Now, I predicted the CIBC announcement would encourage other major Canadian banks to follow, but TD’s effort is rather half-hearted. The company put out a press release yesterday pointing out that its lending businesses are financing a number of green energy projects approved under Ontario’s feed-in-tariff program. “Small business owners, schools, retailers, agricultural businesses, solar panel manufacturers and installers, utilities, and others are encouraged to talk to TD about their financing requirements for solar power and other renewable energy systems,” the bank said in a statement.

TD is focusing here on the microFIT — that is, projects under 10 kilowatts — so this is an appeal to small business specifically. There’s no indication yet whether TD is prepared to tackle financing for larger projects in a coordinated, targeted fashion. And even with this release, all the company is saying is “come talk to us, we’ll listen.” The first sign this is a half-hearted effort is that TD offers up a quote from its chief environmental officer, Karen Clarke-Whistler. A senior executive, yes, but a person you’d expect to weigh in. What I’d like to see is the president, chief operating officer, etc… somebody at the very top that’s signalling the bank’s commitment to this area. I’d also like to see a sign that TD is preparing to develop a group or team or whatever that’s focused on the opporunities — both small and large.

TD is going to have to do better than this.

Ground-mounted solar represented 76 of the projects and amount to more than 600 megawatts. Northland Power, a company normally associated with building natural gas plants, has 13 solar projects totalling 130 MW. Onshore wind projects number 47 and waterpower projects number 46. The Ontario government called this the “single-largest green energy initiative of its kind in Canada,” while environmental and pro-green industry groups called the contract approvals historic. No doubt, criticism will follow from the usual suspects who continue to crap on any green-energy programs.

Significantly, 264 MW worth of projects have been identified as “community power”: projects developed, owned and operated by Ontario landowners and groups comprised of First Nations and energy co-ops — in other words, not by corporations.

The province said this latest round of projects will create 20,000 direct and indirect jobs, though I’ve always found it a mystery how they come to those numbers and take them with a grain of salt. It also estimated it will result in $9 billion in private investment, a figure that’s boosted by local content requirements.

The big surprise: a contract was issued for a 300 megawatt offshore wind project in Lake Ontario, near Kingston’s Wolfe Island. It’s sure to be a controverial project, but it represents the first time *in the world* that a power-purchase contract has been granted to an offshore wind project in the Great Lakes. It’s also the largest single approved project under this entire FIT round. Click here for a breakdown of the 184 projects.

The company behind the Wolfe Island Shoals Windfarm is a company called Windstream Energy. Don’t know much about them, but they’ve got their work cut out. They would have had to put up more than $3 million in security deposits to participate in the FIT, so I’m assuming they’ve got lots of wind data and have done the necessary studies (bird, bat, etc…) to move the project forward. But even so, they’re going to face the wrath of an angry Wolfe Island residents association, which is having a hard enough time accepting the onshore turbines there. “If they’re directly in front of Wolfe Island it’s going to be a firestorm,” said one industry observer. Got that right.

More to come later…

I had a feature this weekend in the Toronto Star about the cap-and-trade system coming to Ontario and the likelihood an offsets market will be created a year or more before the 2012 launch of the program. The government here is working hard to align our own provincial system with the Western Climate Initiative, in which it is a member, as well as the Waxman-Markey bill under consideration in the United States (which will likely set the North American standard). The idea of allowing a carbon offsets market to emerge in advance of the cap-and-trade launch is a smart one, as it gives industry a way to prepare and it stimulates offset project development before the final cap-and-trade rules go into effect.

But here’s the problem: A good portion of offset projects are also electricity generation projects, such as wind, solar, biogas and hydroelectric. But in Ontario, if you want to sell your electricity to the power authority you sign a 20-year deal under a new feed-in tariff program. The tariffs are generous, but most developers are also hoping to keep the carbon credits they would qualify for so they can be sold as offsets.

Unfortunately for them, the Ontario Power Authority’s contract for power purchases stipulates that it — and by “it” I mean the Ontario government, which is ultimately the Ontario ratepayer — gets to keep all environmental attributes. This raises a number of issues:

First, by keeping the credits will this discourage green-energy development, which would be ironic given that the government’s new Green Energy and Economy Act was created — and highly touted, I should add — for the sole purpose of stimulating such development and the jobs that come with? It’s certainly possible, since it’s tough these days for developers — particularly smaller local developers — to raise capital for projects.

Second, what does the government plan to do with these credits? Will it sell them on carbon markets and throw the cash in the general treasury? Will it sell them and dedicate the revenues to a special clean energy fund aimed at stimulating further green power development? Or, will it simply retired the credits?

Personally, I think it has no choice but to retire the credits. The whole justification for having Ontario electricity consumers pay a premium for their power over the coming years is based on the idea that we must do our part to tackle climate change, and we must set an example for other jurisdictions to follow. But if the government, say, sells the credits to Ohio or Michigan so those states can go on burning coal, how is that fair to Ontario ratepayers — i.e. How can you explain to Ontario ratepayers that they’re paying a green premium so that other jurisdictions can go on polluting? Sure, the money from the sold credits would come back to ratepayers (maybe), but then what would be the sense in the end of pursuing green energy in the first place?

Finally, what carbon credits are the Ontario Power Authority justified in keeping? I can understand — and generally support — the reasoning behind keeping carbon credits related to indirect electricity displacement. That is, the amount of carbon that’s avoided when solar or wind power or any other renewable displaces fossil-fuel-based power generation. It’s here where Ontario ratepayers have the right to keep those credits and see them properly retired. But some renewable power developers, such as those collecting biogas from anaerobic digesters and landfills, have a strong argument for keeping at least a portion of the credits.

Here’s why: Biogas-based power generation both displaces fossil-fuel-based electricity and it destroys methane, a greenhouse gas that’s 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide. You can earn carbon credits from methane destruction, even if you just flare the biogas instead of burn it to produce electricity. Given this, why should the power authority have the right to those credits? The agency’s reach, one could argue, should be limited to the portion of a project that deals directly with electricity generation.

Biogas projects are important to Ontario. They can supply dispatchable renewable power that displaces fossil fuels. Anaerobic digesters can kill bad microbes from livestock manure that can contaminate water systems (remember Walkerton?). And they keep methane from slowly creeping into the atmosphere.

They should be encouraged, not discouraged. This means flexibility of policy, and a recognition that not all projects and technologies are created equal.

NOTE: If you want to keep up to date as the Ontario government develops its cap-and-trade program, visit www.carbonomics.ca (the URL is mine, which I forwarded to the government site because it had an insanely long URL. I’ll likely keep the link in tact for at least a few months)

NOTE II: I’m not a fan of cap-and-trade, because it’s complex to set up and it adds another thick layer of bureacracy to government. It also creates a new class of lawyers, accountants, etc… who take their cut of the action, and it’s so complex that there’s room for abuse — not unlike the abuses that set off the derivatives crisis that helped plunge the global economy into recession and almost led to a collapse of Wall Street. I’d much prefer to see a carbon tax, which is more efficient and transparent and less open to abuse. But cap-and-trade seems to be the way the world is going, so who am I to question it?

Highlights:

• 80.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for rooftop solar.
• 19 cents for offshore wind of any size (first jurisdiction in N.A. to set price)
• 13.5 cents for onshore wind of any size
• 14.7 for biogas under 5 MW.
• 44.3 cents for 10-MW-plus solar, sliding to 71.3 cents as projects scale down to 10 kilowatts.

The government will commence eight-week consultation process and expects to have the prices in effect this summer. More to come….

UPDATE: Here’s an article I just filed to the Toronto Star’s Web site. It contains more info regarding the proposed tariffs. Ontario introduced basic feed-in tariffs two years ago under its standard offer program, but project size was capped at 10 megawatts. The new advanced feed-in tariff program lifts the cap (though solar is still capped at 10 megawatts). It also offers higher prices for smaller projects, such as community-based wind and solar projects or residential solar. Most groups seem happy with the pricing with the exception of large solar developers, who despite getting a 2-cent increase to 44 cents per kilowatt-hour still argue it’s not enough to make projects economical (especially if you factor in poor Canadian-U.S. exchange rate and persistently tight credit markets).

Of course it remains to be seen whether this new feed-in tariff structure, despite being generous and being first on the continent, will be enough to attract investment, development, manufacturing and jobs. Curious to hear viewpoints on this.  Michigan introduced a bill last year that proposed similar advanced tariffs but it never got passed. Hawaii has proposed less ambitious tariffs, but Ontario’s will be first to go into effect and will be the most ambitious to date.