Lessons for the

Kingston Community Energy PlanPrepared by the 2015 class

MPA 847 - Environmental Policy

Some rights reserved by Peter Jadlovsky

Some rights reserved by Peter Jadlovsky

Community Energy Plans

> 170 communities

> 50% of Canada’s population

Ontario BC Quebec Alberta Other0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

800000058%

74%

34%

56%

25%

Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan

Some rights reserved by Cate Cuerden

2013155 TWh

Nuclear

Coal

Gas

Hydro

Wind

Bioenergy

Solar

Conservation

2032157 TWh

Achieving Balance: Ontario’s Long-term energy plan 2013

Encourages Community Energy Plans Includes Combined Heat and Power projects

(up to 20 MW) District heating and district energy Energy from waste (looking for lower-emission

technologies)

Critical opportunities Green Economy Kingston

(Social benchmarking) Institutional focus

Queen’s, RMC, St. Lawrence CFB Kingston(Conservation & education)

Halifax, NS

Some rights reserved by ‘Nino’ Eugene La Pia

▪ Helped develop the template for Community Energy Plans with NRCan (2006)

▪ Original plan (2007) set 7 goals, each supported with actions and specific timelines

▪ Many actions recommended not within the power or authority of the Municipality

▪ CEP lost momentum after initial plan completed

▪ Key lessons:▪ Reconsider inclusion of actions beyond

Municipal power in CEPs▪ Target municipal barriers to renewable

power use to reduce GHGs▪ Set clear economic objectives –

incentivize participation, track success

Halifax Community Energy Plan 2007; Progress Report on the CEP 2012

2006 20110

100000200000300000400000 0.9% per year

6.68 Mt CO2e(2002)

23.4 t/capita

Buildings

Residential

Commercial

Institutional

Industry

TransportWaste

Guelph, Ontario

Some rights reserved by Patty O’Hearn KickhamCity of Guelph Community Energy Plan 2007

▪ Focus on per capita energy use and emissions, with equal focus on renewables and efficiency measures

▪ Very informed stakeholder engagement and process for developing the CEP

▪ Very strong in setting baseline – informs future actions and provides benchmarks

▪ No timelines set and no detailed sectoral breakdown of how to achieve overall goals

▪ Considered but did not include leakage (could raise emissions by 6.5 t/capita)

1.0 Mt CO2e(2005)

8.7 t/capita

Buildings

Residential

Commercial

Industry

Transport

2006 20110

100000200000300000400000 1.2% per year

Guelph, Ontario

Some rights reserved by BiblioArchives/LibraryArchivesCity of Guelph Community Energy Plan 2007; Guelph District Energy Strategic Plan 2013

▪ Important initiatives at work here:▪ District energy:

▪ Development of a thermal energy grid connecting residential, commercial, and industrial users

▪ Designed to meet at least 50% of Guelph’s total heating needs▪ Addresses a critical area of emissions (not covered in many other plans)▪ Will start with a downtown site but identifies nine other areas for initial projects

▪ Investing in local energy systems – renewable energy generation and storage▪ Designed to increase the proportion of green energy on the electrical grid▪ Will create local employment and reduce capital flow from the city

Bergen, Norway ▪ Climate and Energy Action Plan 2010 set goals:▪ 50% reduction greenhouse gas emissions

by 2030, compared to 1991▪ Climate neutral by 2030

▪ Interesting technology adoption:▪ Underground vacuum for waste collection

connected to district heat▪ Shift to 0% recyclables at landfills

▪ Road toll and congestion taxes to reduce mobility emissions; restrict parking in city and increase park-and-ride sites

▪ Concentrated land use into a ‘finger’ pattern▪ Key lessons for Kingston:

▪ Tolls finance public transit (direct benefit)▪ Air quality issues (wood-burning stoves)

2006 20110

100000200000300000400000 1.4% per year

0.76 Mt CO2e(2007)

3.2 t/capita

Buildings

Industry

Transport

Residential

Commercial

institutional

Passenger

Commercial

Waste

Some rights reserved by Hilde Karl Climate and Energy Action Plan, City of Bergen

▪ Primary focus of the plan is on mobility▪ Secondary focus on buildings/planning,

sustainable infrastructure▪ GHG reduction targets (from 2007):

▪ 33% reduction by 2020▪ 80% reduction by 2050

▪ Actions will give them 26% reductions by 2050▪ Lack of consultation with community and

other stakeholders▪ Key recommendations:

▪ Increase focus on buildings and infrastructure (inelastic emissions)

▪ Maintain programs on transport0.9 Mt CO2e

(2010)4.8 t/capita

Buildings

Residential

Commercial

Passenger

Transport

WasteCommercial

2006 20110

100000200000300000400000 1.8% per year

Some rights reserved by Rosie TulipsRichmond Community Energy and Emissions Plan 2014

Richmond, BC

Kingston, Ontario

Public domain by Yu-Chan Chen

▪ Kingston’s emissions are dominated by workplaces

▪ GHG reduction targets (from 2011): ▪ 15% reduction by 2020▪ 30% reduction by 2030

▪ Actions are focused on reducing energy use (short-term) and addressing transportation (after 2020)

▪ Need for integration with other plans – Climate Action Plan, Master & Active Transportation Plans, etc.

▪ Key issues:▪ Aging infrastructure (particularly

commercial space) presents a challenge▪ Less population growth presents an

opportunity

1.5 Mt CO2e(2010)

10.6 t/capita

Buildings

Residential

Commercial

Transport

Waste

2006 20110

100000200000300000400000 0.9% per year

Kingston Climate Action Plan 2014

How do we stack up?

Some rights reserved by Aidan Wakely-Mulroney

Halifax Bergen Richmond Guelph Kingston0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

8000000

Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial Passenger Commercial Waste

Halifax Bergen Richmond Guelph Kingston0

5

10

15

20

25

t CO

2e/c

apita

/yea

r

Key lessons

Some rights reserved by Grant MacDonald

▪ Guelph is the best analog for Kingston – similar population, area, age▪ Transport emissions are similar

▪ 3.73 t CO2e/capita/year in Guelph, 3.83 t CO2e/capita/year in Kingston▪ Doesn’t include commercial vehicles that service the city

▪ Residential emissions are similar▪ 2.22 t CO2e/capita/year in Guelph, 2.3 t CO2e/capita/year in Kingston▪ Likely similar patterns of single-family homes, condos, apartments

▪ Big difference: commercial/industrial emissions▪ 2.75 t CO2e/capita/year in Guelph, 6.46 t CO2e/capita/year in Kingston▪ Kingston is a regional centre in a way that Guelph isn’t – more commercial space?▪ We will have to work 3 times as hard as Guelph to get these emissions down▪ Opportunities: district heat (Guelph), waste-to-energy (Bergen)

Thanks!

Some rights reserved by Aidan Wakely-Mulroney

▪ This work is based on class projects carried out by the MPA 847 class of 2015at Queen’s University School of Policy Studies

▪ Answering questions today are Melanie Jones, Kelsey Munroe, Kevin Sage and Arden Witter

▪ Full list of authors:Aleksovska Z, Arul S-A, Barr S, Byrd J, Cardinal L, Depippo K, Fenton S, Gallagher M, Hanif M, Jahrsdorfer J, Johnston-Haynes E, Jones M, Kaser S, Lubrin C, McDonald A, McGarry P, Meiklejohn M, Motay J, Munroe K, Naidoo R, Pertili J, Poirier B, Raycroft J, Saad C, Sage K, Saleem I, Schantz K, Sidahmed S, Tourigny A, Whitecross B, Witter A, Yurcich T, and Mabee WE

▪ We look forward to the discussion!