Local Advisory Committee Meeting #2 Item #3 September 22, 2015 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Greater Ottawa Region Local Advisory Committee Meeting #2 – Item #3

September 22, 2015

• Building on the presentation from Ottawa LAC

Meeting #1:

– Review the regional planning process – Revisit, in greater detail, the three approaches for meeting long-term needs – Consider key elements of the draft recommendation framework to be used for evaluating alternatives to meet the need to supply demand growth in South Nepean

• Followed by a discussion on opportunities for

community input

Presentation Outline

2

Overview of the Ottawa Regional Planning Process

3

Needs Assessment Decision Making Community Engagement

• Data gathering
• Technical studies
• Options for integrated

solutions

• Trigger projects to

address near-term needs Dialog with community members on options to address longer-term needs Working group recommendations based

• n planning criteria and

consideration of community input

• Needs

Screening, and/or IRRP

• Identification of

needs and options A plan consisting

• f wires project(s)

and/or non-wires alternatives Input on preferences for longer-term electricity supply

• ptions
• Regulatory approvals for

wires projects

• Programs, procurement
• r other mechanisms for

non-wires alternatives Solutions are in place in time to meet the Region’s electricity needs

Implementation

Approaches to Meeting Long-Term Needs: “Deliver Provincial Resources”

4

• In accordance with the Conservation First policy, a

variety of demand-side and distributed mechanisms (e.g. , CDM, DG, distribution solutions, localized DR, Smart Grid, storage, other emerging technologies) would be considered to help manage local electricity needs and to avoid asset investments (e.g. station upgrades)

• Success depends on local community taking a lead role
• Traditional transmission & distribution

planning approach—develop “wires” to supply the local area from system resources

• Utilities (transmitters and LDCs) play a

lead role in development

• A centralized local supply resource may be
• developed. A variety of technologies are possible

(e.g. , gas generation, CHP, district energy, hydro)

• Lead responsibility depends on the type of

resource and how it is procured

Deliver Provincial Resources Community Self-Sufficiency

Final plan may have elements from each

• f the approaches

Centralized Local Resources

From Ottawa LAC Mtg. #1:

• The traditional “wires” approach has

it’s beginnings in the earliest days of the electricity system, when generation was located where geographic hydropower

• pportunities were located, and

transmission and distribution spread

• ut to supply the entire province
• Ontario’s installed supply

capacity is currently about 22% hydroelectric and 34% nuclear1

• This approach remains the

benchmark for providing reliable, cost-effective supply

1 Source 2013 LTEP Figure 16

• Over the past few decades natural gas-

fired thermal generation has developed into an efficient, cost-effective and clean resource providing valuable flexibility for system operation

– Ontario’s installed supply capacity is currently about 26% gas1

• Gas-fired generation is more scalable

than hydroelectric or nuclear power, and can be located anywhere there is natural gas supply, which is naturally located near load centres

• Siting gas-generation near a load centre

may be used as an alternative to regional transmission supply

– This approach has been used in the GTA

1 Source 2013 LTEP Figure 16

Approaches to Meeting Long-Term Needs: “Centralized Local Resources”

5

• In accordance with the Conservation First policy, a

variety of demand-side and distributed mechanisms (e.g. , CDM, DG, distribution solutions, localized DR, Smart Grid, storage, other emerging technologies) would be considered to help manage local electricity needs and to avoid asset investments (e.g. station upgrades)

• Success depends on local community taking a lead role
• Traditional transmission & distribution

planning approach—develop “wires” to supply the local area from system resources

• Utilities (transmitters and LDCs) play a

lead role in development

• A centralized local supply resource may be
• developed. A variety of technologies are possible

(e.g. , gas generation, CHP, district energy, hydro)

• Lead responsibility depends on the type of

resource and how it is procured

Deliver Provincial Resources Community Self-Sufficiency

Final plan may have elements from each

• f the approaches

Centralized Local Resources

From Ottawa LAC Mtg. #1:

• Over the past decade there has been significant growth

in non-hydroelectric renewables, including a significant amount of distribution connected generation

– Ontario’s installed supply capacity is currently about 9% non- hydro renewable generation (wind, solar PV, bioenergy)1

• Ontario’s Conservation First framework emphasizes

the use of cost-effective energy efficiency and demand response as supply resources

– Ontario’s installed supply capacity is currently about 3% demand response1

• Looking forward, it’s possible to envisage a time when

conservation and distribution connected generation may be feasibly and cost-effectively deployed at sufficient capacity to reduce regional reliance on the transmission and distribution system

1 Source 2013 LTEP Figure 16

1 Source 2013 LTEP Figure 16

Approaches to Meeting Long-Term Needs: “Community Self-Sufficiency”

6

• In accordance with the Conservation First policy, a

variety of demand-side and distributed mechanisms (e.g. , CDM, DG, distribution solutions, localized DR, Smart Grid, storage, other emerging technologies) would be considered to help manage local electricity needs and to avoid asset investments (e.g. station upgrades)

• Success depends on local community taking a lead role
• Traditional transmission & distribution

planning approach—develop “wires” to supply the local area from system resources

• Utilities (transmitters and LDCs) play a

lead role in development

• A centralized local supply resource may be
• developed. A variety of technologies are possible

(e.g. , gas generation, CHP, district energy, hydro)

• Lead responsibility depends on the type of

resource and how it is procured

Deliver Provincial Resources Community Self-Sufficiency

Final plan may have elements from each

• f the approaches

Centralized Local Resources

What Would Each Approach Look Like in a Community?

7

“Deliver Provincial Resources” “Centralized Local Resources” “Community Self-Sufficiency” A community that:  Is supplied from system resources located across the Province through a network of transmission and distribution facilities  Requires transmission and distribution infrastructure expansion, e.g. a new transmission station and connection line, to supply local peak demand growth A community that:  Hosts a grid-connected natural gas fired generating station to support community growth  This may include the potential for a combined heat and power plant to supply district energy or local industry A community that combines some or all of the following options to stabilize peak demand requirements from the transmission system:  Is built to Energy Star high efficiency standards  Is part of a localized demand response program (eg. PeakSaver), controlled by the utility  Has rooftop solar panels on a large portion of residences and commercial buildings  Has access to energy storage  Is grid connected for energy supply and to maintain reliability and performance standards  Or makes use of other emerging technologies

• The Working Group will recommend a preferred alternative to

supply demand growth in South Nepean after comparing the performance of alternative solutions using established planning criteria

• 2007 Integrated Power System Plan (OPA) introduced six planning

criteria for bulk and regional planning:

– Feasibility – Reliability – Flexibility – Cost – Environmental Performance – Societal Acceptance

• Comparing alternatives against specific, measurable criteria will

highlight consequences, limitations and trade-offs

Plan Level Recommendation Framework

8

• Please refer to Appendix Document

Measurable Attributes Based on 6 Broad Criteria - Preliminary Draft for Discussion

9