UPDATE: After a sincere attempt to transcribe last evening’s Green Government debate, I have decided to not proceed because certain parts of the debate were inaudible on my digital recorder. It would be unfair to post a transcript in which the comments of certain candidates are not accurately recorded. My apologies. I will, however, soon have access to a link where people can watch the full video of the debate.

In the meantime, I will post here the four questions I asked and candidates have the opportunity, if they choose, to respond more clearly and concisely on this blog. Their responses can be sent to tyler@cleanbreak.ca and will be posted soon after they are received. (NOTE: Sarah Thomson has replied. Read below for her comments.)

Question #1: What are the top three environmental issues facing the city today and how do you plan to address them?

Question #2: Building on past efforts, how can a major municipality like Toronto do a better job of reducing its greenhouse-gas emissions?

Question #3: Can the green economy be a future economic engine for Toronto? If so, in which areas should Toronto focus its efforts and how would you, as mayor, support emerging green businesses?

Question #4: Where does each candidate stand on the use of energy-from-waste technologies, both as a way to manage municipal waste and generate electricity for the city?

Here are some links to coverage of last evening’s event — the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, and the National Post (and here).

Also, check out Toronto Star columnist Catherine Porter’s account of the evening on Twitter.

If you attended the debate, I welcome your comments. Who won? Which particular responses stood out?

To read candidate answers received so far click for more…

Reply from mayoral candidate Sarah Thomson

Question 1: Top 3 environmental issues are

1. Transit – build an expanded subway system. Surface transit adds to congestion which creates more pollution. Expanding our subway through 4 funding models : Rush hour road tolls on the DVP and Gardiner Expressway; Win back the provincial funding with popularity of subway expansion plan; work with developers to help pay partial cost on subway stations; and create a subway bond to help pay for expansion quickly.

2. Achieving 70% waste diversion – through green bin program in apartments. Greenlane landfill will last for next 100 years if we are able to get Toronto to divert 70% of our waste.

3. Green Economy: Buying green, supporting locally green production, and talent. We must stimulate a green economy in Toronto. Toronto needs to take advantage of the great reputation we have and use the buying power of the city to support local green businesses.

Question 2: What can the City of Toronto do to further reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and encourage business to reduce their emissions?

 

I have 3 initiatives

Time shifting: I will bring large employers together to create options for employees – shifting start times or creating satellite offices. Time shifting processes can include the accelerated development of at-home knowledge workers, time differentials for arriving and departing employees, and the creation of work centres in high-priority neighbourhoods outside the city’s core.

My administration will encourage alternative energy solutions for businesses. My administration will work with Toronto Hydro to create a financing program that will enable businesses and residents to install solar rooftop systems.

Hybrid Taxi’s: We must change the bylaws in Toronto to allow taxi’s to buy smaller hybrid vehicles. Currently taxi’s have a 5 year lifespan. If we extend the lifespan for hybrid taxis to 7 years Cab Companies will buy into the program

Question 3: Can the “green economy” be a future economic engine for Toronto? If so, in which areas should Toronto focus its efforts and how would you, as mayor, support emerging green businesses?

 

Yes, Toronto can use its large buying power to help local green businesses. We have lost a lot of manufacturing from Toronto, and green product manufacturing could be a way to create more jobs and give more stability to our economy.

Toronto can offer tax reductions to local green manufacturers who set up in high priority neighbourhoods in our city. I have called for use of local green building products and local talent in city projects wherever possible.

I have called for the opening up of green options to encourage energy savings through white roofs, solar roofs and green roofs. The current bylaw requires green roof on any new development, it is not bad in concept but does narrow the focus to only one form of green technology. We must open up options for white, solar and other energy saving techniques as this could restrict green production in Toronto.

Question 4: Where does each candidate stand on the use of energy-from-waste technologies, both as a way to manage municipal waste and generate electricity for the city?

 

I believe that we must be open to the use of energy from waste technologies. This does not always include incineration and I do not want to fall into that limited view. There are companies based here in Ontario like EWS with technologies like the reverse polymerization process that uses high-energy microwaves to break down materials to their chemical components. Sault Ste. Marie is installing a tire reclamation plant that will be using this new technology and I believe that Toronto should be open to new technologies like this.

My administration will unlock the doors of our city and invite our innovators, our entrepreneurs, and our creative people back into the role of guiding our city forward. We must be open to new technologies, to innovation and entrepreneurs with proven solutions.

————————–

Still waiting for Ford, Smitherman, Pantalone and Rossi to reply…

Sounds like something Ontario could use, because even though our new Green Energy and Green Economy Act is an ambitious and progressive piece of legislation, and even though a newly proposed feed-in tariff program offers a huge incentive for developers, I’m still not convinced there won’t be a capital constraint that will ultimately slow down development. This is particularly true if, as the Ontario government has said, it wants to encourage community co-op and First Nations projects. I would even argue the federal government should consider creating such an institution, but that is not likely to happen under our current Conservative government, so no point in asking.

The Center’s John Podesta and Karen Kornbluh argue that the creation of such a bank is critical if we are to transition to a clean-energy economy and create the green jobs that will drive growth in the coming years. “It would enable clean-energy technologies—in such areas as wind, solar, geothermal, advanced biomass, and energy efficiency—to be deployed on a large scale and become commercially viable at current electricity costs,” they write. “Currently, both Congress and the American public are focused on proposed caps on carbon emissions and requirements that utilities increase their use of renewable energy and invest in energy efficiency. But far less public attention has been paid to the specific policies that will drive new capital investment into clean-energy technology. A Green Bank would facilitate the flow of private capital into renewable energy and efficiency projects on the drawing boards today.”

Fact is, clean energy deployment is suffering under the recession, and even upon recovery there’s no guarantee credit markets will loosen up. A green bank would ease the credit crunch, allow for predictable financing for large-scale projects, help clean-energy developers develop a financing track record, and by spurring more deployment would justify the huge investments required in the transmission system.

Ontario, like the U.S., is focused heavily on investment in renewable (clean) energy and establishing a cap-and-trade system that would mesh with those being developed by other provinces and states and, ultimately, the national system that would emerge in the United States. And, like the U.S., there’s not a heck of a lot of attention on the difficulty of raising capital. In a recent interview with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Energy and Infrastructure Minister, George Smitherman, I raised the capital issue as a potential concern. Smitherman more or less dismissed it as unnecessary. The recession was temporary, he said, and the program incentives that would emerge out of the Green Energy Act would be enough to encourage development.

I think he’s seriously underestimating the situation out there, especially if the province imposes domestic content rules. Most economists will tell you that even when the economy recovers it will be a different economic environment. Credit will still be tight, and small developers that don’t have healthy balance sheets or a track record simply won’t be able to raise the capital they need. In the end, this means community co-ops and aboriginal projects lose, small developers lose, and only premium projects backed by large multinationals move forward. It would be a shame to put all this enabling legislation in place only to see projects stymied by an overcautious banking community. By creating a green bank, and arming it with capital raised through the issuance of green bonds, the transition to a green-energy economy could be rapidly accelerated.

The Center for American Progress describes what a green bank should be designed to do: In addition to direct financing of certain projects, “the Green Bank should also facilitate private-sector investments, not crowd out private investors. The bank should work  closely with private banks to provide loan guarantees, credit enhancement, and other financing tools to stimulate private-sector lending and investment in projects that cannot access commercial financing on economically feasible rates and terms.”

The center proposes that the bank initially have $10 billion for funding, and up to $50 billion over five years. The capital would be leveraged at a 10-to-1 ratio to provide loans, guarantees, and credit enhancement to support up to $500 billion in private-sector investment in clean-energy and energy-efficiency projects.” Scaled down for Ontario’s purposes, I’d peg the initial number at $400 million and $2 billion over five years, perhaps partly supported by an auction of carbon allowances and money raised through a green bonds issue.

Any thoughts?

On the energy audit, I have to admit I’m surprised by the outrage. I mean, it’s a $300 audit, and half the cost is covered by the government. I think people are more concerned about the impact this information could have on the sale price of a home. I say, yeah, so what? That’s the point. Clearly, some people know their homes aren’t energy efficient and want to hide this from prospective buyers rather than do the upgrades necessary to improve efficiency. Can we really criticize a piece of legislation that aims to provide important information to the buyer of something as important as a home; that wants to give the operating costs of a home higher priority in the decision-making process? Even if the government provided $75 million a year to cover the entire audit cost for every new home sale or home resale, people would still protest. Now’s not the right time! The economy is suffering! It’s just another tax! That’s a crock. Fact is, this requirement wouldn’t take effect at earliest until next year. By then, the economy could very well be in recovery mode. Have we become so used to “fluffing” our homes that misleading homebuyers is a technique we’re not willing to abandon? Not surprising, the real estate industry is protesting the mandatory audit and appealing to our libertarian nature– not out of concern for homesellers, but out of concern they’ll no longer be able to pad their commissions by duping homebuyers. It’s hard to be sympathetic.

Anyway, in my opinion, one of the most significant parts of this proposed legislation is the attempt to change the way our energy agencies and provincial utilities deal with renewable energy. Instead of being an afterthough — something that’s accommodated after everything else has been accommodated — renewables will become a priority. It won’t happen overnight, but the idea is to change the culture at utilities such as Hydro One so that they’re more proactive than reactive when it comes to renewables. Associated with this is a big emphasize on grid modernization as an enabler of renewables and conservation. The act also gives the Minister of Energy more power to make things happen through directives to various agencies, which is good and bad. It’s good for a progressive and demanding minister like current Energy Minister George Smitherman, but a change in government or ministers could just as easily derail the long-term goals of the Green Energy Act.

The act also empowers local distribition companies, permitting them for the first time to pursue their own renewable and CHP projects as long as they’re under 10 megawatts. These LDCs can also recoup costs more easily through their rate base, not just for the actual projects but for the hiring increases that will be necessary to upgrade the distribution network to handle these projects. Such upgrade requirements are large, and will be expensive, meaning the actual clean-energy projects won’t be deployed fast, but the point is they’re enabled — so eventually will. What this all means is that LDCs can be more responsive to the needs of their own communities, rather than handcuffed by provincial agencies and regulations.

The act also aims to streamline approvals (including, as discussed before, a six-month permit approval guarantee and replacement of municipal bylaws with a single provincial standard) and update the building code so that energy-efficiency is its overarching purpose. It also lays the foundation for increased collaboration with native groups on renewable-energy projects, and gives support for the creation of community co-ops project. However, the most anticipated part of the act — the creation of advanced feed-in tariffs for renewables — came with no details, other than a lifting of a project size cap that existed with the previous renewable standard offer program (which had a cap of 10 mw). Obviously, the tariffs set for wind, solar, biomass/biogas and hydro projects will make or break this part of the legislation. If set too low, developers won’t be able to make their projects economic or raise the necessary financing. If too high, opposition parties and ratepayers will scream bloody murder, particularly if the projects that result don’t create the jobs that are anticipated.

And even if the feed-in tariffs are set high enough, there’s still no guarantee under the current environment that developers will be able to get the financing. Sure, a power-purchase agreement is equivalent to a loan guarantee during good times, but lenders aren’t behaving rationally these days and Smitherman has made clear there are currently no plans to introduce government-backed loan guarantees for these projects. That said, the minister has repeatedly hinted that the tariffs will be generous. He also will be given the authority to direct agencies to pursue specific renewable-energy projects or sources, such as offshore wind, whether through a competitive or non-competitive procurement process.

“We expect the Act to be passed sometime in April or May,” says law firm Torys. “How the Act’s details are finalized and implemented will ultimately determine the outlook for renewable energy projects in the upcoming years.” In my own discussions with Smitherman, he has assured that many of the key programs and policies flowing from this act will be announced and in effect by this fall.

So, overall, the assessment is generally quite positive. But there remains the one obvious question: Will the government deliver the progressive policies and programs necessary to realize the vision outlined in the legislation, and will they do it in a timely fashion? There’s a lot of talk flowing from the tabling of this bill that needs to be turned into action.

Premier Dalton McGuinty says the proposed legislation is part of a larger initiative to tell other jurisdictions that when it comes to renewable energy and conservation we intend to be the North American leader, meaning Ontario is the place to invest and lay down roots. The province would be wise to aggressively market itself this way over the next year or so. McGuinty, when asked about the tendency to overpromise and under-deliver, said we should judge his government based on its track record over the coming months and years.

Oh, don’t worry, we will.

Note: For those who worry about the overall costs of implementing the programs and supporting the policies that emerge from this Green Energy Act, there are some things we need to keep in mind. For one, upgrades to transmission and distribution need to happen anyway, it’s just that now they will be done with an eye to enabling local renewables and distributed generation, which over time can actually save us money on grid upgrades. Second, let’s keep in mind that comparing the cost of nuclear coming from a plant built in the 1970s to renewables built today is just plain wrong. The days of electricity below 6 cents a kilowatt-hour are gone. Build a new fossil fuel plant or nuclear plant today and we’re talking over 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, and in some cases much higher. And with that comes fuel volatility and, in the case of nuclear, massive decommissioning and waste management costs. Third, Ontarians need to get a grip on reality. Electricity prices south of the border are double, often triple, what we pay. They’re much higher in Europe. Artificially suppressing prices is unsustainable. But price increases can be managed through conservation if we transition properly and have supports in place for low-income households. People become so angry when they invest in conservation to save energy, only to see their electricity costs rise and their bill become the same. They’re missing the point. Conservation is about buffering electricity price increases, not about permanently reducing our overall electricity bill. Rather than consider it savings, we should be considering it future cost avoidance.

Tomorrow — Monday — is a big day in Ontario, and potentially across Canada. The Ontario government will be tabling comprehensive green-energy legislation that, if it lives up to promises, will blow open the market and make Ontario *the* place in North America to develop renewable-energy projects and establish manufacturing and supply chains to support them. It will equally emphasize energy conservation, putting Ontario potentially in the league of Denmark, Germany and California.

What to expect:

• The act will amend at least 15 existing statutes, including the building code, to put greater emphasis and priority on renewables and conservation.
• It will upload zoning authority regarding wind-turbine placement to the province, which will set an Ontario-wide standard. The government essentially wants to pre-screen areas considered “environmentally sensitive” and will establish firm set-back distances from residential areas that will fast-track projects that are often delayed at the municipal level, on a project-by-project basis, by NIMBY groups.
• Establish a “one-stop, one-window” approvals process so developers don’t have to navigate through so much red tape. Also, a guarantee to grant permits to project developers within six months.
• The standard offer contract, which pays a set feed-in tariff for small-scale renewable projects (under 10 megawatts), will be replaced by a more ambitious program that sets no limits on project size but will set tariffs based on the specific technology being used and size of the project.
• For the first time, the province will aim to eventually set feed-in tariffs for offshore wind in the Great Lakes and pump storage projects.
• Homeowners will soon have access to direct grants and low-interest loans to help pay for technology and appliances that make their homes more energy efficient.
• New policies will flow from the legislation that support co-operatives of farmers, homeowners and businesses that want to invest in renewable-energy projects.
• All homes being sold — resale or new — will have to have an energy audit conducted so buyers know the energy efficiency of the home up front.
• There’s also talk, not yet confirmed, that the government aims to socialize the cost of feeder lines that need to be built to enable renewables. Local-content requirements are also being considered, though this is very preliminary. The government is also looking at possibly supporting the bulk purchase of turbines and solar panels to make it easier for individual community co-ops to get product at competitive prices and without having to wait in line behind bigger projects that are given higher priority by manufacturers.

The bottom line is that the government — and particularly Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman — appears quite serious about turbo-charging Ontario’s renewable-energy sector in a way that will attract investment and jobs. In a speech he gave on Friday, Smitherman used the word “certainty” several times, with emphasis, to get across the point that Ontario through this legislation will be the place for development, manufacturing and investment.  “If passed, it will propel Ontario forward to be the North American green energy leader,” he said. “With this single bold move, we join global green power leaders like Denmark, Germany and Spain.”

In an interview after his speech, Smitherman said the goal is about “making sure we’re moving in a way that gives Ontarians the opportunity for jobs in the green economy. The jurisdictions that get there first and have certainties associated with the processes are going to benefit first. We’re taking Ontario to the front of the pack.”

It’s a good target to have. All eyes will be on the details released Monday, and the policies that will flow from this framework over the coming months. Ultimately, however, it’s about putting words into action.

If you’re interested in learning about the Green Energy Act initiative in Ontario, click here. The envisioned act would give renewables and conservation priority in electricity system planning and grid access, make advanced renewable energy tariffs the primary mechanism for developing green energy in the province (as opposed to RFPs), aim to support such projects with low-interest financing, promote development of the smart grid, and stimulate community and First Nation projects, all with a mind to creating green-collar jobs.

Environmental groups are introducing the envisioned act on Friday in hopes the Ontario government will adopt parts or all of it. So far Smitherman, who appears to have a genuine interest in raising the bar on renewables and conservation, has indicated his support for such legislation and is apparently making steps toward that goal. It will be interesting to see how far the government does go, but if this initiative ever does make its way into legislation it would make Ontario THE hotspot for renewable energy development in North America.

If you’re interested in seeing some YouTube video clips of the Q&A with Suzuki and Smitherman, then click through to the next page. Thankfully somebody in the audience shot the videos (I haven’t a clue who, but probably with a BlackBerry) so pardon the quality.

Video clip 1

Video clip 2

Video clip 3