|
2. CITY OF OTTAWA
RESPONSE TO PROVINCE ON Réponse de la Ville d'ottawa à la Province
concernant |
Committee recommendation as amended
Whereas
energy conservation and renewable energy sources provide the most sustainable
alternatives to meeting future energy needs; and
Whereas
the City of Ottawa Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) has also expressed
the concern that equal weight or an appropriate balance between conservation,
demand management and renewable energy sources, and nuclear generation has not
been made to date;
Be it resolved That City
Council convey to the Provincial Government and the Ontario Power Authority and
recommend that the Provincial Government and the OPA take a more aggressive
approach to conservation demand management and the development of renewable
energy sources in the ongoing development of the Ontario Power Mix plan and
adjust the supply mix accordingly.
Recommandation
modifiée du Comité
Attendu
que la conservation d’énergie et que les sources d’énergie renouvelable soient
les options les plus viables pour répondre aux besoins ultérieurs en matière d’énergie;
Attendu
que le Comité consultatif environnemental (CCE) de la Ville d’Ottawa a
également exprimé une préoccupation voulant que l’équivalence ou l’équilibre
appropriée entre la conservation, la gestion de la demande, les sources d’énergie
renouvelable et la génération nucléaire ne soit pas encore atteinte à ce jour;
Il est résolu que le Conseil municipal transmette au premier ministre de l’Ontario ainsi qu’au ministre de l’Énergie, demandant au premier ministre et au ministre de l’Énergie d’adopter une approche plus rigoureuse face à la gestion de la demande de conservation et au développement de sources d’énergie renouvelable dans le développement continu du plan mixte d’énergie en Ontario et d’ajuster l’approvisionnement en conséquence.
Documentation
1. Environmental Advisory Committee
Coordinator’s report dated 14 September 2006 (ACS2006-CCV-EAC-0007).
2. Extract
of Draft Minute, 28 November 2006.
Report
to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
14 September 2006 / le 14 septembre 2006
Submitted by/Soumis par : Environmental Advisory Committee/
Comite consultatif sur l'environnement
Contact
Person/Personne ressource : Stephanie Brown Bellefeuille, Advisory Committee
Coordinator/Coordonnatrice des comités consultatifs
City Clerk’s Branch/Direction du greffe
(613) 580-2424 x 16760,
stephanie.brown@ottawa.ca
REPORT RECOMMENDATION
That the Environmental Advisory Committee recommends that Planning and Environment Committee recommend that Council pass a resolution, to be communicated to the Premier of Ontario and to the provincial Minister of Energy, asking the Premier, having authorized the Ontario Power Authority to spend money on nuclear power, to thoroughly reexamine its options.
RECOMMANDATION DU
RAPPORT
Que le Comité
consultatif sur l'environnement recommande au Comité de l'urbanisme et de
l'environnement de recommander à son tour au Conseil municipal d'adopter une
résolution, qui sera transmise au premier ministre de l'Ontario ainsi qu'au
ministre de l'Énergie, demandant au premier ministre, qui a autorisé l'Office
de l'électricité à investir dans l'énergie nucléaire, de revoir entièrement ses
options.
BACKGROUND
The matter of renewable resources and energy conservation
is of considerable interest to the members of the Environmental Advisory
Committee, and has been the subject of many discussions around the meeting
table or in offline group discussions over the past year. In particular, the
discussion on funding required by energy providers in order to
invest in conservation and renewable resources resulted in a Motion passed at
the September meeting of the EAC.
At its September 14 meeting, the Environmental Advisory Committee passed the following Motion:
WHEREAS investing in nuclear power could
cost the taxpayers of Ontario $45 billion;
WHEREAS
municipalities, (including Ottawa); and local energy providers, (including
Hydro Ottawa), need funding to invest in conservation and renewable resources;
WHEREAS municipalities
and local energy providers need the Province of Ontario to do an indepth evaluation of how much energy
can be saved through conservation and energy efficiency, and how much energy
can be generated from alternative energy sources like wind, solar, biogas generation
(from sewage), biomass (from waste), and thermal, using $45 billion;
WHEREAS
the Province of Ontario needs to: develop an indepth Plan of Conservation that
includes enforcement and pricing mechanisms; assess how much energy can be
saved through conservation, efficiency and alternative sources of energy; and
make the results public; and
WHEREAS The Province of Ontario needs to provide a business case for each alternative. The business cases must be fully costed, including costs related to pollution, health, safety, security, long-term waste storage, cost over-run and liability insurance;
BE IT
RESOLVED THAT the EAC recommends that City Council pass a resolution, to be
communicated to the Premier of Ontario and the provincial Minister of Energy, asking
the Premier of Ontario, having authorized the Ontario Power Authority to spend
money on nuclear power, to thoroughly reexamine its options.
CONSULTATION
Staff of the Environmental Sustainability Division has reviewed the EAC resolution. While staff has neither the resources nor the expertise to complete a thorough review and definitive conclusion on what is a very complex, technical, and critical topic, we would offer the following observations and comment.
In 2005 the Province directed the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) to develop a plan indicating how electricity supply will meet demand in 2025. After what was a very short study timeline and consultation and response process, the OPA recommended a supply mix that maintained the current share of nuclear (approx.35%), increased the share of renewables including hydro power (from 26 to37%), and increased the share of gas-powered generation and co-generation (from 16% to27%). This mix would allow the Province to eliminate coal as a power source and meet future demand in 2025. Although the recommended mix maintained the current share of nuclear generation, it is important to note that this recommendation would result in significant new construction and re-investment in nuclear power as the current generation of facilities is nearing the end of its operating life.
The second key component is the role of conservation and efficiency in reducing demand and the resulting “gap” which the supply mix must meet. The OPA suggested that increased conservation programs (from 675 MW to 3,150MW) would contribute to lowering demand and the need for power generation. The OPA suggested that overall demand would, however, grow by .9% per year. The combination of conservation and renewables could meet this growing demand but will not, in the OPA’s analysis, be able to replace the loss of capacity as current sources, primarily nuclear facilities, are retired.
The Ministry of Energy and Provincial Government then reviewed this report and directed the OPA to adjust the plan based on slightly less nuclear, less gas and co-generation, but increased conservation (from the OPA recommendation of 3,150MW to 6,300MW). Currently, the OPA is developing a strategy and business plan to provide a power mix for 2025 as per the Provincial directive including the recent release of a conservation and demand management discussion paper.
It is clear that the OPA took a cautious view of conservation and renewables, choosing targets that were well below some of the more aggressive targets promoted by conservation groups including those of the OPA’s Chief Energy Conservation Officer. The OPA chose targets that they felt there was a high certainty of meeting but also indicated that they have an objective of achieving the greatest possible amount of conservation and that the plan can adapt to higher levels of conservation. The provincial government took a more aggressive view in their direction to the OPA, albeit one that is still below what are promoted as achievable targets in the conservation community.
This adjusted plan continues to raise a number of issues including what some believe to be inflated estimates of future demand given ongoing changes in the Ontario economy and energy use per capita patterns, an overly cautious view of the role of conservation and renewable energy potential, and a downplaying of the cost and environmental risks inherent in nuclear power (nuclear waste disposal and the impacts of uranium mining). These concerns are reflected in the EAC resolution.
Staff of the Environmental Sustainability Division agrees that every effort must be made to aggressively pursue conservation and demand management, as well as the development of renewable energy sources, with the intent to develop an environmentally sustainable energy system for 2025 and beyond. This will help reduce if not eliminate the role of nuclear power. Given that conservation and efficiency is a more environmentally responsible and sustainable way to address the gap between power demand and power supply, we concur that the OPA and Province should be more aggressive and place a higher priority on this aspect of the power mix.
While the Province is not specifically requesting input on the power mix at this stage of the process, delivering this message will emphasize the need to aggressively pursue conservation and renewables as the business plan and strategy evolves. Supporting the intent of the motion by conveying the concerns of EAC and passing a resolution encouraging a more aggressive approach to conservation and renewables and adjusting the power mix accordingly is appropriate. A suggested resolution is contained in Annex A.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
N/A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Annex A – Proposed Amended Motion
DISPOSITION
The
City Clerk’s Branch will coordinate the directives of Council on this item.
Annex A
Whereas energy conservation and renewable energy sources
provide the most sustainable alternatives to meeting future energy needs; and
Whereas the City of Ottawa Environmental Advisory
Committee (EAC) has also expressed the concern that equal weight or an
appropriate balance between conservation, demand management and renewable
energy sources, and nuclear generation has not been made to date;
Be it resolved that City Council convey the concerns of
EAC to the Provincial Government and the Ontario Power Authority and recommend
that the Provincial Government and the OPA take a more aggressive approach to
conservation demand management and the development of renewable energy sources
in the ongoing development of the Ontario Power Mix plan and adjust the supply
mix accordingly.
CITY OF OTTAWA RESPONSE TO PROVINCE ON ENERGY
CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE RESOURCES
Réponse de la Ville d'ottawa à la Province concernant
les économies et les sources renouvelables d'énergie
acs2006-ccv-eac-0007 ciTY-WIDe / à l’échelle de la
ville
Ms. Edelweiss D’Andrea, from the Environmental Advisory
Committee (EAC) presented the Committee’s position on the use of energy in
Ontario. She put forward the view that
the Province could reduce its energy consumption dramatically, as was done in
other countries, but it has yet to address this issue. She made note of the $45 billion dollars
that the Ontario Power Authority has been allocated to study nuclear
alternatives, and she stated that nuclear power would not prevent greenhouse
gas emissions nor help stem climate change.
There are also storage problems associated with nuclear waste. Ms. D’Andrea went on to say that the Ottawa
River is already contaminated because of activities at Chalk River and that
levels of tritium, a beta emitter and a known carcinogen, have been observed
near Pembroke, Ontario. She urged the
Planning and Environment Committee to approve the EAC’s resolution requesting
that the Province thoroughly re-examine alternative energy options.
Responding to a question from
Councillor Georges Bédard, Ms. D’Andrea expressed the view that the amended
Motion from City staff “waters down” the EAC’s Motion which speaks to the issue
of costing the options and evaluating the social effects of using nuclear
power. Councillor Bédard maintained
that the staff recommendation still appears more specific and focused. Ms. D’Andrea posited that asking the
Province to examine the energy mix was not a positive thing. The EAC could agree to add City staff’s
Motion to its own recommendations, but it would still want the Province to
reconsider spending on nuclear power.
Ms. D’Andrea felt that, by examining other options and doing case studies,
the Province would come to the conclusion that nuclear power is not necessary.
Councillor Alex Cullen acknowledged
the work done by the EAC and he alluded to the difficulty of distilling six
months of work into a ten-minute presentation.
He felt that, should the EAC want there to be the same level of debate
here, the Planning and Environment Committee would need to have more material
than is currently before it. Ms.
D’Andrea concurred with this statement.
She pointed out that she had wanted to organize a panel discussion
before bringing this item forward to Council, and that she was willing to
provide the required literature. Ms.
D’Andrea stated that the complexity of the issue was no reason to avoid
discussing it.
Councillor Diane Holmes moved the
deletion of the words “concerns of the EAC” from the proposed amended
Motion. She expressed the view that
sending a Motion to the Province without Council’s endorsement is a weak
position.
Councillor Jan Harder referred to the fact that Hydro Ottawa, of which City Council is the shareholder, is well aware of this issue, and that the public shouldn’t believe that nothing was being done about it. She said that, for these reasons, she would not be supporting the proposed changes.
The Committee then considered the
following Motion:
Moved by D. Holmes
Whereas
energy conservation and renewable energy sources provide the most sustainable
alternatives to meeting future energy needs; and
Whereas
the City of Ottawa Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC) has also expressed
the concern that equal weight or an appropriate balance between conservation,
demand management and renewable energy sources, and nuclear generation has not
been made to date;
Be it
resolved that City Council convey to the Provincial Government and the Ontario
Power Authority and recommend that the Provincial Government and the OPA take a
more aggressive approach to conservation demand management and the development
of renewable energy sources in the ongoing development of the Ontario Power Mix
plan and adjust the supply mix accordingly.
CARRIED
as amended
YEAS (6): P.
Feltmate, G. Bédard, M. Bellemare, D. Holmes, G. Hunter, B. Monette
NAYS (2): J. Harder, P. Hume