Toronto Sustainable Energy Plan

Part C: Case Studies and Appendices

1 Chicago Brightfields Initiative................................................................................. 2

2 Hydro Quebec LeNordais Wind Farm...................................................................... 2
3 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Company (LADWP) Green Power
Program .......................................................................................................................... 3
4 City of Calgary........................................................................................................ 4
5 The City of Edmonton ............................................................................................. 5
6 City of Saarbrücken................................................................................................. 5
7 City of Phoenix Savings Reinvestment Fund ........................................................... 6
8 Iowa Energy Bank ................................................................................................... 7
9 The City of Oslo...................................................................................................... 8

10 Appendix A............................................................................................................. 9
List of Stakeholders/Participants in the ETF Sustainable Energy Use Workgroup ....... 9
11 Appendix B: Consultants’Comments ................................................................... 12
Greg Allen ................................................................................................................ 12
Stephen Hall.............................................................................................................. 12
Judith Ramsay........................................................................................................... 13
12 Appendix C: Summary of Reviewers’Comments.................................................. 16
1 Chicago Brightfields Initiative

Overview

In August 1999 Mayor Daley of Chicago and US. Energy Secretary Ricardson announced
that Chicago will be recycling a West Side brownfield into a centre for “green” industry.
The urban redevelopment will establish a solar photovoltaics manufacturing facility on
the site, a community gardening and job training program, housed in a state-of-the-art
building of environmental design.

Spire Corporation, a maker of solar photovoltaic technology, are establishing a new

company Chicago Solar, creating 100 new high tech jobs in manufacturing and
supporting industries by July 2000. According to Spire, the solar photovoltaic systems to
be installed in Chicago will produce 22 MW annually, displacing 25 million pounds of
carbon dioxide or the amount produced by driving one automobile 64.5 million miles.

The local utility, Commonwealth Edison and the City of Chicago will purchase $8
million worth of solar systems from Chicago Solar over the next five years. The solar
systems will be installed on the adjacent neighbourhoods homes, schools, office
buildings, transit facilities and municipal properties.

A two-story building on the site will be rehabilitated into the headquarters of Chicago
Solar and Greencorps of Chicago. It is being designed through a partnership of the
Chicago Departnment of the Environment and the American Institute of Architects
Environment Committee. The site design includes a greenhouse, rooftop solar cells,
energy efficient landscaping and reuse of captured rainwater. The headquarters of
Greencorps Chicago, which trains low-income Chicagoans in landscaping and
horticulture, will include a community garden design studio for the public.

Lessons Learned

Chicago is a glittering example of re-development of urban brownfields utilizing a

coordinated public/private approach to sustainable energy technology development.

2 Hydro Quebec LeNordais Wind Farm

Overview

According to the Worldwatch Institute, wind energy is fastest growing electricity source
in the world. The industry grows on average at 25% per year and in 1998 grew at 35% .
New technological developments have brought the cost of wind electricity down from 30
cents in 1988 to 5centsUS/kWh today. The American Wind Energy Association is
expecting further cost declines to 3-4 centsUS/kWh by 2002. The LeNordas project on
the Gaspe Pennisula is expected to generate power at a cost of C5.8cents/kWh. A 133
turbines generating 100MW are now in place with a further 450MW of additional
commitments to proceed over the next 9 years.
Based on the long term growth of wind in the province of Quebec, the Danish wind
manufacturer NEG Micon has established a wind turbine manufacturing plant in
Montreal, creating a 100 new jobs. A wind manufacturer , generally speaking, needs
guaranteed orders of 60MW each year for 5 years in order to establish a plant.

Lessons Learned

The LeNordais project is the best Canadian example of renewable energy development
and demonstrates that long term power purchase agreements in renewable energy
technologies can lead to establishment of local manufacturing facilities.

3 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Company (LADWP)

Green Power Program

Overview

Starting in May 1999, all LADWP customers will be asked to purchase at least 20 percent
of their power from renewables - close to double the level of clean power in the current
generic mix sold through investor-owned distribution utilities such as Southern California
Edison. Those volunteering to pay a larger premium - up to 30 percent- will be supplied
with 100% renewable energy, which will initially come from existing hydropower
facilities but will soon be supplemented by 20MW of new solar photovoltaic and wind
resources. LADWP plans to add additional 100 MW of green capacity by 2003. Unlike
any other utility green power program in the U.S. , LADWP will supply its low-income
customers with 100% percent green power at no extra cost.

The initial green power offering is financed through a combination of a 6% customer

surcharge for green power and funding from a Public Benefits Charge.
The marriage between energy efficiency and green power is the key innovation of
LADWP’s Green Power Program. All LADWP green power customers will also receive
energy efficiency benefits that will reduce the amount of electricity they need, offsetting
the cost of green power purchases. At the 20% level of green power, for example, the $2
to $5 increase in power costs, will be offset by the installation of compact fluorescent
light bulbs.

Lesson Learned

The LADWP green power program is an excellent example of promoting green power
without raising the customers electricity bill. Even though the customer pays more in
rates, the premium for green power, the energy efficiency measures lowers the
consumption thereby maintaining or lowering the bill amount.
4 City of Calgary

ENMAX Corporation is the City of Calgary’s municipal electrical utility. In 1997

ENMAX launched a program with the federal government to provide federal buildings
with a green energy procurement alternative in Calgary. Under the program, the federal
government purchases approximately 8.4 million kWh/yr from biomass fueled generation
and 3.6 million kWh/yr from wind-powered generation.

In September 1998, a similar program was implemented in the residential sector under
the GREENMAX brand name. The GREENMAX program procures all of its green
energy from wind resources. Under the program, residential customers can purchase
monthly blocks of green power for a premium price. Residential customers are offered
the following two choices:

• 125 kWh/month (approximately 25% of the average customer’s monthly

demand) at a premium of $7.50 over and above the monthly billing amount; or
• 250 kWh/month (approximately 50% of the average customer’s monthly
demand) at a premium of $15.00 over and above the monthly billing amount.

One of the marketing tools that the GREENMAX program used was to communicate that
1,000 kWh of fossil fueled generation results in approximately 1 tonne of CO2 emissions.
Therefore a customer who purchases a 125 kWh/month block of wind-generated power
for one year displaces 1.5 tonnes of CO2 emissions. To date, the GREENMAX program
has sold approximately 1,100 - 125 kWh/month blocks of wind-generated power to its
approximately 300,000 residential customers (i.e. resulting in an annual CO2 emissions
reduction of approximately 1,650 tonnes).

The GREENMAX program supplies its customers exclusively from new green generation
projects. In the case of the federal government, the program has helped finance the
construction of two - 600 kW wind turbines as well as a 2.5 MW upgrade to an existing
biomass fueled generating station. On the residential side, the GREENMAX program has
helped finance the construction of two - 660 kW wind turbines. The GREENMAX
program is currently being launched in the commercial sector as well.

The success of Calgary’s GREENMAX program should be studied in detail by Toronto

Hydro. To date, the GREENMAX program has experienced a 0.3% participation rate
amongst its residential customers. The target participation rate for the GREENMAX
program is 1%.
5 The City of Edmonton

In 1994 the City of Edmonton established The Energy Management Revolving Fund to
finance EE projects. The fund’s initial borrowing limit was $1 million funded from 1993
operating reserves. From 1994 to 1997, 44 projects affecting more than 70 city buildings
were approved with a total cost of $1.08 million. These projects are estimated to be
saving the city $361,000 per year (with annual CO2 reductions of 2,546 tonnes).

Under the program, facilities use energy cost savings to repay borrowed retrofit costs
(plus interest) over a standard five year term. Project paybacks of up to 8 years (including
interest) are considered but must be justified. At the conclusion of the repayment period,
the continuing energy savings continue to accrue in favor of the department responsible
for the project. The “revolving” aspect of the fund is based on applying the principal
repaid by existing projects to future EE projects (i.e. as existing projects repay the
principal portions of their loans, these funds are reinvested in new projects).

Given the initial success of the fund and the large number of potential EE projects within
the city, the fund’s borrowing limit was recently increased to $5 million. The fund’s
expansion will be financed via short term (5 year) borrowing from the Alberta Municipal
Finance Corporation at attractive interest rates (4 to 6%). The expanded fund is expected
to finance approximately $1.5 million of new city EE projects each year (i.e. it is
expected that a $1.5 million annual expenditure will be sustainable given the projected
energy savings, repayment schedules and interest rates).

The City of Edmonton has taken an incremental approach to the development of The
Energy Management Revolving Fund. It was important to the city to prove the fund’s
performance at the $1 million level before committing to the $5 million borrowing limit.
Also important to the program’s success was the ability to quantify the energy savings
realized and incorporate these savings in the city’s overall climate action plan.

6 City of Saarbrücken

The City of Saarbrücken has a population of approximately 190,000 and is situated in

western Germany along the French border. The economy of Saarbrücken is closely tied to
the fossil fuel industry as Saarbrücken is located in the largest coal producing region in
Germany. In response to the oil shocks of the 1970's and due to the desire to reduce
dependence on nuclear power, in the 1980's the city turned to the development of
renewable sources of energy.

Since 1986 Saarbrücken has undertaken a comprehensive solar energy program including
the following initiatives:

• Solar rooftop program: 50 customers provide photovoltaic (“PV”) power to the

grid, with an installed capacity of 200 kW. The local utility buys the surplus solar
 power at a premium (about 60% higher than market price) and offers home-owners
a 50% subsidy for installation and low interest rate loans.

• Swimming pool solar heating retrofits: three out of four city owned public
swimming pools have been retrofitted with black absorption tubes which heat the
pool water as it passes through the tubes. The simple payback period for the heating
system is about five years.

• Hybrid cogeneration system: a 50 kW PV array is utilized to reduce the electrical

load on a 180 kW gas fired cogeneration system.

• Passive solar design project: Saarbrucken has zoned a subdivision of approximately

700 buildings to have southern exposures and large windows so that passive solar
energy may be utilized for heating.

The total investment since the solar energy program began has been approximately
US$1.7 million. Approximately US$0.65 million has been received from the State and
European Community. The city expects that by the year 2000 solar energy will displace
approximately 5.3 GWh of electricity from fossil fuels annually and reduce CO2
emissions by approximately 2,000 tonnes per year.

7 City of Phoenix Savings Reinvestment Fund

Phoenix is the seventh largest city in the US with a population of over 1 million. In order
to lower energy costs and increase efficiency, Phoenix developed an energy management
program which incorporates a revolving energy fund. The fund started in 1983 when the
city established the Energy Conservation Savings Reinvestment Program. The initial
funding was generated out of annual energy savings of just over $200,000 (i.e. there was
no initial seed money). By 1995, a total of $5.5 million had been spent on approximately
1,000 EE projects via the revolving fund. These projects had resulted in a total of $30
million of energy savings through 1995. (Put another way, the city has been able to reach
a level of annual savings which is approximately 10% of its annual energy expenditures.)
The balance of the savings (i.e. approximately $24.5 million) have been allocated to the
city’s general fund (i.e. to increase funding available for other important city services).

City council initially authorized reinvesting 50% of documented energy savings up to a

cap of $500,000 annually (since 1995, the cap has been increasing by $50,000 per year
and will settle at $750,000 in fiscal year 1999/2000). The cap was implemented as a
measure to protect the savings reinvestment fund from future reductions and to increase
the amount of EE savings which would flow back to the city. Within 3 years of the
program’s implementation (i.e. by 1986), the $500,000 cap was reached and over
$820,000 of savings were allocated to the city’s general fund that year. Despite the
program’s success, its continuity is not assured as the energy savings reinvestment is
technically a “reappropriation” of funds which needs to be approved by city council each
year (this reappropriation has been challenged, unsuccessfully, by council).
The importance of the reinvestment of energy savings to the success of the Phoenix
program is instructive. An effort should be made by the City to ensure that a significant
portion of the energy savings generated by initiatives over which it has influence are
reinvested in such programs. The reinvested funds could either be used to fund new
initiatives which will generate further savings or to support any debt service deficiencies
which might occur with existing EE projects.

8 Iowa Energy Bank

The state of Iowa imports 97 percent of its energy requirements. To reduce the State’s
dependency on imported energy and to reduce public sector expenses, the Department of
Natural Resources established the non-profit State of Iowa Facilities Improvement
Corporation (“SIFIC”) and the Energy Bank Program. The program was initially aimed
towards state agencies but has since been expanded to include local governments in Iowa.

SIFIC finances, installs and leases EE equipment to state agencies. The SIFIC program
was initially financed by a $12.2 million sale of state energy conservation bonds. The
proceeds of this bond offering were utilized by SIFIC to purchase and install the initial
EE equipment. The savings from the EE improvements are used by the state agencies to
make the lease payments back to SIFIC. The lease payments and debt amortization
schedule were designed to allow the energy conservation bonds to be retired via the EE
improvements (i.e. cash flow neutrality is key to the program’s success) and to provide
maximum security to bondholders. The bond issue was rated “A-” by Standard and Poors
based on the credit of the state and the strength of the lease. The budgets of the lessees
(Iowa’s state agencies) are not impacted by the financing structure. If energy savings are
greater than expected during the debt / lease amortization period, the budget impact on
the state agencies is positive. When the leases are completed in 2000, the improvements
become the property of the state.

The SIFIC model is very interesting. The experience of the program to date should be
discussed with the program participants to see whether it is a model that the City could or
should consider. (From a structuring point of view, the United States has some
advantages available to it that are not available in Canada such as the issuance of tax-
exempt municipal bonds).

The Energy Bank Program helps facilitate energy management program improvements in
state hospitals, schools and local governments. Lease or debt financing is provided by
local financial institutions at group municipal financing rates.

To facilitate these initiatives, the State legislature passed a law allowing state agencies to
use lease purchase financing for energy management improvements with an average
payback period of six years of less. In Toronto, the City and its agencies are permitted to
enter leases provided that they are within the City’s debt and obligation limits.
9 The City of Oslo

The City of Oslo in Norway has also had considerable success implementing an EE
program. In 1982, the Oslo Ekon Fund was established to assist in financing EE
programs. The fund is administered by the Oslo municipal utility and was capitalized
through local rate increases (about 0.166 ¢/kWh). In the first year of the fund about $10
million was made available for improvements. Since 1982, the fund has continued to
grow to the point were there is more than enough capital to finance efficiency
improvement projects.

The Oslo example is directly applicable to the establishment of a system wide public
benefits charge on Toronto Hydro’s distribution billing.
10 Appendix A

List of Stakeholders/Participants in the ETF Sustainable Energy Use Workgroup

Chairs
Lois Corbett, TEA
Joan King, Counsellor Ward 12

Co-ordinators
Eleanor McAteer, City of Toronto
Drew Shintani, City of Toronto

Consultants
Greg Allen, Allen Kani Associates
Stephen Hall, Local Solutions
Bridget Haworth
Rob McLeese, Asset Capital
Judith Ramsay, REIC
Terry Vaughan, Asset Capital

Workgroup
Nick Arrizza, Sierra Club
Sherry Bagnato
Michael Berger, Sierra Club
George Bober, OPG
Suzanne Borup, City of Toronto
Daniela Bozic
Jake Brooks, IPPSO
Danielle Buklis
Steven Carrasco, MOE
Maureen Cartner-Whitney
Carman Chisamore
Frank Condlin
Geeana Cruz, Waste Watch
Kevin Devitt, IPPSO
Joan Doiron
Per Drewes, OPG
Jose Etcheverry, University of Toronto
Linda Fair
Heinrich Feistner, City of Toronto
Dennis Fotinos, Councillor Ward 21
Marion Fraser, Enbridge Gas
David Gourlay, Greenpeace
Tooker Gomberg, Greenpeace
Angela Han
Franz Hartmann, City of Toronto
Danny Harvey, University of Toronto
Karl Hemmerich, City of Toronto
Fred Hendriks, City of Toronto
Ken Hogg, City of Toronto
John Hopkins
Wendy Jackson
Philip Jessup, TAF
Chaitanya Kalevar
Jim Kamstra, City of Toronto
Stephen Kishewitsch, IPPSO
Roza Kohen, Enbridge Gas
Eric Krause, City of Toronto
Stephen Lam, Lamson Transit Inc.
Sylvia Langer, Greenest City
Jack Layton, Councillor Ward 25
Kevin Loughborough, TDHC
Bruce Lourie, CEEA
Hon Lu
Rob MacDonald, York University
Dania Majid
Grace Mazzone
Andrew McCammon, PME
Megan McGarrity
Steve McKenna, City of Toronto
Joyce McLean, Toronto Hydro
Rob McMonagle, Prometheus Energy
Kai Millyard, Green$aver
Chris Morgan, City of Toronto
Richard Morris, City of Toronto
Miriam Mozes, En En Tech
Mike Nelson
Murray Paterson, OPG
Kim Perrotta, City of Toronto
Sandra Rodrigues, City of Toronto
Jim Salmon, CWEA
Al Seskus, ICLEI
Angela Simone
Ross Snetsinger, Transport 2000
Tracey Steele
Tammy Sutherland
Andrea Sutton
Catherine Tafler, OAA
Tom Tamblyn, Duke Solutions
John Taylor, Petro Canada
Stephanie Thorsen, TAF
Mary Ellen Warren, MOE
John Warren, City of Toronto
Jane Weninger, City of Toronto
Chuck Wilson, Green$aver
Michael Wong
Brian Young, TREC
Laura von Zittwitz, City of Toronto
Marlena Zuber
11 Appendix B: Consultants’ Comments
After submitting the first draft of the Sustainable Energy Plan, meeting with the
Sustainable Energy Workgroup, and receiving commentary from a number of reviewers
(summarized in Appendix C), the consultants have responded with comments and
clarifications.

Greg Allen
1. Reductions in water usage may have large energy savings benefits in pumping
power and sewage treatment and deserve further investigation.
2. Distributed generation with renewables has large long term benefits to the whole
distribution and transmission systems. Their deployment is unlike central plants and will
impose higher costs on the early implementers. However, their extensive application
over time will replace retiring plants and should be viewed as large projects with high
initial development costs and declining unit costs. Financing should reflect this such that
early investors and contributors share in the long term economic benefits. For example,
green power purchasers of PV supply should either be subsidized based on revenues from
future lower cost offerings, issued credits against future green power offerings, or some
other mechanism that recognizes their contribution to the future supply system. A level
playing field based on customer choice and user pay would never have resulted in the
system we now have.
3. The next stage of sustainable energy planning should fully integrate transportation
and embodied energy with buildings and infrastructure. It should also extend the
implications to the region and higher levels of government. Toronto should press this
agenda to garner cooperation at all levels of government and to be an inspiration for
everyone to participate. We need City Council to champion the vision and mobilize
Toronto citizens, companies, organizations, and its own operations to fulfill it.
4. The mix of renewable energy technologies as we approach full sustainability will
need to consider the optimum selection that matches demand. Wind and photovoltaics
are a somewhat better fit to daily and annual load profiles. Cogeneration with biofuels
tends to follow peak loads with thermal demand. Deep lakewater cooling is available on
demand. Load shifting, shedding and other demand management strategies can help to
match supply. Ultimately, however, energy storage will need to be deployed for
dispatchable renewables. To some extent, this is currently done with hydraulic stations.
Hydrogen generation, storage, and fuel cell conversion will likely play an important role.
Biofuels represent storable chemical energy. Flywheels, batteries, and other emerging
storage means are anticipated. Finally, some contend that the grid should go global,
sharing generation around the world with a levelized demand and supply.

Stephen Hall

1) The Sustainable Energy Plan implies a tremendous new effort in capacity - building
and development of market infrastructure aimed at the building industry professions and
colleges and universities. Linked to this, there is a great need to educate the public about
solar energy and solar technologies as a first step towards a “ solar culture ”

2) The Sustainable Energy Plan has still yet to address a new performance and/or
prescriptive standard for new residential construction.

3) The Sustainable Energy Plan did not elaborate on a key policy issue - the social and
environmental externalities costs of energy production and consumption and implications
internalizing those costs in energy prices and rates. This policy issue has direct bearing
on the penetration rates of sustainable energy technologies.

4) The Sustainable Energy Plan could have an even stronger message if it could elaborate
in more detail the economic development and job creation benefits of the Plan.

Judith Ramsay

1. Scope of the Document and Further Work Required

This document is the first iteration of a sustainable energy plan for Toronto. The task put
to the Working Group was to “recommend a Strategic Plan for sustainable energy for the
City of Toronto that enables the City to:
• Reduce the energy component of the Corporation of the City of Toronto’s emissions
of greenhouse gases 20% by 2005 from a 1990 baseline,
• Facilitate a reduction of the community’s emissions by a minimum of the Kyoto
target by the year 2008-2012, and
• Achieve related corporate or community targets for reducing air pollution and
procuring “green energy”.

Within the time and resources available, new research was not possible. This report
reflects information that was readily available from previous research and from meetings
with city staff and other stakeholders. Within these limitations, this report outlines a
broad strategy that will enable the City to achieve the stated objectives.

Further research will be required to support the development and implementation of

detailed plans. For example, a city-wide assessment of the potential for energy efficiency
in the building stock is needed. This has been done for the former City of Toronto, but
not for the other communities in the amalgamated city. Similarly, a CO quantification
methodology is required to facilitate monitoring of progress towards the objectives.

Achieving the near-term objectives listed above represents only the first step. Ultimately,
to achieve a state where the Corporation of the City and the community as a whole are
using only energy from sustainable sources will require far more than a 20% reduction in
CO2 emissions.

In the long term, achieving a sustainable energy future will require reinventing and
rebuilding the complete energy infrastructure in the city. Further research and planning
will be required to support the ongoing development of a long-range sustainable energy
plan for the City. For example, systems will be required to monitor energy use by source
and by sector and to monitor population growth and other trends affecting energy use.
On a community-wide basis, a full sustainable energy plan for the city should be
developed and reviewed every 5 years as part of the Official Plan review cycle.

2. The Sustainable Energy Agency

A good deal of discussion following the draft report has focused on the concept of the
Sustainable Energy Agency. Some questioned why the agency should be independent of
the city and others questioned whether it is needed at all.

The central role of the Sustainable Energy Agency is to act as a catalyst, a community
development agency, to bring about a sustainable energy infrastructure in the city. This
will involve brining energy users, suppliers and developers together in new business
relationships. If the agency were to be located within a city department, it could be
constrained in some of its activities because of the limited mandate of the city in such
matters and / or because of necessary internal approvals processes.

Further, the City as a level of government has very little direct control over or
responsibility for energy supply and demand. However, it can wield considerable
influence in two areas: as owner of Toronto Hydro and as a major energy consumer in
the Toronto market.

As envisaged, the energy agency would leverage the City’s influence. By joining
together with other major power consumers in the city (government, NTOs and private
sector companies), the city can form a body with considerable purchasing power and
market impact.

There is no need to decide the issue of the Sustainable Energy Agency immediately. The
agency could develop in several stages as needed with the parties free to stop at any stage
along the way. The first step would be for the City to aggregate green power purchases
with the agencies, boards and commissions, the School Boards and other interested
parties. This ad hoc green power “buyers club” could form the nucleus of a later
Sustainable Energy Agency, if desired.

3. Management Issues

In developing this report and reviewing comments it has become clear that some
management issues are impeding the City’s ability to respond concertedly to the
challenge of achieving the corporate objectives. It is beyond the scope of this report to
suggest organizational or management structures within the City. However, it is hoped,
that by identifying these barriers, the City will take steps to develop appropriate
structures and procedures that will support early achievement of its objectives.
 • Responsibility for energy related matters is fragmented amongst different divisions
and departments. This fragmentation and the amalgamation exercise has resulted in
some overlapping responsibilities and in a situation where some sections pursue the
objectives with one approach, while others pursue a different, sometimes
contradictory path.
• The implications of decision-making, as they affect the achievement of sustainable
energy objectives, are not understood or considered in the decision making process
by all departments.
• There is no method for accounting for energy expenditures or savings on a
departmental basis.
• Departments have no incentive to achieve further efficiencies, as savings are all
returned to general revenues.

Three mechanisms were suggested by the Working Group as partial solutions to the
management issues.
• Include sustainable energy and energy efficiency improvements as part of the
performance contract of department heads.
• Change the accounting system to allow for tracking of energy expenditures and
savings on a departmental basis.
• Allow departments to retain some of the energy savings to reinvest in further
efficiencies.
12 Appendix C: Summary of Reviewers’ Comments

The following table summarizes many of the comments of reviewers of the first draft of
the Sustainable Energy Plan. Comments are roughly classified under six headings:
footnote or reference needed, clarification needed, suggested change to style or format,
additional background needed, comment on situation analysis, comment on
recommendations.

Section Comment Source

Footnote or Reference Needed
In Section 3.2, p. 7., did this vision come from the Sustainable Energy Use Eric Krause
Work Group or the Vision Workshop sponsored by the ETF on September 29th
of last year? If the vision from the workshop held one year ago was not
included, the Vision Report is available from the ETF's Web Site.
I am intrigued by this update to the Energy Balance diagram and am particularly Eric Krause
interested in the source(s) for this information.
In Section 6.2, I am again interested in the sources of the data. From the chart Eric Krause
on p. 33, this report has estimated that the Community of Toronto's CO2 1988
baseline is 31.93 Mega tonnes (Mt). This total is above the City quoted 1988
CO2 emission value of 27.12 Mt (see attached chart from the 1995 Metro State
of the Environment Report). The total presented on p. 33 of the draft report is
over 4.8 Mt above the 1995 SOER and does not include transportation.
Page A4: $3 billion in energy purchases by Toronto: source? Footnote? Drew Shintani
Page A7: over the next 25 years: source? Drew Shintani
Page A14 reference for transmission charges carrying the nuclear industry’s Drew Shintani
previous debts
Page A20 “the EEO has been instructed to shift”: reference? Drew Shintani
Page A21 “EEO proposes corporation can achieve”: reference? Drew Shintani
Page A25 “furnaceless house”: reference Drew Shintani
Page A28 What is the source for this info: 457 133 corporate CO2 baseline in Drew Shintani
1998
Page A33 city-wide CO2 baseline for 1988 differrent form 27.12 metric tonnes Drew Shintani
quoted in the 1995 metro State of the Environment report?
Page B14: “The City and its agencies consume approx 200 MW of electricity”: Drew Shintani
reference?
Part C: all these case studies should have a web reference where available Drew Shintani

Clarification Needed
In Section 3.3, p. 8, I am curious to know what is meant by "interim target". Eric Krause
This implies that there will be a future target. Do we need a recommendation on
future targets? If we truly want to be sustainable at some point, perhaps we do
need a long-range "sustainable" target such as 60% reduction of CO2 by 2050.
In section 4.1.1, on p. 12, last paragraph. Is this statement, not in fact, "Factor Eric Krause
Four"?
In Section 4.3.2, on p. 15, it would aid the reader to have a definition for a Eric Krause
"sustainable energy conversion".
In Section 6.2.4 Other Impacts on p. 36, second paragraph, Ontario Hydro Eric Krause
Energy Services should be changed to Ontario Power Generation.
In Section 7.11, p. 43, What is meant by “inside the gate”? Eric Krause
4.2.4 End-Use effects - I don't understand first two sentences or the rest of the Jim Kamstra
paragraph. Presently TDHC does not operate a closed system and hot
 condensate is put into the sewer at many locations. TDHC should be encourage
to run condensate return lines from all buildings on its steam distribution
system.

6.1.1 Reduced Energy Demand - a 15% reduction is sited here while in 4.5 a Jim Kamstra
20% is mentioned.
the City may have 6000 properties but has less than 2000 buildings. I don't Jim Kamstra
think the EEO will auditing the 2000 facilities, much less the 6000 properties.
6.1.2 Reduced Emissions Jim Kamstra
- The paragraph refers to "this strategy", which strategy is being refered to?
- this paragraph needs some work
6.2 Meeting the City-wide goal Jim Kamstra
- It is not clear to me what this paragraph is saying
a23 - how does the Energy Centre differ from Howland House, Ecology Al Seskus
House, CMHC sustainable green house demo., etc?
Net billing is a much misunderstood term. Net billing is a financial arrangement Per Drewes
whereby a small utility customer generates a bit of his own electricity and uses a
single meter to measure the net electricity purchased from the utility. There will
be times when the instantaneous electricity produced by his PV or wind turbine
exceeds his own demand and the power will go out to the utility making his
meter run backward. However, most times such as at night or in calm periods,
he will be purchasing utility power. At meter reading time, most often one
month, the meter will show a net purchase from the utility. If he has been away
for a particularly sunny month and the meter shows a negative value, it will be
read as zero...the utility will not send him a cheque! The advantages to the
owner are that he does not have the cost of a second meter and he effectively
sells his electricity to the utility at retail rates. The advantage to the utility is
that it can use normal billing procedures and has no cost of producing a
cheque...probably far exceeding the value of the power. Net billing is intended
for people who are not in the electricity generating business...they are just utility
customers with excess sustainable power at some time. The wind turbines in
Toronto do not fall into that category. They normally do not consume power,
that is they are not customers. They wind turbines should be considered a co-
operative marketing wind energy for a "green pool".
Page A7: first paragraph, develop what that are envionmentally benign Drew Shintani
Page A26: need many examples of barriers to efficiency technologies Drew Shintani
Page A31: “direct creation of … jobs”: how many? Methodology? Drew Shintani
4.1 (B) TAF: there were $394 000 performing loans in the portfolio? Drew Shintani

Style or Format Change

This document, although completed by a consultant, will be a Sustainable Eric Krause
Energy Work Group Report (according to the ETF process), and the final draft
should reflect this.
The tone of the opening paragraphs could be changed to allow the reader to take Eric Krause
the content of the document more seriously and act on its proposed
recommendations. The same message of Section 1 on pp. 4-5 could be provided
in 2-3 short paragraphs.
In the Introduction, paragraphs 3 and 4, the wording may not reflect the process
of the Environmental Task Force. I believe the Sustainable Energy Plan is a
Work Group Report to be included into the full Environmental Plan. This report
should not be labeled a consultant’s report, as it is now, even though a
consultant was hired to write the draft report.
In Section 6.1 on p. 28:
1) the charts presented would go best after Section 6.1.3 and the related graph
on the p. 31 (with the 3 scenarios)
2) what are the sources of these data?
What were the methods used to collect these data, the conversion factors used to
convert energy units to CO2 emissions, what assumptions are made about fuel
type used on the margin/peak demand, what is Ontario Hydro's published fuel
mix for 1988, 1998 and forecast for 2005, the forecasting model and
assumptions to determine 2005 estimations (e.g. anticipated population growth)
-- it may be worth mentioning the current CO2 baselining project that the Air
Quality Improvement Branch is doing
3) Are the 1998 values actual data, or estimations?
4) There are no transportation data included (i.e. at least for the City's fleet)
12.1.1
Perhaps the title of Section 6.2 on p. 33 could be called "Meeting the Eric Krause
Community Goal" as this is the current term used in most other City
documentation.
The final version of the document might benefit from the following format: Eric Krause
1) a technical section including background material, current state of
environment and the link to energy, energy-related actions/strategies -- a
"snapshot of current activities/initiatives"
2) a strategic direction section that provides a "road map" that will get Toronto
to that sustainable energy future, or at least get us heading the right way.
The document could really use a glossary and I anticipate full references will be Eric Krause
provided in the final draft.
Page A8 “festoon the waterfront” sounds haphazard and to the detriment of Drew Shintani
other uses
Part C: Move recommendations to the front of the report Drew Shintani
Additional Background Information Needed
Use some examples of initiatives in other area municipalities, e.g., Scarborough Lois Corbett
City Hall heat pump
In the section entitled "Introduction", on p. 6, second paragraph -- it should be Eric Krause
noted that there were 6 municipalities plus the regional government of
Metropolitan Toronto prior to amalgamation on January 1, 1998.
In Section 3.1, p. 7, although the Brundtland definition of sustainable Eric Krause
development is used, it would be useful to define how much energy use is
actually sustainable. In other words, what reduction in energy consumption is
needed to truly allow us to live only from the Earth's interest without
withdrawing from our natural capital (i.e. and not deplete resources)? I have
read that it would take about a 60-80% reduction in energy usage. Also, it may
be interesting to raise developing vs. developed world inequities as the
developed world that makes up under 20% of the world's population consumes
80% of the energy resources. In Toronto, we are very high per capita energy
users.
12.1.2
Also, in the Definitions section, it may be useful to define future paradigms such Eric Krause
as Factor Four and Factor Ten (I can provide information if desired)
In section 3.3, near the bottom of p. 8, there are other objectives not included
here. For example:
Economic:
-reduction of operating costs in the organizations within the City
Social:
-higher skilled jobs will increase and the training and development add value to
current state of employee training and knowledge
-reduction in respiratory ailments due to cleaner air -- health concerns (i.e. Air
Quality) are considered usually to be social issue not an environmental issue,
specifically
Environmental:
-risk to the environment (e.g. increase of biodiversity, reduced demand for non-
renewable resources), not just the health-related risks
For Section 4.2, on p. 13, Toronto Public Health, Health Promotion and Eric Krause
Environmental Protection, has prepared a report that was presented at the
September 27, 1999 meeting of the ETF. The report is entitled "Environmental
Health Issues in the City of Toronto", and may serve as a further resource to
consult. Also, this unit produced a report in March 1999 entitled “Changes in
Ontario's Electrical Sector and Air Quality”.
In Section 6.2.4 Other Impacts on p. 36, second paragraph, Ontario Hydro Eric Krause
Energy Services should be changed to Ontario Power Generation.

In this same paragraph, comparing Lakeview Generating Station to Ohio Valley

generation is not a balanced comparison. Lakeview produces 9% of total fossil
generation in the province. This power is peaking power, meaning peak demand
service periods in the GTA and will likely continue to do so because of
Lakeview's strategic location in the GTA. Lakeview has reduced sulphur
dioxide emissions by more than 40% in the last several years and have been
making significant gains on NOx reduction. Particulate emissions have also
been reduced by more than 87% since1996. There is currently a major project
being planned to convert part of the plant from coal to gas using new high
efficiency gas turbines. Toronto Hydro is a full partner in this plan. Over the
next 10 years the plant will likely be planning a transition to newer more
efficient technologies.

Toronto must consider that almost 85% of energy use within the GTA is derived
from fossil energy. In 20 years there will be 2 million more people in the GTA
and 1.5 million more vehicles on the road. Electricity demand will likely
increase to be 60 terawatt hours more than the current demand. We must
consider that nuclear may not be a likely energy supply option for the province
and that there is little further expansion of hydroelectric possible. It would take
20 fossil plants with the same current output of Lakeview to supply the
additional energy or the power from 60,000 wind turbines sited on the north
shore of Lake Ontario. Without a doubt there is a need to address energy
efficiency and conservation and promote renewables, but we must also consider
the scale of energy demand in the future
12.1.3
The following information may aid in the development of the recommendations Eric Krause
for Section 7 starting on p. 38:

The amalgamation redesign of the City of Toronto included administrative

strategies such as the establishment of key offices to work together to improve
the effectiveness of energy policies and programs. In the Technical Services
Division of Works and Emergency Services, the Environmental Planning and
Support Branch (EP&SB) is responsible for developing effective energy policy
and communicating to the public important information and messages about
sustainable energy use. The Energy Efficiency Office (EEO) is charged with:
researching, evaluating and promoting commercially viable energy efficiency
technologies; reviewing, advocating and recommending up-to-date energy
efficiency standards; developing strategies for and promoting energy efficiency
and conservation; developing and leading pilot projects on energy efficiency;
and monitoring the reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emissions. . The
Air Quality Improvement Branch (AQIB) is responsible for providing technical
expertise, developing and leading air quality pilot projects, developing air
quality baselines and forecasts, and monitoring pollution prevention.

Perhaps, an iteration of the above can lead off Section 7 and guide the reader
through the section, while also serving to describe how the recommendations
may be enacted within our administrative structure.
In Part C, I know of an excellent Sustainable Energy Plan that was done in
British Columbia in about 1996 (I can provide references if desired). Cities and
counties in California have also done some work with comprehensive energy
planning.
Section 4.2 could spell out more clearly how coal-fired power plants contribute
to global climate change (more than 18% of CO2 in Ontario in 1995; 31% of
CO2 in the United States in 1995), smog and acid rain (more than 12% of NOX
and 22% of SOX in Ontario; and more than 26 of NOX and 63% of SOX in the
United States), and to the release of persistent toxics (at least 10% of mercury in
Ontario; and 21% of mercury in the United States).

I do not think I would divide section 4.2 into media -- air, water and terrestrial --
as it currently done. I think the arguments are more powerful when divided by
environmental issues such as — global climate change, acid rain, smog,
persistent toxics, and radioactive materials — which all have some impact on
air, water, and terrestrial ecosystems. Under each of those subsections, a
sentence or two could be provided about environmental, human health and
economic concerns.

I think it is useful to take on the nuclear power issue up front (as has been done)
but I think that a number of human health arguments could be added to
subsection 4.2.5 including: human health concerns related to the release of
tritium into the air and water for the community that lives adjacent to the
nuclear plant; the increased cancer rates and reproductive concerns of workers
involved in the mining and processing of uranium; and the long-term human
health concerns of the larger community related to the long-term storage of
radioactive wastes.

Given the work that Toronto Public Health has done on air quality, particularly
on the electrical sector, it would be nice if our reports were mentioned along
with OMA’s when discussing human health concerns (Toronto Public Health,
“Ontario’s Changing Electrical Sector: Implications for Air Quality & Human
Health, March 1999).
12.1.4
6.2.2 Emissions Reduction Jim Kamstra
- It might be a good idea to elaborate on the very last sentence. $60 million
= 3 billion in economic impact.
I have reviewed the eCO2 reduction numbers from the Summary Report Ken Hogg
EPS 2/AP/1 dated March 1995 from Environment Canada as they relate to
composting, landfilling, anaerobic digestion etc; Suffice to say the
calculations of eCO2 are obscure at best. Therefore in the limited time
available to submit comments prior to the October 8 meeting of the steering
committee, I suggest the following paragraph replace point 2 on page 22
part A:
> The RFP for long term disposal of Toronto's wastes was issued on
October 6, 1999 with responses due December 15, 1999. The RFP for
diversion is planned to be issued by the end of November, 1999. The
diversion RFP will prescribe the manner by which approximately 250,000
tonnes of organic material is to be diverted from disposal. The organic
stream of Toronto's solid wastes can be converted aerobically to compost or
digested anaerobically to form methane which can be utilized directly or in
gas fired cogenerating plants to generate heat and electricity. Three
facilities using anaerobic digestion technologies will be commissioned
within a year at the Dufferin Transfer Station in Toronto, Newmarket and
Guelph. Whereas landfills convert organics to methane over an extended
 period of time (30 years), anaerobic digesters convert organics to methane
in a matter of days within a sealed environment and hence ensure the
maximum capture and utilization of the organic 'resource'
Page A5 “methane from waste” could read “energy from waste,” which would Drew Shintani
include methane recovery. This is common language used by the MOE
Page A6 The workgroup met 6 times Drew Shintani
Page A6: The role of corporate donations to this project to be used “to further Drew Shintani
research into this project”
Page A10 embodied energy will be covered in green economy report? Drew Shintani
Page A10 explain the gap in shipping into and out of the city. Shipping what? Drew Shintani
Page A11 include percentage of wasted energy and its change since 1988 Drew Shintani
Page A12 end load analysis being done by EEO? Drew Shintani
Page A19 BBP was a 3 year pilot Drew Shintani
Page A19 under local developments, we could include some reference to the Drew Shintani
official plans of the former municipalities with respect to their policies on
energy as provided at one of the consultative meetings.
Page A20 some mention of the competitive environment between TH and Drew Shintani
Enbridge
Page A22 gassification as a means of waste management that captures embodied Drew Shintani
energy, zero emissions, eco logo definition of green energy
Page A22 community organizations should include TEA Drew Shintani
Page A26 what success has the BBP had in leveraging City funds? Drew Shintani
Page A29 facilities and real estate has hired MCW consulting to audit city- Drew Shintani
owned buildings to determine energy-savings potential
Page A30 “incineration and landfill will increase emissions” what about Drew Shintani
gassification technology used in europe that claims no smoke stack and zero
emissions?
Page A32 some discussion of selling off utilities as a result of de-regulation, eg. Drew Shintani
Mississauga
Page A36 some mention of Sunoco’s fuel additive that reduces Nox emissions Drew Shintani
3.2.2 (B) Page B6 include BBP loan recourse fund details Drew Shintani
3.2.3 (B) “There is not a current market for emissions trading in Ontario”… .not true. 30 Drew Shintani
trades have passed through PERT to date.
3.2.3 (B) EEO has since joined PERT as a member and represents the City of Toronto on
all matters regarding emissions trading.
3.2.8 (B) The city is required by law to maintain a minimum $ value in reserves
A4.1.1 “Energy accounting” An inventory of all the commercially available renewable Richard Morris
energy technologies could also be developed to support their promotion in the
decision-making process
A4.4.2 “Utility restructuing” The institutional and industry barriers overcome to date Richard Morris
by Enbridge and City of Toronto could be mentioned in this section of the report
A4.4.2 It should be emphasized that the City holds the key to sustainability given its Richard Morris
direct involvement in various areas such as EEO, TAF, Fleet management, Solid
Waste, Water andWastewater, land use planning, district energy, DLWC, TH,
TTC, TDHC, GTSB.
A4.4.3 It should be noted that the EEO has to date focussed mainly on the Richard Morris
implementation of projects that realize actual CO2 emissions reduction. The
EEO has in the past done only a limited amount of promotion. In the near
future, the EEO is planning to significantly increase activities in both areas in
conjunction with BBP partners
A4.5 The City’s Strategic Action Plan (SAP) for CO2 reduction with was endorsed by Richard Morris
the New City Council in July 1998 might hold a few additional suggestions that
could be included in this section.
A4.5 Other opportunities that have been discussed in the past include: the Richard Morris
construction of bike paths along the OHSC transmission corridors and the
 development of minimum system efficiencies for newly built energy supply
infrastructure (distributed generators).
B4.6.2 The report suggests that TAF has contributed $2 million to the BBP loan Richard Morris
recourse fund while Enbridge Consumers Gas has contributed $739 000. A
more accurate description:
- Role of TAF: At the direction of City Council, TAF has provided $2
million to Enbridge Consumers Gas in the form of a letter of direction to
provide securitization in the event of loan defaults.
- Role of ECG: Enbridge, in its role as a BBP sponsor has agreed to provide
market rate repayable loans primarily to small/med sized building owners
and managers for building renewal and energy efficiency projects. The
leverage ration agreed to by Enbridge is approximately 5:1. This means
that an amount of up to $10 million could be loaned by Enbridge or a third
party lender as designated by Enbridge and agreed to by the City.
Furthermore, Enbridge has agreed to contribute $0.125/cu.m. of gas
efficency of all BBP projects completed. This arrangement resulted in
cumulative contribution of Enbridge to date of $739 000.
- Role of the City City Council has committed itself to reimburse TAF in the
event that there are any loan losses, which erode the TAF $2 million
investment

Comment on Situation Analysis (A)

Include discussion of sinks and heat islands – how the city itself is contributing Lois Corbett
to its own problems
Also, on targets, would there be support to separate the corporate and Eric Krause
community targets, as the former Metro did?

Having the two target split, differentiates the abilities to control energy use. The
former Metro governments did have two separate 20% targets (the former City
of Toronto had only a single target) . The CO2 target was reaffirmed in July
1998, and an encompassing target was chosen. The City as a corporation has
control over its fleet, buildings, landfill operations, etc. and can enact reduction
strategies to realize targets set. In this way the 20% target and CO2 emission
reduction is a performance measure of progress made towards fewer CO2
emissions. By realizing this 20% reduction target, leadership can be
demonstrated by the Corporation of the City of Toronto. The City has varying
degrees of influence over what it can deliver as far as greenhouse-related
policies, programs, by-laws, etc. to the community-at-large. As the City does
not have complete control, the 20% target is more of a gesture of City Council
as to show political commitment. At some point soon, I think that these two
separate intents for setting targets should be separated and reflected in the re-
wording of the City's CO2 target and goal.

I am intrigued by this update to the Energy Balance diagram and am particularly Eric Krause
interested in the source(s) for this information. As I am sure you are familiar,
Metro Works compiled an Energy Balance for Metro Toronto (see attached). It
appears that the Transportation component is not estimated for the 1998 update
version. So subtracting the transportation component from the 1988 version in
order to directly analyze the trends from 1988 - 1998, I calculate Raw Energy
Input to be (148524 - 27639) or 120885 GWh; Unused (waste) Energy to be
(74118 - 20729) or 53389GWh; and Usable Energy Output (74406 - 6910) or
67496 GWh. Therefore, two new calculations of Community Energy Efficiency
(less Oil - Vehicles) are 55.83% for 1988, and 58.03% for 1998.
With further analysis of the trend of the decade from1988 and 1998:
Raw Energy Input has decreased 3.5% from 120885 to 116699 GWh
Unused Energy (waste) has decreased 8.3% from 53389 to 48983 GWh
Usable Energy has increased slightly by 0.3% from 67496 to 67716 GWh
Community Energy Efficiency went from 55.83% to 58.03% (does this mean
that we are in fact more efficient in 1998 than 1988?)

Why doesn't the 1998 Energy Balance for Toronto include oil-vehicle energy?

N.B. There are conflicting data sets between what is reported in the 1995 State
of the Environment Report and the 1995 Metro Works Report “The Potential for
District Energy for Metro Toronto” (I have used the later in the above analysis).
For Section 4.5, on pp. 21-22, another opportunity for the City may be tax- Eric Krause
related incentives to assist with financing residential retrofits (e.g. a property
tax-break or a fee-bate/rebate).
How should the City look at Life Cycle Analyses and embodied energy for Eric Krause
future energy planning? I think that embodied energy is an important topic and
although the consultant did not address the subject, they should recognize that
there is a need to conduct future research.
How would Wind/Solar Power displace "conventional", primary sources on the Eric Krause
grid? For example, if green power is used to supply 25% of the primary sources
used to generate electricity, what fuels would this displace -- 15% fossil-based
and 10% nuclear? Are there any scenarios available?
In meeting with you, I understand that there will be development of a section Eric Krause
that will discuss EFW as an energy option. As per your request, the EP&SB
would be pleased to review and comment on this new section.
6.1.3 Savings on Energy Costs Jim Kamstra
- I'm not sure if a 10% premium for renewables is realistic. It will most likely
be higher.
page a21 - double counting in the economics of point 4. "In 5 years it may Al Seskus
> be possible for the corporation to purchase 100% green power out of
> savings from efficiency improvements". This would only be true if the
> measures were implemented out of capital budget (unlikely). Most likely
> money was borrowed, from internal funds, from TAF, ESCOs, banks,
> leases - the money from energy efficiency would be used to pay back the
> measures. And this most likely would take 8-10 years meaning green
> power premiums would have to be a budget item.
a21 - most regulations and no-fiscal incentives are not in the city's Al Seskus
jurisdiction. Need provincial cooperation and we all know what the
province thinks of the city and more regulations.
a28 - as in comment a21 above, the table lists "savings to apply to cost Al Seskus
of retrofit" is almost all committed money to pay off the implemented
measures which won't be paid off for another 5 years. This is not yet
available for further investments. One day, if accounted for correctly,
it will be available for further investment but not by 2005 unless you encourage
cherry picking. Also, buying green power is a 7 million dollar drain
every year whereas demand management/energy efficiency is forever.
> a31 - same as above, 68% emission reduction is at a cost of $7million every Al Seskus
year in green power premiums.
a36-end of second paragraph, Ontario Hydro Energy Services is not who runs Al Seskus
the plants, it is Ontario Power Generation that runs the plants. And lakeview
would still keep running as long as it could sell power, even if Ontario Power
Generation has to buy emission credits to keep it running therefore not
benefitting the air around Toronto.
a36 - job creation. If 72,000 tonnes means investment of $60 million and Al Seskus
3,000 person years than 3,000,000 will take a lot more labour to achieve
 (more than 30,000 person years) as the easier projects are done. Not a
linear relationship.
Regarding bringing a wind turbine manufacturer to Toronto...Ontario Hydro Per Drewes
convinced Tacke to set up a blade manufacturing shop in London Ont. when
we bought the 600 kW machine for the Bruce. It of course exports all its blades
since the market did not develop here.
Page A14 Nuclear Power is Not the Answer Councillor King is concerned that Drew Shintani
this statement is too strong and that the issue of waste heat water not being
captured has been missed altogether.
A3.3 Page 8 , Objectives. Near term objectives should include reducing smog and Richard Morris
reference to the City’s smog plan
Section “Context and Rationale” The report suggests that an evaluation of Toronto’s Richard Morris
A4 embodied energy should be part of a comprehensive analysis of Toronto’s
energy responsibilities. The report should further suggest that a study of this
type can be very time consuming and therefore on-going and planned programs
and projects should not be suspended or adversely affected should this study be
carried out. It should also be clearly stated that energy efficiency would in all
cases be a major focus in the planning of supply side options. This is necessary
as the optimization of the end use equipment/systems is of significance in
determining the economic feasibility, the overall efficiency and ultimately the
environmental impact of the options being evaluated.
B3.1.2 Debt financing. In general the report should be edited to distinguish the Richard Morris
differences between financing proposals for the public/non-profit sectors versus
the private sector, and distinguish between the financing needs fo small, med,
and large building owners with respect to the implementation of building
renewal and energy efficiency projects
There was no emphasis on private label financing. This type of financing
typically refers to third party non-recourse financing where the source of
financing is transparent to the borrower. In most cases organizations such as
Toronto Hydro, TAF and the private sector firms can utilize this arrangement to
increase the offerings of their business by providing “one stop shopping” with
direct access to financing. This practice should be explored in this report.
B3.2.3 “Emission Trading” replace “ pollution rights” with “emission reduction Richard Morris
credits”
B3.2.5 “Levelization payments” The report refers to a levelization loans/payments Richard Morris
fincing mechanisms that TAF could use to fund programs. This appears to be
feasible, however the funds being held by TAF are not sufficient for the strategy
to make a significant difference. A greater impact would be made in the
marketplace if the levelization strategy was accompanied with a securitization
strategy. This combination could leverage a greater amount of private sector
financing. The BBP loan recourse fund / credit enhancement facility could
serve as one of the securitization mechanisms that could be combined with
levelization.
B3.2.8 “Use of Building Reserve Funds” The uses of buildings’reserve funds in an Richard Morris
area of significant importance to public non-profit/multi-residential (condo)
building owners and managers given that this sector has a high level of technical
potential for retrofit but experience difficulties in securing finanacing. The
report make general references without fully explaining the consultant’s
findings conclusions and recommendations. Furthermore the consultant should
explain what policies, by-laws and other legislative changes are needed in order
to create the climate required to foster the implementation of more buildings
renewal and energy efficiency retrofits.
B4.1 TAF The report suggests that TAF assets could be used to support initiatives Richard Morris
such as the Portland Co-generation Project, the Lakeview Repowering Project,
the Northwinds Cooling project and the TDHC Deep lakewater Cooling project.
It might be of greater strategic importance to examine which of the above
 projects could proceed as a commercial entity through the use of standard
financial commercial arrangements without the support of TAF. Clearly,
DLWC appears to be a good candidate for TAF assistance. However it is not
evident that the other projects mentioned would require TAF assistance. The
difficulty in addressing the issue is driven by the need of organization such as
the City and TAF to act in a strategic manner to transform the marketplace as
opposed to displacing traditional sources of financing.
B4.2.5 The report suggests that the Northwinds Project is complementary to the Deep Richard Morris
Lakewater Cooling project. This should be elaborated.

Comment on Recommendations (R)

7 Incorporate the Sustainable Energy Agency under the Sustainability Round David Bell
Table
7 Explain why the Agency should be independent, instead of an aspect of a City Jack Layton
department
7 Need to link this report to the Sustainable Transportation Report, possible repeat Lois Corbett
overlapping recommendations for emphasis
7 The recommendations in the Financial Report are not very specific Franz Hartman
7 Toronto Hydro and TDHC have recently completed an agreement re: Jack Layton
cooperation
7 Do not include discussion of incineration in the report Lois Corbett
Re: nuclear issue, acknowledge city’s responsibility for nuclear as a consumer Lois Corbett
of nuclear power and include discussion of the City’s role as an advocate of
responsible waste disposal and in nuclear free energy planning
7 The Report should avoid discussing the incineration issue as there is presently Jack Layton
an arm’s length evaluation of waste disposal proposals before the City. This
report should emphasize positive responses, e.g., the methane digester concept.
7 Re: a standby source required for renewables. It works both ways. Renewables Jack Layton
can act as a standby source for conventional supply.
7 Does the City really need a Sustainable Energy Agency as described in Section Eric Krause
7.2, on p. 38? Perhaps with the new amalgamation structure, the functions
could be assigned to the appropriate unit within the City structure. City Council
has already been asked by many others for new offices etc. and is not likely to
allocate resources to a new office, but may provide new resources to already
existing units.
7 The recommendations put forward by the consultant do not reflect the new Eric Krause
mandates and activities of the Technical Services Division (see A. 18 and A. 19
above) and other divisions and department throughout the new City structure.
Some examples of this are as follows:
-Recommendation 7.2.1 should reflect the capabilities of Technical Services,
Environmental Division and be assumed in partnership by EP&SB, EEO and
AQIB
-Next Step following from 7.2.1 – this should be assigned to Technical Services
Division, Environmental Services and be assumed in partnership by EP&SB,
EEO and AQIB
-Recommendations in section 7.4 – what about the role of Corporate Services,
Facilities and Real Estate and the AQIB (i.e. CO2 baseline).
-In Section 7.7, I am not sure that the City has “lost” the opportunity of
imposing higher building standards on building permit applications (i.e. C2000
standards). The EEO is doing some work that will provide the basis for seizing
this opportunity.
-Recommendation 7.9.1 – send to Commissioner of UP&DS to develop this
further
-In Section 7.15, Technical Services, through the EEO, AQIB and EP&SB,
should work with the CAOs office (and other internal players) as to ensure
environmental issues at being dealt with at the Bill 35 process.
In recommendation 7.8.2 – It should be recognized that TDHC and Toronto Eric Krause
Hydro are competitors. Can a recommendation be written that allows for a
successful partnership (including the City) to further the projects mentioned
here?
Perhaps Recommendation 7.10.1 can be two recommendations, one for the wind Eric Krause
turbine and one for the solar project.
Recommendation 7.13.1 The PBC could be an accounting function within Eric Krause
Toronto Hydro itself. The role of the City could be to ensure that the revenue
collected from the PBC is earmarked to subsidize the extra cost of green power
as a premium power source.
Another subsection in Section 7 would include a comprehensive public Eric Krause
education and awareness program on energy efficiency and conservation
(perhaps Section 7.16)
Perhaps this document is a Strategy and the first recommendation should Eric Krause
include language such as:
That the Commissioner of Works & Emergency Services (in consultation with
the Commissioner of Corporate Services, Commissioner of Finance, and
Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services) review the
“Toronto Sustainable Energy Plan” and report back with respect to the
implementation of the recommendations from the ETF – Sustainable Energy
Use Work Group report (see A-20 above).
Another key recommendation should be that the City develop a comprehensive Eric Krause
energy policy in consultation with the relevant stakeholders in the energy
community.
The writer of the Environmental Plan, and the writing committee of the ETF Eric Krause
that is established, must identify links between the four Work Groups, especially
the Green Economic Development, Sustainable Energy Use and Sustainable
Transportation. Also links must be made to the background reports on Land,
Water and especially Air. At the same time, gaps must also be recognized and
suggestions for future work must be identified.
The policy recommendations sections looks very comprehensive. There does Kim Perrotta
not seem to be any mention of the air emission caps that have been
recommended by both Toronto Public Health and Works & Emergency
Services, and supported by Toronto City Council. Air emission caps could be
discussed along with, or after, subsection 7.15 Champion Sustainable Energy at
the Province. Under this subsection, the role of EEO to participate in OEB
hearings on electricity de-regulation is discussed. Equally important is the need
for Toronto Works (Air or Policy group) and/or Toronto Public Health to
monitor/participate in discussions related to the establishment of air emission
caps for the electrical sector. If caps are set too high, coal-generated electricity
will continue to have an unfair financial advantage, which will make it difficult
for renewables and other cleaner energies to compete.
7.3.1 - Why - is it related to other parts of the report? Jim Kamstra
7.4 Jim Kamstra
- All the former Cities have implemented energy efficiency projects. The
former Metro implemented a very large DSM program in its facilities. The
report shoild not down play results acheived to date in all the cities. We are
presently trying to document all the work that has been completed (ie Facilities
& Real Estate Division in the Corporate Services Dept)
7.4.3- this item ignores the current efforts of the Energy Management Unit in Jim Kamstra
the Facilities & Real Estate Div. The Energy Management Unit is currently
assessing the opportunties for improving energy efficiency in all City facilities
 and plans to prepare a report in that regard.
7.6 The City is still considering its options with regard to power procurement Jim Kamstra
in a deregulated market.
7.0 - the recommendations do not include a role for the BBP? Jim Kamstra
> page 29/30 suggests that incineration or landfill will increase the Ken Hogg
City's emissions while the methane digester will result in reduced
emissions and a locally produced fuel source. We advise that three of
the city's landfills convert at least 95% of the methane within the sites
to electricity and generate more than 50 megawatts continuously. As stated
above the anaerobic digester offers rapid conversion of organics; however,
the cost of this newer technology of approximately $50/ per tonne compares
less favourably with landfilling at $15/tonne. Siting of large green field
landfills is extremely challenging to say the least whereas the conversion
of some of the City's transfer facilities eg Dufferin to anaerobic
digestion technology is feasible due to the compactness of the processes
page 43 part A Ken Hogg
> green power production "within the gate" could also apply to our
three landfills at Brock West, Beare and Keele Valley in that each site has
a parasitic load at the power plants.
> Obviously, should the opportunity for wheeling power to 'ouselves'
arise, the 50 megawatts of electricity from the landfill gas to energy
projects to the water and wastewater facilties would seem to be a logical
connection.
page 23 part A 5.1.6 Software Ken Hogg
> there is mention of an Energy Centre; we support this concept
especially at the Beare Landfill; it is 1 kilometer due east of the Zoo
and lends itself to visits via Pearse House. We envision establishment of
green houses using the waste heat off the recip engines on site and
installation of wind turbines on four knolls on the landfill. we could
relocate our current photovoltaic array from brock west to beare as well;
finally there is an opportunity to install a micro turbine to utilize a
small fraction of the landfill gas.

a41 - NEW 7.7.7 The City should institute a no regrets Residential Energy Al Seskus
Conservation Ordinance (RECO)and a no regrets Commercial Energy
Conservation Ordinance (CECO) like Berkeley California. On sale of property
a checklist of no regrets measure is prepared and the seller and owner have to
agree to make sure that the checklist of low cost, no regret measure are
implemented or will be so within 2 years. This is analogous to the Drive Clean
program. The house has to be inspected to meet minimal requirements. It also
forces the owners to save money because all the measures would be ones they
should to anyway and ones which payback within 2-3 years.
If Toronto wants a Sustainable Energy Centre, be aware that the largest Per Drewes
such centre is Kortright, a part of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority.
Why not just support it with funding for increased projects?
Page A38 Sustainable energy agency should read “department” in the city’s Drew Shintani
language and perhaps a one page situational analysis on how the responsibility
of “energy” is presently divided up between many units at the City.
7.4.3 Need some discussion andy analysis of facilities and real estate’s role in city- Drew Shintani
owned buildings
7.5.1 I don’t think the depts have the staff or the expertise to do this Drew Shintani
7.6.1 Already in the works but I thought at an earlier workgroup meeting, it was Drew Shintani
agreed that 25% doesn’t exist in the grid if you exclude old hydro at the present
time. This is what was reported to Countil by the Healthy City Office earlier
this year
Page A40 Green power purchase proposal: who takes lead? Drew Shintani
7.7.5 Exact reference for recent TAF report Drew Shintani
7.11.1 Locate trec within the gate: what does this mean? Drew Shintani
7.15.1 EEO intervene at OEB meetings: CAO’s office is already there Drew Shintani
Financial recommendations: Drew Shintani
“TH and TDHC working together” is too vague
“Using its vast purchasing power… ” does TH take the lead? Roles? eg. Bulk
purchasing of T8s that would be delivered just in time to avoid warehousing
costs
“establish a central energy efficiency coordination office” too vague. The EEO
has this role already? Is this the same agency proposed in Part A?
“System wide public benefits charge” intriguing, but we need an exact case
reference and some analysis on how it could work for Toronto.
“Encouraging other net billing projects such as TREC” too early to use TREC as
an example? Other case study references?
“Employing long-term fixed contract approach” too vague. Examples/ Build a
case.