Toronto, November 30th, 2010 – The province’s Environmental Commissioner says Ontario should continue to have a home-energy retrofit program.

In his report Rethinking Energy Conservation in Ontario – Results [.pdf], Gord Miller warns the Ontario Home Energy Savings Program (HESP) will stop taking new applications at the end of March, 2011. The federal ecoENERGY – Retrofit Homes program, which provides matching funds, has already stopped accepting new applicants.

Miller says, “the Home Energy Savings Program has helped to start to build an ethic and culture of conservation among the province’s homeowners.”

With no real marketing:

• 158,000 homeowners have retrofitted their homes, and cut their energy bills and greenhouse gas emissions by making improvements like upgrading their heating and cooling systems, adding insulation and high-efficiency doors and windows.
• 112,000 people have received grants under the HESP to replace an old furnace or boiler with a more efficient model.

“The program is particularly effective for homes built before the building code changes of the 1970s,” says the Environmental Commissioner, “but the current uncertainty over the program’s existence may hurt companies that supply conservation services in the province.”

While the Environmental Commissioner believes Ontario needs a home energy retrofit program, he says changes should be made to improve its scope and efficiency.

• Homeowners need to be encouraged to undertake a suite of multiple improvements to their home’s energy efficiency. Currently, one-quarter of the program participants carry out only one of the upgrades recommended to them and miss opportunities for additional energy savings. Only about a quarter of participants do a deep retrofit involving four or more of the recommended improvements.
• There needs to be better evaluation of the HESP, and other ministry conservation programs, to verify the energy savings and improve the design of each program. Right now the Ontario Energy ministry is relying on estimates produced by the federal government.

The Environmental Commissioner says there are alternatives to the outright cancellation of the popular HESP, which has so far cost the provincial government $205 million over the last three years. Miller says, “the program could be redesigned to offer less money, older, draftier homes could be targeted, or it could be taken over by Ontario’s gas utilities, which have been focusing their efforts on the commercial and industrial sectors.”

The Commissioner questions the province’s support for the program. “The government’s Long-Term Energy Plan, released last week, makes no mention of continuing financial assistance for retrofits, and only says it will ‘propose to support homeowners to have energy audits.’ Yet the government also anticipates that 30% of the new conservation target contained in the Plan will come from the residential sector, and gives no details on how its targets will be met without retrofit programs.”

• Also see: Fix conservation programs to secure energy savings
• Click here to download the entire report Rethinking Energy Conservation in Ontario – Results [.pdf]

Toronto, November 30, 2010 – Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner says the government needs to make improvements to its energy conservation programs, if it hopes to meet its tough new electricity reduction targets.

With the release of a report called Rethinking Energy Conservation in Ontario – Results[.pdf], Gord Miller warns that “strong action will be needed if the government is to meet new electricity conservation targets proposed in the government’s Long-Term Energy Plan.”  The Environmental Commissioner says “conservation is the most cost-effective way to avoid the need for expensive new generation and transmission facilities, including new natural gas peaking plants.”

The Long-Term Energy Plan, released last week, proposes to reduce demand by 7,100 megawatts and 28 terawatt-hours by 2030, which the government believes to be one of the most aggressive targets in North America.

Miller’s report reviews progress on several energy conservation programs, including the Ontario Power Authority’s demand response programs which pay large industrial electricity consumers to reduce their consumption when electricity demand is high. They account for most of the progress to meet Ontario’s electricity conservation target.

Improvements in the programs’ design have increased their effectiveness. Miller is pleased that the OPA is addressing shortcomings in its demand response programs, and believes that “the OPA has shown demand response programs can provide a cost-effective, reliable alternative to having to build new gas-fired peaker plants.”

The Environmental Commissioner says the province’s current energy conservation programs could be improved. The Ontario Power Authority should design its demand response programs to more closely coincide with times of peak consumption. In 2008 and 2009, one of the programs, called DR3, was activated 21 times, but only 5 of those activations coincided with days having the highest peak demand.

The Environmental Commissioner pointed out other gaps in Ontario’s conservation programs that need to be fixed.

• The popular and effective Home Energy Savings Program is ending, with no replacement program in sight. Also, there has been no action, as promised in legislation, to assist home purchasers to rate a home’s energy efficiency by requiring energy audits when a home is sold.
• Union Gas and Enbridge have allowed their residential conservation programs to stagnate. Regulatory improvements and co-ordination between government, gas and electricity distributors could address this.
• There has been little progress in the provincial goal of establishing a low carbon fuel standard, which would see a 10% reduction in carbon emissions from transportation fuels by 2020.

The Environmental Commissioner says “there are some good things happening, but there are others that need to be improved. We need to ensure conservation is the first option when we make decisions about energy in Ontario.”

• Also see: Don’t leave homeowners out in the cold
• Click here to download the entire report Rethinking Energy Conservation in Ontario – Results

Commissioner’s Remarks to the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition Launch:
November 22, 2010, Evergreen Brick Works, Toronto

A Vision for a Green Infrastructure in Ontario

So what is green infrastructure?  Before we can answer that we have to understand a more basic question: What is Infrastructure?

The Ministry of Infrastructure says that its objective is to make strategic investments that will meet the needs of a growing population and economy by identifying what infrastructure developments will most benefit key public sectors and the standard of living in Ontario over the long run.  They divide those investments into four major categories:

• Education
• Health Care
• Transportation
• Municipal and Local:
  • Safe drinking water
  • Environmentally responsible sewage and waste disposal
  • Health promoting parks and recreation facilities
  • Better local  roads, bridges and transit

Most of those investments are done through an agency called Infrastructure Ontario.  On its website, the following current projects are listed:

• 37 hospitals and health care
• 11 justice system
• 4 highways and roads
• 1 data centre

These projects are not driven by provincial mandate; they are based on applications received for capital projects from various institutions in our society.  So in a real sense, this is how “we” collectively see infrastructure.  And, although it seems that the goal of all those infrastructure things is to keep our water clean and safe, not pollute our environment and protect our health … we mostly do it by pouring a lot of concrete, laying a lot of asphalt and constructing a lot of steel and glass.

These are necessary things, but are they sufficient to meet the goal?  Sounds like drinking water is covered, and maybe sewage, but what about storm water … the water that runs off after rainstorms and feeds our streams and rivers?  In most urban areas its quality is not so great, and although there are rules and policies, storm water quality isn’t really reflected as a priority in this model of infrastructure.

What about air quality?  Surely urban air quality has public benefits and standard of living implications.  Certainly the emphasis on health and medical treatment helps us deal with the impacts of smog days and poor air quality – but how does our infrastructure spending model help us improve air quality?

What about thermal control?  Our urban areas are often heat islands, accumulating heat well in excess of suburban or rural landscapes surrounding.  Of course this adds to our air conditioning energy costs but, more importantly, we must recall the European heat wave of 2003 that killed 35,000 people … we have been spared this type of event so far, but for how much longer?  How does our infrastructure model address that risk?

And there are other public benefits and implications to our standard of living.  I mentioned energy costs: does our infrastructure paradigm reflect the growing need to improve our energy productivity and control costs?  Do we require or even endorse distributed electrical generation?  Do we take advantage of ground source or solar thermal heating opportunities?  When surplus heat is available, do we capture it in district heating systems like the Europeans do?  On a global level, we have a responsibility to reduce our GHG emissions, is such a reduction a natural function of our infrastructure investments?  And on a more local scale, are we building infrastructure and protecting it in a way that will maximize its life and thus minimize our replacement costs?

Since there are these other benefits and improvements to our quality of living in the long term that are available, perhaps it would be wise if we reconsidered our perspective of what infrastructure is and how we could bring in other tools and approaches into our infrastructure toolkit. Many of those tools could be things we have come to characterize as green initiatives.

We actually have a lot of interesting green stuff around the province.  Toronto and some other cities have some pretty sophisticated systems to improve and maintain tree biodiversity and coverage within the city.  We have some urban parks and sometimes have ravines or escarpments that are ecologically rich natural systems.  Some municipalities like Richmond Hill have added to these lands by building quite sophisticated and naturalized storm water management facilities.

Toronto has a green roof by-law which in increasing greening its roofscape, but I don’t think it has anything yet like the rooftop of the Rideau Centre in Ottawa where four stories up there are lawns and gardens and trees 25 cm or more in diameter with baby rabbits hopping around.  And there are only a few instances where the carpet of living things we put on top of our buildings is encouraged to spread down the sides and integrate into the grey water and storm water management systems and other landscaping.  The techniques of actually designing for building integrated vegetation (BIV) are in their early stages of development.

There is a great renaissance in urban agriculture occurring across the province.  Although it’s worth noting that what may be new to some, has always persisted in the yards of many immigrant neighborhoods.  Nonetheless, it is growing and spreading and presents a different view of the urban landscape.

We love to make our urban surfaces hard to support the weight of our various machines and the high volume of human traffic, and so far our hard surfaces are impermeable to water.  Unlike living soft surfaces which absorb water and process pollutants, hard surfaces collect wastes and pollutants during dry periods and shed them rapidly into streams and rivers during rainfall and snow melt events.  We know how to build permeable hard surfaces, but their adoption is limited so far.

So there are green tools for the infrastructure toolkit.  But they are just pieces, scattered around, not integrated into the normal course of business, because they are not seen as parts of a greater infrastructure approach.  The benefits of cost savings and improvements to the quality of life they offer are lost because we see infrastructure as just the buildings and pipes and roads and wires that we construct.

Perhaps it would be useful to step back and consider another complex infrastructure that we are familiar with … it is called a forest.  It was here before the urban areas of Ontario were built and it functioned quite well.  It ran exclusively on renewable solar energy and had a large built environment that was self sustaining.  It produced 100% of the food for its inhabitants and recycled 100 % of its waste.  The air in the forest was clean and cool and the shaded environment did not experience photo degradation.  The streams of this infrastructure flowed clear, clean and cool.

The forest (much modified) is still with us, of course.  It’s all around us and if you look at Google Earth for Toronto, for example, you will see how the forest seamlessly penetrates the urban landscape right down to where we are standing.  It is still here and it is still functioning to some extent … still cleaning the air and the water and where we don’t rush in to pick it up, processing its own wastes.  It is part of our infrastructure and it is providing benefits and improving our quality of life.

We can’t have the all the environmental benefits of a forest in a human occupied urban landscape, but we can learn from nature.  We can see what works and why and investigate the interconnectedness of the systems.  We can do things differently.  We can make a human landscape that not only utilizes all those tools I have listed to get the benefits described but does more than that.  We can have a living environment rich with living things to which people intrinsically respond in a positive and relaxed way.

So my task was to define what green infrastructure is so that the coalition can get on with its task …

Green Infrastructure is a new way of conceptualizing our urban landscape … a way of integrating life and life forces into our urban living spaces that maximizes the utility of ecosystem goods and services thus lowering operating costs and capital replacement investment while improving our well being.  Green infrastructure is about good business and a good life.

Thank You

The Commissioner made this presentation to the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association this week on disinformation in the green energy debate, and establishing a basis for public discourse and policy discussion on a factual basis.

Our planet’s species are being lost at an unprecedented rate, on par with a mass extinction event.   Meriting immediate action on that basis alone, this loss of life also has enormous implications for human well-being.  This crisis directly affects our province of Ontario.

As reported in the Global Outlook 3, the five main human pressures directly driving biodiversity loss – habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change – are either constant or increasing in intensity.  We are no different than the rest of the planet and Ontario faces each one of these same challenges.

Canada and 192 other countries met in Nagoya, Japan in October 2010.  A key purpose of this summit was to outline the actions in the decade ahead that must be achieved to slow or stop the loss of the Earth’s biodiversity.

Why should all this be relevant for Ontario?  Given our country’s constitutional framework, it will be our provinces and territories that are ultimately responsible for doing anything.

The only Canadian province that attended the biodiversity summit was Quebec.  They have long been out ahead of the other provinces in recognizing their own government’s responsibilities to conserve biodiversity.

A key outcome from Nagoya is a set of 20 targets for the year 2020.  These targets include protecting at least 17% of terrestrial areas, protecting 10% of marine and coastal areas, integrating biodiversity conservation into land-use planning, at least halving the rate of loss of natural habitats, taking action on invasive alien species, and preventing the extinction of known at-risk species.

National and subnational governments – including the Ontario government – will be expected to achieve these targets.  The world will be watching us.

One of the most straight-forward actions for each government such as ours is to come up with a plan to do all of this.

In my last annual report, I recommended that that the Ministry of Natural Resources lead the development of a new and reconceived biodiversity strategy for the Ontario government.

Ontario’s 2005 biodiversity strategy [.pdf] quietly expired this year.  It was a good start for our province.  We must now learn from its lessons and figure out a strategic plan to lead us to 2020.

This week at the Latornell Conservation Symposium, the Ministry of Natural Resources announced that it will renew Ontario’s biodiversity strategy.  That is great news and the first step toward meeting our commitments to the global community.

At the recent Convention for Biological Diversity summit in Nagoya, Japan, a strategic plan was agreed upon by all parties, including Canada.  This plan includes 20 headline targets to be achieved by 2020, organized under five strategic goals.

The Conference of Parties suggested the United Nations General Assembly declare the period from 2011-2020 as the “UN Decade for Biodiversity.”

The following is an overview of the strategic goals and targets agreed upon at the Convention.  For more information, please see the Convention for Biological Diversity website.

* * *

Strategic Goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society

Target 1: By 2020, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably.

Target 2: By 2020, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated  into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.

Target 3: By 2020, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations.

Target 4: By 2020, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits.

Strategic Goal B : Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use

Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced.

Target 6: By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.

Target 7: By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity.

Target 8: By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity.

Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment.

Target 10: By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning.

Strategic Goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity

Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes.

Target 12: By 2020, the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained.

Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity.

Strategic Goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable.

Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification.

Target 16: By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising  from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation.

Strategic Goal E. Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building

Target 17: By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Target 18: By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels

Target 19: By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared, transferred, and applied.

Target 20: By 2020, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan 2011-2020 from all sources and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resources needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties.

This section of our 2009/10 Annual Report, Redefining Conservation, is now online.

Ontario faces many challenges as it enters the second decade of the 21st century. The economy is recovering from the effects of the recession that began in late 2008. But, the economy is changing, moving away from such “high carbon footprint” primary industries as iron and steel and pulp and paper to a “greener” economy based on more efficient manufacturing, renewable energy and information technology. At the same time, the environment is facing unprecedented challenges from a growing population, increased pressures on aging infrastructure and a continuing upward trend in greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

The Ontario government has responded to this “perfect storm” of challenges – and opportunities – with an ambitious agenda of legislative initiatives and policies to green the economy while fostering a “culture of conservation” within the energy sector. This part of the Annual Report describes the role that the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 will play in helping to bring about this fundamental change. As well, this part describes the promise (and pitfalls) of fast-tracking renewable sources of electricity and the development of a “smarter” grid.

This part also describes amendments made to the Environmental Protection Act that are designed to provide a better understanding of where greenhouse gas emissions originate in the province – through mandatory reporting of these emissions by companies within key sectors of the economy. As well, the amendments have established the legislative basis for pricing carbon emissions through the introduction of a cap-and-trade system. Pricing carbon and identifying the big emitters are necessary precursors to the development of a low-carbon economy.

The need to develop a conserving society underscores the maxim that “the economy is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment.” We ignore this principle at our peril. But, in embracing the spirit and intent of these legislative initiatives, we should not lose sight of an equally important principle: to safeguard every citizen’s right to a fair, transparent and open process of consultation and public participation in this crucial decision-making.

Read More:

• Powering the Future: The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009
• Ramping Up Renewables: MOE’s Renewable Energy Approvals
• MNR Approvals for Greening the Grid
• Mandatory GHG Reporting: What gets Measured gets Managed
• Pricing Carbon: Can a Cap-and-Trade System Deliver the Tonnes?

Proposition 23 has been defeated and Democrat Jerry Brown has been elected Governor, along with Democrat incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer. These outcomes will send a strong and clear message to markets across North America – including Ontario – that California will be front and centre in efforts to implement market-based instruments such as a cap-and-trade system to help reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In a recent blog I noted that California is a key player in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a collaboration of US states and Canadian provinces with a mandate to reduce GHG emission to 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. California’s GHG emissions represent nearly three-fifths of the five remaining WCI members who are ready to launch a permit trading system in January 2012. The other four WCI members “ready to go” in 2012 are Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia and New Mexico.  After California, Ontario is the next largest emitter, representing about one-quarter of member GHG emissions.

But, we’re not out of the woods yet. Another proposition on the California ballot – Proposition 26 – did pass, with potentially ominous implications for carbon markets. Called the “Stop the Hidden Taxes Initiative”, (according to critics; a thinly disguised attempt to protect polluters rather than taxpayers) it has the potential to throw a wrench into California’s WCI plans. Why? Because it rebrands the “permits” apportioned to California polluters as a form of “tax”, thereby requiring two-thirds, rather than a simple majority, vote of the Legislature to enact how these permits are allocated, priced and traded.

The good news is, with California still in the WCI tent, the size of the fledgling WCI carbon market will be much more robust; with greater liquidity and a reduced – but not eliminated – chance for volatile permit price swings. With this uncertainty being eliminated, all eyes now turn to the Ontario government. Will it follow through with its commitment to cap-and-trade? When will the decision be posted?

This section from our 2009/10 Annual Report, Redefining Conservation, is now online.

Ontario faces many challenges as it enters the second decade of the 21st century. The economy is recovering from the effects of the recession that began in late 2008. But, the economy is changing, moving away from such “high carbon footprint” primary industries as iron and steel and pulp and paper to a “greener” economy based on more efficient manufacturing, renewable energy and information technology. At the same time, the environment is facing unprecedented challenges from a growing population, increased pressures on aging infrastructure and a continuing upward trend in greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

The Ontario government has responded to this “perfect storm” of challenges – and opportunities – with an ambitious agenda of legislative initiatives and policies to green the economy while fostering a “culture of conservation” within the energy sector. This part of the Annual Report describes the role that the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 will play in helping to bring about this fundamental change. As well, this part describes the promise (and pitfalls) of fast-tracking renewable sources of electricity and the development of a “smarter” grid.

This part also describes amendments made to the Environmental Protection Act that are designed to provide a better understanding of where greenhouse gas emissions originate in the province – through mandatory reporting of these emissions by companies within key sectors of the economy. As well, the amendments have established the legislative basis for pricing carbon emissions through the introduction of a cap-and-trade system. Pricing carbon and identifying the big emitters are necessary precursors to the development of a low-carbon economy.

The need to develop a conserving society underscores the maxim that “the economy is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the environment.” We ignore this principle at our peril. But, in embracing the spirit and intent of these legislative initiatives, we should not lose sight of an equally important principle: to safeguard every citizen’s right to a fair, transparent and open process of consultation and public participation in this crucial decision-making.

Read More:

• Powering the Future: The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009
• Ramping Up Renewables: MOE’s Renewable Energy Approvals
• MNR Approvals for Greening the Grid
• Mandatory GHG Reporting: What gets Measured gets Managed
• Pricing Carbon: Can a Cap-and-Trade System Deliver the Tonnes?