2017 Long-Term Energy Plan: a Special Report of the Environmental - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
2017 long term energy plan
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

2017 Long-Term Energy Plan: a Special Report of the Environmental - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 30, 2023 358 likes •709 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Developing the 2017 Long-Term Energy Plan:

a Special Report of the Environmental Commissioner

  • f Ontario

Dianne Saxe Environmental Commissioner of Ontario

WEBINAR: December 8th, 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Overview

Background: Energy planning in Ontario: then & now Recommendations for 2017 LTEP: 1. Alignment with climate targets 2. Environmental protection 3. Conservation first 4. Evidence-based decision-making 5. Public & stakeholder participation

2 Overview

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Preface: Who is the ECO?

  • Impartial & independent
  • Guardian of the Environmental Bill of Rights
  • Watchdog on:

– Energy use & conservation – Greenhouse gas emissions (climate) – Environmental protection

3 Environmental Commissioner

slide-4
SLIDE 4

ECO ENERGY USE & CONSERVATION REPORTS

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

ENERGY PLANNING IN ONTARIO – THEN & NOW

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

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 – 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 Energy Planning – then & now

slide-7
SLIDE 7

How did we get here? Cont’d

  • 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 Energy Planning – then & now

slide-8
SLIDE 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 Directive to OPA

In 2013, next LTEP does not even reference IPSP…

9 Energy Planning – then & now

“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
slide-9
SLIDE 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
  • Refers to “energy” not electricity

Finally, a multi-fuel provincial energy plan?

10 Energy Planning – then & now

slide-10
SLIDE 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

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 Energy Planning – then & now

slide-11
SLIDE 11

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

As well as a Consultation Discussion Guide to inform

  • ngoing consultations.

11 Energy Planning – then & now

slide-12
SLIDE 12

ALIGNMENT WITH CLIMATE TARGETS?

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13 Alignment with climate targets

15% by 2020 37% by 2030 80% by 2050

slide-14
SLIDE 14

LTEP covers 70%+ of ON GHGs

14 Alignment with climate targets

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Possible Energy Futures

  • Technical reports consider alternative futures for

Ontario electricity & fuels demand (“Outlooks”)

  • Each represent varying degrees of:

– Elec ectr trif ific icati ation

  • n of heating, transportation and industrial

energy use – Altern ernati ative fuels ls to replace petroleum and natural gas – Conser servati ation

  • n of natural gas

15 Alignment with climate targets

slide-16
SLIDE 16

GHG emissions from Outlooks B, C, D, E, F

16 Alignment with climate targets

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 Greenhouse gas emissions (megatonnes) Year Outlook B Outlook C Outlook D Outlook E Outlook F

slide-17
SLIDE 17

The scenarios v. ON GHG Targets

17 Alignment with climate targets

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Electrification: swimming upstream?

18 Alignment with climate targets

Outlooks C - F rely on major electrification,

  • esp. for home & building heating

…but, a major obstacle… the significant $$$ differential b/w natural gas & electricity.

How can we achieve GHG targets given electricity costs?

slide-19
SLIDE 19

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Who’s looking out for the environment?

20 Protecting the environment

Electrification may require significant new generation. No review of cumulative environmental impacts.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

PUTTING CONSERVATION FIRST ?

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

More conservation?

22 Putting Conservation First

“Energy efficiency measures are among the most cost- effective measures to reduce emissions” 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
slide-23
SLIDE 23

Getting the cost-benefit analysis right

23 Putting Conservation First

1) More electrification = More value for conservation

 especially when it avoids new supply

2) Significant value in avoided GHGs

 current 15% adder (for ALL environmental benefits) is insufficient  needs a realistic cost for carbon

slide-24
SLIDE 24

More conservation is possible…

24 Putting Conservation First

Potential to increase conservation, if:

  • Establish an accurate cost-benefit analysis of

conservation

  • Justify need for all new energy infrastructure

(against conservation)

  • Set conservation targets for ALL fuels (not just NG &

electricity)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Regional electricity planning: are alternatives to “wires” really being considered?

25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION-MAKING

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Risks to nuclear electricity supply

27 Evidence-based decision-making

2 major risks affect ~50% of ON electricity supply

  • Delays/cost overruns for refurbishment
  • Pickering license extension

What’s the contingency plan?

slide-28
SLIDE 28

“What role … for natural gas to supplement … electricity storage options?”

28 Evidence-based decision-making

NG can help balance electricity supply & demand:

  • e.g.: peaking generation, power-to-gas, dual-fuel end

uses

But, why just natural gas?

  • What about: smarter pricing, thermal storage, DR…

 Not enough evidence to compare value propositions: IESO advice needed

slide-29
SLIDE 29

PUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

LTEP legitimacy?

Key virtues of the IPSP process:

– transparent, – evidence-based decision-making, – informed by meaningful public & stakeholder input

Essential for legitimacy

30 Public & stakeholder participation

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Public & Stakeholder Participation

Discussion Guide too vague

  • No specific proposals
  • Will Ministry table a “draft LTEP” for

public review?

31 Public & stakeholder participation

Implementation directives/plans to/from IESO & OEB

  • Further consultation on details?

After that: policy stability or more directives?

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Conclusions: 2017 LTEP should…

 enable climate targets  provide proper oversight of environmental impacts  ensure conservation considered first  be based on evidence-based decision making  enable meaningful public participation

{More detailed recommendations in report} Comment period ends December 16.

32 Conclusions

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Questions?

Download the report at: eco.on.ca Contact us: commissioner@eco.on.ca

33 Conclusion