alternative futures for Ontario electricity & fuels demand (“Outlooks”) • Each represent varying degrees of: Alignment with climate targets – Elec ectr trif ific icati ation on of heating, transportation and industrial energy use – Altern ernati ative fuels ls to replace petroleum and natural gas – Conser servati ation on of natural gas 15
GHG emissions from Outlooks B, C, D, E, F 170 Outlook B Outlook C 160 Outlook D 150 Outlook E 140 Outlook F 130 Greenhouse gas emissions (megatonnes) 120 110 Alignment with climate targets 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Year 16
The scenarios v. ON GHG Targets Alignment with climate targets 17
Electrification: swimming upstream? Outlooks C - F rely on major electrification, esp. for home & building heating …but, a major obstacle… Alignment with climate targets the significant $$$ differential b/w natural gas & electricity. How can we achieve GHG targets given electricity costs? 18
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 19
Who’s looking out for the environment? Electrification may require significant new generation. No review of cumulative environmental impacts . Protecting the environment 20
PUTTING CONSERVATION FIRST ? 21
More conservation? “Energy efficiency measures are among the most cost - effective measures to reduce emissions” Putting Conservation First LTEP background papers • No change to existing electricity conservation targets (Outlook B) • minimal increase under high electrification • No change to cost-benefit analysis of conservation 22
Getting the cost-benefit analysis right 1) More electrification = More value for conservation especially when it avoids new supply Putting Conservation First 2) Significant value in avoided GHGs current 15% adder (for ALL environmental benefits) is insufficient needs a realistic cost for carbon 23
More conservation is possible… Potential to increase conservation, if: Establish an accurate cost-benefit analysis of conservation Putting Conservation First Justify need for all new energy infrastructure (against conservation) Set conservation targets for ALL fuels (not just NG & electricity) 24
Regional electricity planning: are alternatives to “wires” really being considered? 25
EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING 26
Risks to nuclear electricity supply 2 major risks affect ~50% of ON electricity supply • Delays/cost overruns for refurbishment • Pickering license extension Evidence-based decision-making What’s the contingency plan? 27
“What role … for natural gas to supplement … electricity storage options ?” NG can help balance electricity supply & demand: • e.g.: peaking generation, power-to-gas, dual-fuel end uses Evidence-based decision-making But, why just natural gas? • What about: smarter pricing, thermal storage, DR… Not enough evidence to compare value propositions: IESO advice needed 28
PUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION 29
LTEP legitimacy? Key virtues of the IPSP process: – transparent, Public & stakeholder participation – evidence-based decision-making, – informed by meaningful public & stakeholder input Essential for legitimacy 30
Public & Stakeholder Participation Discussion Guide too vague o No specific proposals o Will Ministry table a “draft LTEP” for public review? Public & stakeholder participation Implementation directives/plans to/from IESO & OEB o Further consultation on details? After that: policy stability or more directives? 31
Conclusions: 2017 LTEP should… enable climate targets provide proper oversight of environmental impacts ensure conservation considered first Conclusions be based on evidence-based decision making enable meaningful public participation {More detailed recommendations in report} Comment period ends December 16. 32
Questions? Download the report at: eco.on.ca Contact us: commissioner@eco.on.ca Conclusion 33
Recommend
More recommend
