discussion notes from an expert panel held on june 8, 2007 at … · 2014-05-06 · discussion...

of 22

Discussion Notes from an Expert Panel held on June 8, 2007

at Kananaskis, Alberta These notes are not a verbatim record of the meeting. Instead, they are a categorized record of comments, to be used as a source of ideas regarding climate change technologies, innovations, roles and policy. Purpose: Twelve experts were invited to participate in a discussion of Alberta’s climate change action plan. The purpose was to gain expert advice about effective and innovative approaches that should be included in the plan. Participants: A list of participants is provided in attachment 1.

Table of Contents

Alberta’s Response to the Climate Change Challenge: Initial Thoughts about Strategy.......2 Question 1: How can government initiate a transition? ......................................................2 Question 2: What can Alberta do to increase the pace of adoption of appropriate technologies and processes?.............................................................................................4

What Changes Could Alberta Make? .....................................................................................6

Discussion ..........................................................................................................................7 Potential Innovations.............................................................................................................11

Energy Conservation and Efficiency .................................................................................11 Renewable and Alternative Energy Sources and Technologies.......................................12 Information and Education................................................................................................13 Economic Tools ................................................................................................................15 Considering the possibility…............................................................................................16 Best Ideas .........................................................................................................................18

Additional Comments ...........................................................................................................21 Closing Comments............................................................................................................... 22 Attachment 1: Attendance at the Meeting Attachment 2: Biographies of Invited Experts

of 22

Alberta’s Response to the Climate Change Challenge:

Initial Thoughts about Strategy

Peter Watson, Deputy Minister of Alberta Environment, welcomed everyone to the discussion and asked them to think of this as a new beginning for Alberta’s response to climate change. The moderator asked for initial thoughts about how the Alberta government should respond in a timely and effective manner to mitigate climate change risks and adapt to climate change consequences. He noted that Alberta’s economy is growing quickly, and the province is a key global supplier of hydrocarbon energy and resources. Question 1: How can government initiate a transition?

• Diane Wittenberg Alberta should declare itself as a centre of excellence in clean ways to do business – do it the best in the world.

• Leon Clarke Is there a strategic endpoint? Is it clear whether this is a short-term plan, or a long-term plan? Long-term requires knowing how you invest in technological development. It is valuable to know the long-term strategic context to guide short-term actions.

• Peter Watson: Yes to both. We want a long-term vision for the province, as well as clear short-term transition points. We realize the importance of a long-term goal.

• Gord Lambert Framing the question properly is important. Traditionally, it’s been framed as an environmental issue but it will fundamentally transform how we use and produce energy. Alberta would benefit from more convergence between energy and climate change strategy. This approach will be more efficient and lead to GHG reductions. It will bring clarity about what we are working toward and make outcomes tangible for people.

• Vicky Sharpe Without an understanding of the end point or change – one wouldn’t know if they were investing in a transition or end technology. This could result in investors making premature or early investments in technologies that are not needed at that stage. You will require guidelines for sequencing investments: this critically affects your opportunity for excellence. Capital investments made today will affect the next 30 to 40 years.

• Marlo Raynolds There is value in having an aspirational path/goal (e.g. “carbon neutral”). Targets will be debated forever. However, there must be clear targets for the components of the action plan to ensure credibility and guide investment.

• Peter Watson We are moving from a plan that was near-term and trying to build political consensus as we go. We believe we have to lead by setting a long-term goal. The challenge is to mark ourselves as we go and to integrate with the provincial energy strategy. We need to be the best environmental managers with the resources we have.

• John Drexhage Climate change is actually the concrete manifestation of sustainable development: it affects all sectors. Alberta’s view of energy leadership must be broader; it should be put in the North American context. Many jurisdictions

of 22

(Washington and others) are looking at the European Union because their system is up and running. We need to get their attention. Coordination with U.S. strategies regarding oil and transportation will be important.

• John Drexhage Two cautions: (1) “Clean energy leader” is a phrase bandied about in Canada that will jeopardize our integrity internationally unless we can demonstrate its truth. (2) Targets in Canada have at times worked to distract Canadian governments (provincial/federal) from taking action.

• David Sauchyn What is Alberta’s vision? Be cautious about defining an “end point” because the climate will surprise us and new technologies will emerge. An adaptive mitigation policy is required to account for unforeseen circumstances.

• Lewis Milford Alberta has an opportunity to lead in terms of technology development, innovation, and leadership. Technology development pathways going forward provide tremendous opportunity for leadership. You should be creative, break the mould.

• Frede Cappelen There’s a important relationship between long-term vision and working plans. You need a working plan or no one will pay attention to the vision; you need both. Climate change is connected to energy for both Alberta and Europe.

• Frede Cappelen It will be important to define the role Alberta will play in the global issue of climate change. The Canadian government needs to be addressed in this context. There is opportunity for solidarity of action with EU and others.

• Lester Lave Your first priority is to get other leaders on board with a shared vision. Canadians are the highest energy users on the planet, on a per capita basis. I would like to believe Canadians wish to get to carbon neutrality, but not all Canadians agree with the visions stated around the table here. We talk as though everyone is now on board, which is probably optimistic. We need to find a way to get those people (likely industry leaders) on board. People don’t understand what it will take to support the future they say they want.

• Janet Peace A long-term vision and mandatory policy is required for some certainty. A short-term tangible plan with mid-term milestones makes the long-term vision credible. Dealing with climate change will not be cost free but addressing the costs inherent in climate change are pre-requisites to success.

• Paul Boothe It is important at the outset to challenge the assumption that Alberta must continue to develop at the current pace. Alberta is running the economy too “hot”. Alberta’s fiscal policy is completely unsustainable. If energy companies develop as soon as possible, Alberta gets less in royalties as a result. It makes it more difficult to adapt in the future (cementing yesterday’s technologies in place for the next 40 years). The plan must consider a pace that allows changes in an optimal way. The current pace makes it harder to make innovative changes.

• Vicky Sharpe You need to take a holistic view of environment and sustainability. Do not build environmental silos: clean air, clean water, clean land. A true solution for the economy needs to be multi-disciplinary to be sustainable.

• Janet Peace In reference to outreach on this issue, you need to communicate to Albertans about the costs of doing nothing…connect the dots between the costs and the benefits (asthma, traffic congestion, less skiing). Show the downsides of “status quo” so that people are more accepting of aggressive action to address climate change.

of 22

Question 2: What can Alberta do to increase the pace of adoption of appropriate technologies and processes?

• Lester Lave First, figure out what you want to do today, and what you want to do in the future. Don’t freeze yourself into old technologies, because technology is changing rapidly. To convince the population, you need to do something now, have short-term goals to show progress. Talk to people about changing their lifestyles (not sacrificing).

• Frede Cappelen Political decisions around when technology is ready for implementation are not feasible. You can’t rush it – it’s not a political decision – the technology has to work. You should also consider volume of activity as a fundamental issue in creating a policy. Politicians need some goals to have a common focus because they need to build support for the decisions and need the tools to bring people into the mind set.

• David Sauchyn The pace of development in Alberta is problematic. Grass roots people don’t share the vision that the economy has to grow at this pace. Extracting carbon as soon as possible should be debated.

• Leon Clarke You need to know where you’re going so there is some certainty of investment in newer technologies. Industry is more likely to invest if there is a commitment that will make the investment valuable. It all revolves around capital investment. Inappropriate investment today will make future transition difficult. Also, you need to get on the path where people understand there’s a value on carbon, and that emissions reductions are not free. “There is no such thing as free lunch, but doesn’t mean the lunch isn’t worth buying.” Initially, you need to consider preparation. You are starting a transition to deeper measures in the future – in the long-term carbon has to go to zero.

• John Drexhage A value to carbon is critical. You must plan and act in an integrated manner that considers financing mechanisms earmarked for reinvestment in clean energies. Exercise integrity in selecting appropriate technologies by looking at life cycle analysis.

• John Drexhage You will need the courage to stand above, because developed countries like Canada will have to take a big portion of GHG emission cuts. Adaptive policymaking is needed because capital stock turnover will determine pace and priorities. For example, the next 15 years are a critical stage in Canada for expansion of electricity sources – decisions in those investments will make a major difference to future direction. Urban planning is also critical, because of the rate of population growth. Alberta has the resources and know-how to get it done.

• Lewis Milford I’m not sure the public has a true sense of how difficult this will be. We don’t know a whole lot about how to do it. The missing link is how to scale up technologies, including adding innovations. We need the opportunity to experiment with policy tools, even globally, to make it happen.

• Dan McFadyen We assume today’s fiscal environment is the new norm. However, the economy peaked in 2005 and is now going down. The pace of development is wrapped in many other issues related to societal objectives. The pace of development is not the primary tool for climate change. The question is: can we find the pace of change we need to catch up and keep ahead of the curve? A technology road map is

of 22

completed and updated every 10 years. However, it shows pathways, but not implementation.

• Marlo Raynolds We will live with infrastructure for the next 20 years. The right investments in transit, building codes, and distributed energy systems are required. The incremental cost of adding energy efficiencies at this time is very small. We have to move quickly on building codes. We have the opportunity now to make a difference in the future. The renovation market is important (e.g. we should not allow the sale of mid-efficiency furnaces). It is urgent that we set appropriate standards and regulations for construction for commercial, residential, urban infrastructure, and transit.

• Gord Lambert Mostly, we need clarity of intent – what does success look like? We need good examples that the public can grasp. For example, assign a target goal for CO2 capture, then it’s a case of collaboration and organizational structure to make it happen. Identify barriers and roles of various players who can make it happen. A road map document is a good example of clarity. We need focused collaboration---the oil sands wouldn’t exist without the collaboration of government, industry, and science. The opportunities are now; industry is half committed, we’re unsure of government intent. Gord suggested that Alberta consider the “opportunity wedges” identified in Policy Directions to 2050: A Business Contribution to the Dialogues on Cooperative Action. World Business Council for Sustainable Development c/o Earthprint Ltd., Geneva, 2007

• Janet Peace We need a price for carbon and there needs to be assurance that this price will rise over time: this will pull technology off the shelf and into use. Furthermore, implementing a policy that sends this price signal will give early adopter companies the needed assurance of a level playing field such that they are not competitively disadvantaged for employing new technology and doing what needs to be done. Unless a mandatory policy with a carbon price is implemented, R&D spending and technology development will not get us very far. A related point is that government should not pick technology winners – setting the performance output and letting the market work is a much better option. And while implementing a carbon price is important, we also need to use a variety of policy -tools because price alone will not motivate the change that is needed in all sectors. For example, it is likely that specific policies for motivating energy efficiency, reducing auto emissions and pulling carbon capture and storage into use will all be needed in addition to a price of carbon.

• Diane Wittenberg If industry and government agree to a carbon constrained future then it provides a rationale for moving forward and clarity of intent. You need to provide comfort to the public by replacing what you take away (energy production) with something that helps them (i.e. new energy efficient appliances). Or, for example, rebates for smaller cars and penalties for larger cars.

• Robert Bhatia What can we learn from other problems that we have solved or partially solved? For example, smoking. We have changed a lot. All kinds of measures were taken – taxes, pricing, urban design (rules about no smoking), regulation, etc. Yes, some still smoke. And I believe we will still have people in 2025 driving large SUVs. But let’s think about other problems and responses, and learn from them.

of 22

What Changes Could Alberta Make?

The moderator asked the experts to describe categories of change that Alberta’s Climate Change Action Plan should include. He asked that they consider government, industry, non-government organizations and consumers in their suggestions. The following list and discussion outline describes the ideas that emerged during this discussion. Note: Participants emphasized the need for a portfolio of approaches, that might include some (or all) of the following.

Change Category or Opportunity Considerations

Carbon capture and storage • Requires shared public/private investment in infrastructure

• Implement readiness immediately • Establish 2020 target • Alberta has an unusually favourable combination

of point sources and reservoirs • Work with industry. Industry agreements may be

the way to achieve this.

Technologies for efficient extraction • Sustainable Development Technology Canada lists and business cases

• Reduce water use, reduce CO2 emissions

Next generation bio-fuels • Use of higher revenue feedstocks (mustard seed, wood waste)

• Development of biofuel processing at both large and small scale

• Current research and business case available

Transportation • Eliminate older (less efficient) vehicles • More emphasis upon public transit • Remove disincentives (e.g. fuel tax exemption)

Cap and trade/carbon price • Carbon price is essential to success • Using tax/penalties to discourage “bads” • Establish cap on carbon emissions • Emission trading should be international • Financing and cross-border coordination are

important requirements • You can address concerns about wealth transfer

to other countries

Information/education • Compare directly with Denmark: show an Alberta family and their equivalent in Denmark

• Direct tie to economic cost of inefficient products or approaches (e.g. pay up front for lifetime of energy for a product)

of 22

Change Category or Opportunity Considerations

• Provide lifecycle information with product/process to show full economic and environmental costs

Energy efficiency • Standards • Work with utilities so that they can make money

by selling energy efficiency • Address desire for lower cost in the short-term

versus requirement for energy efficiency in the long term

Offsets • Need for baseline and monitoring to ensure that offset investment is helping global GHG

• Works better at larger scale (i.e. rarely a local solution)

• Pricing is an important consideration • Barriers must be addressed

Regulations and monitoring •

Buildings and infrastructure • Energy conservation and efficiency • Combine mitigation and adaptation

Renewable energy • Distributed energy sources for greater security and adaptability

• Fair price

Adaptation • Regardless of how you manage climate change, this is imperative

• Adaptation preceded the climate change discussions

• Alberta has specific adaptation issues such as drought, forest management, and road management

Notes: Financial issues (availability of seed capital, angel investors) are important barriers and worthy of mention in the plan. The plan should define outcomes (ends) versus policy tools (means). Discussion

• Marlo Raynolds Implement carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) immediately. We have a scale of point sources and reservoirs that is perfectly aligned. The ten largest point sources account for 70 megatonnes of carbon emissions. Just those ten would make a huge difference, a massive possibility for Alberta. Timing: Don’t build another coal power facility or oil sands facility that is not ready for carbon capture. Others should be transitioned to CCS. Implement readiness immediately. Target 2020.

• Vicky Sharpe Implement more efficient technologies for extracting oil or gas that reduce water use, reduce CO2 emissions – a toolbox of solutions. There are opportunities to collaborate on a technology fund. There are fast track opportunities. Enable industry to act: we can provide a list of Alberta companies already invested. Business cases are

of 22

on our web site. They are market sensitive, market driven—more than a road map. We received $500 million to work with the private sector to build plants to produce next generation bio-fuels. This is suited to Alberta. Produce renewable fuels and co-products with high values.

• Frede Cappelen CCS is a good choice for Alberta. The price of carbon is a factor. There has been a CO2 tax in Norway since 1991 which has made it viable for businesses to go into CCS. However, nowadays I don’t recommend a carbon tax: I think emissions trading is a better alternative. The problem with the tax is that you may not use the money for anything useful. Trading provides an opportunity to circulate capital within the system to those who are least wasteful. You can also use income from the price of gas at the pump for emission reduction projects (Switzerland does this).

• Lester Lave Video a typical Danish family vs. a typical Alberta family so that Albertans can see the difference. It makes sense to tax the “bads” - air pollution, CO2 – a carbon tax says “do less of that.” Don’t try to pick the best technologies. Suggestion: when you sell a product, sell the lifetime of energy the product will use, as part of the price. The right choices would be self evident and standards would not be required. Its outrageous but feasible.

• John Drexhage Consider the signal you need to send. Trading provides industry with an opportunity to be flexible, to make investments elsewhere that may be viable. Regarding concerns about wealth transfer e.g. to Russia, there are ways to address that rather than shutting off offsets. Oil and gas opportunities are in Russia, Nigeria, Ukraine where infrastructures are inefficient, with high methane leakage in Russia. Carbon price is required for serious beginnings of CCS. Set clean fuel standards, especially for coal. Hear from power generation industries, what are the issues in establishing standards?

• Diane Wittenberg California puts emphasis upon the customer perspective. If you want to supply to our markets, then your coal plants have to be CCS ready: the coal has to be gasified.

• Lewis Milford CCS, gasification, has to be on the table. Need a way to do it, a way to commercialize it. Pricing alone will not drive innovation and turn technology over. We need a whole suite of technology policies, different financing arrangements, cross-borders, efficiencies in collaboration. We need discussion of technology policy issues and financing arrangements. Show some leadership and work with industry to establish clear dates, commercialization strategies, financing strategies, and bring the companies along that are currently on the fringes. “Technologies aren’t chosen for efficiency. They are efficient because they are chosen.”

• Gord Lambert Structure the plan to distinguish between ends and means. Emissions trading is a tool, not the silver bullet to achieve outcomes. An emissions trading market will not drive solutions by itself. We should select “opportunity wedges” (see reference in Gord’s earlier comments) and define them in the plan: for instance, carbon capture and storage target and roadmap. Agreements amongst parties defining how costs and benefits are shared are a time honoured tool providing certainty for parties. Other

of 22

opportunities are renewable energy, buildings, and infrastructure. Vehicle and appliance efficiency standards may also be opportunities.

• Paul Boothe Eliminate the exemption of fuel tax for farmers, forestry and mining. Vehicle emissions are an area where regulation is probably the best tool. China has tougher regulations than we do. When vehicles are registered annually, you can levy an emissions charge of “x$” per tonne. Manufacture date and odometer reading would make this tool sensitive to the type of vehicle and how much it’s driven. Use the revenue to subsidize transit, inter city high speed rail. It is better to have a suite of things and do them all at once, rather than snip away one piece at a time.

• Leon Clarke It’s important in terms of carbon value that it be pervasive and explicit. Have a value throughout the economy not just sector specific. It doesn’t have to just be a carbon price. Other options are available and can be worthwhile, for example building standards. Take a portfolio approach. Technology development will respond to market conditions, but it also requires other efforts to address market failures in markets for innovation. CCS has potential to be a huge player in the long-term. Needs a strategic element beyond carbon value. Bio-tech may also be a good candidate.

• Gord Lambert CCS in Alberta is beyond climate change. A more compelling business case emerges when you ask how to develop this resource in a carbon constrained future for the long-term. It’s a vast resource and it requires enabling investments.

• Frede Cappelen Capital intensive technologies require something beyond carbon price. Collaboration between government and industry is needed to establish these technologies. We are working hard in Europe to get an emissions ready system to acknowledge reductions from CCS activities. You need to work on market mechanisms to create a value that supports the initial investment. Put political value on making CCS happen because we need more energy.

• Diane Wittenberg It is difficult to get polluting cars off the road. Energy efficiency is an important “wedge” and the cheapest way to reduce carbon. Utilities can help in improving energy efficiency, if their profitability is supported by energy efficiency. Utilities need to make money by selling energy efficiency. Energy efficiency should be at top of your priorities in the plan.

• David Sauchyn Adaptation is always low on the agenda. There’s an attitude that it’s a cop out to address adaptation to climate change. Humans have adapted always, instinctively. We can see the need for continuous adaptation: floods, droughts and storms still cause damage. GHG emissions just exacerbate the problem. Adaptation should be a policy imperative, not an option. Even eliminating GHG emissions will not change the momentum behind climate change that will challenge us for the foreseeable future. Adaptive capacity includes fiscal resources, technology, information and technical skills, natural capital and institutions. We have more of that in Alberta than anywhere in the world. But government needs to mobilize it. Agriculture, forestry and tourism are currently adapting at their own expense. There must be a portfolio of adaptation methods.

• Janet Peace Alberta clearly has an issue with long-term water supply and must put into place measures to adapt to climate changes. Offsets are an opportunity to significantly

of 22

reduce the cost of mitigation: the larger the scope and percentage of offsets allowed for compliance, the bigger savings. The trading system provides a price signal to other sectors and it helps industry rationalize implementation. The broader the market for offsets the better the results will be: don’t try to limit trading to Alberta.

• Vicky Sharpe Alberta will require international money, so you need to stand out as the jurisdiction that merits investment. Mobilize capital and invest in small companies lacking capacity. You need to promote a low carbon society: provide a document to investors.

• Marlo Raynolds To enable CCS, you have to work on a monitoring and regulatory framework that specifies performance expectations. Adaptation and mitigation are not mutually exclusive. There are opportunities to bring them together. No reason we can’t have efficient buildings that are also adaptive to extreme weather. The same applies to renewable energy: the grid would be more stable from extreme weather if the energy system is distributed. We need to ensure we get a fair price for renewable sources that captures the environmental price. Offsets are useful in theory, but there are significant barriers. The main one is credibility: is it truly an offset? to what? What’s the baseline? Is the offset system the best way to get to better energy efficiency, renewal energy, etc.? Consider that first.

• Janet Peace With respect to the credibilitiy of offsets, I agree that some are more problematic than others but inclusion of offsets in a cap and trade program reduces the cost of mitigation and I do know that if it’s cheaper, we can do more. And while I agree there are problems with some types of offsets, these can be dealt with. One way to do this is to be conservative in what counts and another is to utilize a standards approach where policy simply says what is “additional” and what isn’t. Further, these categories and offset standards can be reviewed over time and adjusted as practices and technologies come into common usage. Pew has two reports coming out in the very near term that demonstrates that the inclusion of offsets dramatically reduces the cost of a cap and trade program.

• John Drexhage What are the barriers to CCS standards for Alberta? What is the fiscal policy to bridge the gap so such a standard does not threaten the current de-regulated utility environment in Alberta? Land use makes a huge contribution to GHG emissions. Developing countries need to know how to deal with deforestation. The pressure to cap global GHG at 450 ppm is building. 550 ppm is the absolute limit that many countries would not want to exceed. Alberta must develop capacity to make changes. The clean development mechanism enables countries to grow with environmental benefits.

• Marlo Raynolds The recent push for offsets has not recognized “additionality” rules for CDM. [Editor: the additionality rule states that the offset project must demonstrate that its effects are additional to those that would have been achieved in the baseline scenario. The CDM, or Clean Development Mechanism, establishes the credibility of the offset project as certified by the host country.] Apply these rules and [ENGOs will support offsets]. We need evidence of a real reduction. We are not against CDM or offsets if they can prove additional benefits.

of 22

Potential Innovations

Albertans supported improvements within six categories. Experts were asked to consider and discuss what innovations or approaches would lead to significant improvements in reducing climate change risk or adapting to climate change consequences and to indicate if this has been successfully applied to an actual situation, and where. Energy Conservation and Efficiency

• Vicky Sharpe Consider community-based conservation programs that look at energy use for an entire community. Using communications, education in schools and local media, the word spreads easily and builds enthusiasm. Because people are doing it themselves and it affects them directly, they buy in. I can provide you with an example that I was involved in that received 80% participation. A substantial amount of energy was saved; local contractors were trained in assessments and energy efficiency technologies, and the methods were matched to the community.

• Lester Lave 1. Demand-side management. USA utilities were ordered to have a conservation program and were then paid for what they had done. The energy savings were audited, so it’s real. 2. Walmart sells compact fluorescents at cost to refurbish their image. Other companies will be interested in energy efficiency as a way to improve their image. 3. CAFÉ standard for vehicles did not work well. CAFÉ standard set the manufacturer against the consumer since gasoline prices have been too low. Standards have to also meet consumer demand. Politicians use standards as a tool as they are invisible vs. raising fuel prices.

• Lewis Milford System benefit charge on electrical distribution companies to generate efficiency funds. Use the funds for efficiency upgrades. Massachusetts used this approach to fund $120 million for energy efficiency programs, residential commercial and industrial. Build baseline standard then put in standards in building codes that get tougher and tougher.

• Leon Clarke DSM (demand side management) programs and efficiency standards for buildings were both perceived as effective and positively perceived. CAFÉ has had opposition from car companies.

• John Drexhage Energy efficiency is a huge untapped resource. Part of the education required is to make sure people are aware it is a resource as tangible as coal or oil or water. Try to tangibly show people what wasting energy translates into (a lump of coal, pool of water). Alberta – how does DSM fit into privatized utilities? How do you get the private sector to deliver in terms of environmental requirements?

• Marlo Raynolds Community energy plans at the municipal level. Engage in thinking about current and projected needs for energy. Then make sure financing mechanisms are there for investment and retrofits and that trades people are available. Bring trades people up to speed on energy efficient methods and products. Pilot and demonstrate net zero homes.

• Minister Renner We have been asked by the public to introduce net metering, smart meters, and variable rates for power. Do you have any experience that might help?

of 22

• Vicky Sharpe Net metering is not cost effective as way to put power back into the grid. The meters are expensive.

• Paul Boothe Peak load pricing is used in several countries. People heat water at night during low rates and heat their houses with it during the day. It can work. You need infrastructure at household level to take advantage.

• Janet Peace Natural gas is used for peak loads in Alberta so peak load pricing that reduces peak generation results in greater use of the baseload which is coal (as a consequence – Alberta uses more coal and not less).

• Frede Cappelen Have to think through schemes before putting them in place. Need for structure or infrastructure to be in place. Government often has to provide seed money for equipment.

• Lester Lave Net metering in the U.S. means the meter spins back and forth at the same cost despite the time of day. This is the worst idea since the resource is priced differently at different times of the day. Niagara-Mohawk is one utility that has a system in place with real time pricing. Although the cost of meters is low, the cost of installing smart meters is very expensive in places like California. Shifting use from peak times would be very effective (even 7%). Real time meters could then just go to big users. California is putting smart meters in everywhere; but they don’t need to do that. For every new residence in Alberta there should be a smart meter. Retrofitting is more expensive $3-400.

• Paul Boothe Economic efficiencies don’t necessarily translate to energy efficiencies. They are two different things but sometimes get mixed up by the public.

• Lester Lave You can increase efficiency by shifting load from high demand to low demand hours. This enables utilities to buy more baseload plants and fewer peakers. This should also lower CO2 emissions since you would never put CCS on peakers.

Renewable and Alternative Energy Sources and Technologies

• Marlo Raynolds - Storage opportunities and technologies to enable intermittent and small scale energy systems need to be part of the electrical supply system. We need to provide confidence that Alberta is open to business for renewable energy suppliers.

• Frede Cappelen – It is a good idea to have a comprehensive approach: both CCS and visible demonstrations of renewable energy are needed. This can create sustainable acceptance with people beyond government.

• Gord Lambert – 1. There are limitations to the potential to use nuclear as a source for oil sands. The steam is generally needed at remote locations. The oil sands is not short of electricity, it is actually exporting energy to the grid with co-generation. Nuclear may be a solution that may not match the problem. 2. Geo-thermal (dry rock geo-thermal) gains energy from heat exchange at 5-7000 metres depth. It requires deep drilling. Several projects are demonstrating its feasibility. Keep geo-thermal on the table, it could be transformational.

• Lester Lave – A lot of things should be on the table, including nuclear and geo-thermal. In the end, they will compete in the market. It’s worthwhile for government to spend R&D dollars to investigate. At the moment, it looks like CCS will be cheaper than

of 22

nuclear. Look for the technology that has the least cost, after accounting for air pollution and CO2 emissions, since that has the least penalty to the economy.

• Minister Morton – We export wood pellets to mix with coal in Europe. In Europe, they get credit for that. Forestry is interested in applying this technology here.

• Lester Lave – There is a wood chip plant in New Hampshire feeding electricity generation. It buys woodchips for fuel at $45/ton – not as cheap as coal, but not bad. It is cheaper than the alternatives since there is a renewable portfolio standard. Pelletizing woodchips for burning in small stoves is very clean burning and costs half as much as fuel oil. As a renewable alternative for home heating, it looks very attractive to the north eastern United States which is dependent on fuel oil for heating homes.

• Diane Wittenberg – Wood chips are gold for a renewable energy portfolio. Some states are thinking of raising percentage of energy which comes from renewable sources to 30%. They are also talking about offset credits.

• Vicky Sharp Ethanol from prairie grass also makes a lot of sense, if processing costs can be brought down. Department of Energy is financing several projects. Liquid fuels are more valuable than gaseous and solid fuels. Need to make the transformation to liquid fuels from renewable sources. One of the ways to make yourself carbon neutral or carbon negative. It may not be viable for Alberta but keep an eye on it.

Information and Education

• Paul Boothe Societies can change (drinking and driving campaign). To educate Albertans, we need “killer” facts. Show us the implications of climate change for Alberta. For example, by 2020 there will be a 24% reduction in moisture in Alberta, followed by a 50% reduction over the long-term. That fact needs to be translated into reality for agriculture. It will have an instant effect on Albertans and will require a complete change in agriculture in the province. We will need to mitigate. From the Stern report comes another “killer fact”: per capita average of emissions worldwide is 7.2 tonnes; in Canada its 24 tonnes, in Alberta its 72 tonnes. The world needs to be at 3.7 tonnes per person if we want to stay below 550 ppm CO2. These facts illustrate the challenge and wake people up. Frame the issue in a way that people understand we must go big.

• Marlo Raynolds A youth education program can influence if it is properly designed. Children influence their parents. It is a targeted and strategic investment.

• John Drexhage UK has a community-based program based on adaptation. Wonderful mechanism for education. The adaptation program led to development of a community-based mitigation program. Engage the community. Caution about using panic mode. There appears to be a malaise about our current high standard of living—that it doesn’t give us everything we need. Now is the time to take advantage of that. Push the fact that reducing carbon emissions will enhance quality of life.

• Frede Cappelen – Education should be translated to engagement. Get people to reflect on what they are doing even in their own homes, raise their concern about their footprint. Norway has such a program. The program is supported by the government’s ambition level which is high. Government of Alberta should look at its own activities and reduce to show the way. It signifies this is serious stuff and demonstrates commitment.

of 22

• David Sauchyn – Tools and mechanisms won’t be effective or adopted unless there is behaviour change – not just the public - even amongst our colleagues. There are misconceptions. For example, that Canada has a lot of water, but the water we use comes from precipitation – we access only 2.5% of the reported global resource. Another misconception: our environmental is stable. We are only looking at it from a 50 year perspective in Alberta (since Leduc #1). We may face huge swings in climate in the future regardless. If you think education is expensive, try the alternative. The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance. These sayings also apply to adaptation.

• Gord Lambert Information and education is one tactic toward positive engagement. We need to shift from awareness and understanding to action and engagement. All are part of the problem, all need to be a part of the solution. In order to obtain engagement we need to move from negative visioning language to positive. For example, negative visioning involves avoidance of catastrophic consequences, or “deep cuts” in emissions. Martin Luther King talked about racism from the perspective of “I have a dream” not “I have a nightmare.” In a business example, imagine a company whose vision statement is “avoidance of bankruptcy.” While it might reflect reality it does not inspire people to engage. I also see the “wedge” model as a way of talking about climate change in an optimistic and positive manner. It is opportunity-oriented vs. pain-oriented.

• Diane Wittenberg – Walk the talk. Government/agencies must reduce. Make personal challenges to legislators.

• John Drexhage – Leadership is critical. Governor of California has disproved the theory that climate change is a political loser. This will require tremendous focus: a team approach, technologies and consumers working together. Be forthright and committed – do it.

• Janet Peace About half of the states now have public benefit funds that support energy efficiency investments. In addition, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the northeastern U.S. is setting up an emission trading system that will be up and running by 2009. This program has required that participating states auction at least 25% of the allowances in the program to support public benefit purposes – which includes energy efficiency. Interestingly, 5 of the 10 states participating have decided to auction all of their allowances. In these states, there will be no grandfathering of electricity and they will need to buy all of their allowances.

• Diane Wittenberg California is taking a similar route with public benefit funds. However, a proposal to put a tax on fuel was defeated.

• Vicky Sharpe In the UK, they have used fees to build a carbon trust. 75% of fund is used for energy efficiency.

• Lester Lave Al McGartland1 of the US Environmental Protection Agency has been studying the economic ways of giving incentives to improve environmental quality, from taxes to tradable allowances. He examined water allocation in the west, and the effect of taxes, and putting a price on it. Note that giving allowances to certain people is fraught with the risk that the allocation will be seen as political favouritism. Cap and

1 Director, US EPA, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation

of 22

trade is a good idea for stationary plants; taxation is better for cars. When you tax “bad” behaviour, you should offset each dollar collected with lower taxes on wages, corporate profits, payroll taxes, etc.

• Lewis Milford There is a major gap in designing financial tools to address commercializing technologies like CCS. We need to think about different structures to address the risks: technical and financial and related. Solutions: possible subsidies, guarantees. No one has seriously looked at this. Financial structure challenge is inherent in these infrastructure challenges.

• Vicky Sharpe 1. Don’t use incentives if you can regulate low level output (efficiency). Stringent regulations in California have benefited the economy – health benefits, full life cycle, etc. Mitigate negative impacts of not doing right thing. 2. Focus on deployment of technologies. Return on investment and marketable products are important. 3. Investment: accelerated capital cost allowance could be applied to clean technologies. 4. BC model for investment in small companies. Tax benefits for small companies, encourage more capital investment.

Economic Tools

• Frede Cappelen Increased cost for efficient production has not scared away national companies. CCS was developed through R&D research, with the cost and effort shared by man, spreading confidence. Industry has adapted to cost level. Emissions trading is more efficient than taxes at stimulating changes. Use capital for emissions reduction to provide incentives for increased efficiency, rather than putting money into a pension fund from oil revenues.

• Minister Renner How can you buy offsets that allow you to buy into technology? Are you paying offsets into a technology fund?

• Frede Cappelen and Diane Wittenberg Norway put a tax on CO2 . Industry wanted to trade offsets instead. They agreed that the difference between the CO2 tax and the cost of emission credit purchases would be put into a national fund.

• Paul Boothe You could also generate revenue for technology if you auction permits rather than giving them out.

• Dave Sauchyn UK shifted agriculture incentives from economic to stewardship and environmental solutions. Agricultural contribution to economy in Alberta is declining, however, in southern half of Alberta, most resources are owned by farmers. They have high potential to store soil carbon. We need to bring farmers into the climate change solution (for both mitigation and adaptation), in coordination with the federal government. Best suggestion: Alberta Environment should link the Water for Life strategy and emerging Land Use Framework to Climate Change.

• Marlo Raynolds Tax changes are related to the royalty review process. A tax on carbon encourages industry to manage its own royalties. We need practical, small examples of economic tools. We need to consider barriers such as local improvement charges: local municipalities could tie energy efficiency to local improvement charges so financing goes beyond current owner of property for financing renewable energy.

• John Drexhage Fiscal measures – what can they do to leverage investment? Bring in measures that stimulate the action you want. Broaden provisions in terms of exemption

of 22

for environmental investments. There is lots of interest from pension funds. 2. Can’t call it a carbon tax. Need to make it part of pricing. Be careful of messaging.

• Gord Lambert: Timing is poor for an emissions credit auction. There are too many policy changes going on right now, such as the royalty review that affect the fiscal planning for oil and gas. Don’t impose more cost uncertainty.

Considering the possibility…

1. Experts were asked to consider the following statement, using the “PMI” technique developed by Edward DeBono.

Alberta commits to be a world leader in carbon capture and storage.

The following responses are sorted into three categories: plus (something good about this); minus (something bad about this), and interesting (related factors or consequences).

Plus Alberta is the ideal place for it to work – 10 big emitters and best geology Leverages our core competencies Big potential reduction in short period of time, provincially, nationally and globally Competition will bring the cost down quicker Enables oil sands expansion Makes Alberta a visible part of the global solution Greening of oil sands Political leverage nationally and internationally

Minus Will be more difficult over the longer term Storage locations are remote from source Competition from other jurisdictions Public perception concerns re groundwater contamination, gas escape Disincentive to energy conservation Long term liability

Interesting May stimulate global competition for carbon and CCS technology Cost may go down May nurture more dependence on coal – leaving oil for higher use Allows coal reserves to be explored in future (coal as a sustainable energy resource) Effect on nuclear reliance? More use of coal would discourage nuclear, particularly in third world countries

of 22

2. Next, the participants were asked for their response to the following question:

What are the worst actions Alberta could take? The answers are listed in the order they emerged….they remain a brainstorm list and have not been sorted into priority order.

• Allow emissions to increase until 2020. • Continue to do what has been done so far. Do nothing different. • Discredit CCS (make CCS a bad solution). • Erode public support for development of oil sands. • Support very low or very high price for carbon. • Create unrealistic expectations. • Deny/avoid big issues related to oil sands. • Rely on public fear for motivation (rather, learning and education is solution). • Trade-off between energy and other activities. • Deny urgency. • Have a weak action plan. • Have a great plan but don’t deliver. • Don’t support implementation. • Lose investor confidence (government will need private sector capital). • Undermine market competitiveness of oil and gas and other sectors in Alberta (by

using punitive policy). • Create uncertainty for operators and investors. • Create uncertainty around GHG reductions. • Focus on one sector, rather than all. • Focus on one solution (CCS). • Have a massive “shopping list” with no clear priorities or accountabilities. • Don’t monitor results. • Create a bureaucracy around climate change. • Have no clear leadership team responsible for climate change. • No inter-departmental/inter-governmental coordination or buy in. • Premier does not make this a top priority. • Tie this issue to high level leadership: You’ll gain profile, but leader will be too busy

to implement. • Continue perception of abundant resources with no constraints (water, land,

energy). • Decouple growth from water and energy (i.e. we can grow without limitations or

problems…) • Don’t work with other governments. • No coalitions. • Make it a net transfer of funds to Ottawa.

of 22

Best Ideas

Each expert was asked to write down two key ideas that Alberta should include in its climate action plan. These ideas were handed in near the end of the meeting, but were not shared or discussed.

Review existing policies and practices to reduce or eliminate things that encourage energy consumption and carbon emissions, e.g. off-road fuel subsidies, car allowances, subsidized parking.

Robert Bhatia Deputy Minister Alberta Finance

Explore ways to shift some of the cost of reducing carbon emissions in energy production to consumers, e.g. if US wants secure energy supplies and low carbon fuel (California), how do they incent Alberta to produce it for them. How do we exploit the opportunity?

Have an energy label on all energy-using products that tells the lifetime cost of buying and using that product, e.g. automobiles, refrigerators, air conditioners. Examples: Automobile label: 15 mpg for 150,000 miles requires 10,000 gallons of $5/gallon fuel = $50,000. Refrigerator label: 20 kwh/day over 15 years (20x365x15) = 109,500 kwh at $0.10/kwh = $10,950. This is much better than just the mpg or kwh/day.

Lester B. Lave Professor, Economics Harvard University

Make a poster and video of a typical Danish and Canadian family – a typical day and the energy they use: residence, transport, products, etc. The video would show where and how they live, travel, etc. along with the energy implications – how does the Danish family use half the energy of the Canadian family?

Think big. Set a long-term absolute GHG target (2020). Implement strategies and milestones to reach the target.

Diane Wittenberg, President California Climate Action Registry

Set high performance targets for improving mining technology over time. Establish strong rewards and penalties e.g. a carbon tax that is forgiven if performance targets are reached.

Lewis Milford, President Clean Energy Group

Develop a process to create a set of technology and finance options to accelerate commercialization of carbon capture and storage technologies. And do so in collaboration with other country partners through a product-oriented focus, e.g. develop a time line to get these technologies in place, with a financial structure that makes sense. We have some ideas on how to structure this collaboration – a “distributed innovation” process that could bring in global partners. We would be happy to help structure or to suggest such a collaboration.

of 22

Create a seriously funded centre to bring together experts to develop a low carbon “technology policy track” that could complement any cap and trade system (beyond CCS). These policies and processes could be supported by the offsets fund. These policies could include GHG performance standards, mandates and so forth.

Wedges: Develop/adopt an Alberta “wedge” model (note: one wedge is the intensity-based targets for large emitters). For each wedge, set outcome-based targets and medium/long-term goals, i.e. xx tonnes CO2 captured by 20xx; xx MW of wind by 20xx. Create structure to operationalize each wedge, i.e., task forces: – clarity of mandate – resources – “make it happen” - identify/remove barriers – recommend

actions.

Gord Lambert, VP, Sustainable Development Suncor Energy Inc.

CCS World Leader: Actively pursue CCS, including - requirement for new plants to be CCS-ready - develop an optimum scheme for maximum social, economic

and environmental value - establish an entity to move this forward.

1. Measured pace of resource development. - If private firms owned oil sands, they would not develop this

fast. - The inflation we cause drives up costs and reduces royalties

to Albertans. - Slower pace will allow us to benefit from future technology to

reduce emissions.

Paul Boothe Professor, Economics University of Alberta

2. Regulate vehicle emission standards for new vehicles. - Charge for emissions from existing fleet of cars when vehicles

renew registration. - Use revenue to subsidize public transit/high-speed rail, etc.

Marlo Raynolds Executive Director Pembina Institute

1. CCS: - Require all new approvals for large (100,000+) point source

facilities to be CCS ready, and by 2020 to be using CCS. - For existing facilities, that by 2020 they are either CCS retro-

fitted or CCS equivalent performance.

of 22

2. Comprehensive set of standards, regulations and programs that lead to the highest level of energy efficiency standards in North America, including: - building codes (commercial and residential); - transit investments/urban planning; - appliance/furnace standards; - demonstrate “net zero energy” homes; - California-level fuel efficiency standard for vehicles; - retrofit program, targetted at low income homes and others

with target 60% of building stock improved by 30-50% - train the trades;

- complete community energy plans for all municipalities; - public benefit charge for DSM; - pass an Alberta Energy Efficiency Act.

3. Renewable Energy: Principle: Ensure a fair price is paid for renewable energy including the environmental value of RE

- train the trades people; - feed in tariffs; - develop power storage systems; - solar hot water roof program (big opportunity for Alberta).

1. Initiate an effort to take leadership in CCS. Anonymous

2. Construct a strategy that incorporates both (1) measures to reduce emissions in the short and medium term and (2) a strategic technology component (R&D, deployment, demonstration, etc.)

1. Climate change and impact scenarios should inform all public policy and related decision making processes; planned adaptation is a component of sustainable economic development and enabling policy: Water for Life, Land Use Framework, Environmental Farm Planning, Forest Management Plans, Infrastructure renewal …

Dave Sauchyn Professor Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative

2. Invest in education and communication strategies to drive behavioural change and dispel myths, misconceptions and misinformation. Give Alberta the Adaptation Advantage, the competitive advantage of a robust, resilient economy.

1. Governmental engagement with industry to arrive at large scale deployment of CCS. Enable through demonstration projects, infrastructure, etc. having industry make the necessary investments. Goes together with engagement to increase development and increased deployment of renewable energy.

Frede Cappelen Special Advisor Statoil

2. Engaging local communities to limit environmental and carbon footprint – combined with incentive programs from Province.

of 22

Carbon Trading Program. Long-term goal

- with short term performance standards that are tradeable;

- inclusion of offsets. Goal: Certainty for capital investment. Note: not the only policy needed.

Janet Peace Senior Research Fellow Pew Center

Transparent Systems-Benefit Charge to fund energy efficiency improvements. Goal: Engage the public; fund energy efficiency improvements.

1. Financial instruments – the whole range - enable consumer investments; - build companies; - mobilize technologies to market; - attract more investment.

Vicky Sharpe President & CEO Sustainable Development Technologies Canada

2. Bio-based economy: Move toward bio-refineries via bio-fuels (next generation only)

Using fiscal measures to leverage clean investments from hedge/pension funds.

John Drexhage Director, Climate Change and Energy IISD System benefits charges.

Additional Comments

• Diane Wittenberg – Keep in mind it’s a global issue. Don’t try to solve this matter entirely within your own plan or your own borders.

• Frede Cappelen Consider Alberta’s relationship with other provinces, the federal government and internationally. Strategy is about how Alberta wants to appear to the rest of the world and their relationship with other governments.

• Lewis Milford There will be more emphasis on sub-national cooperative efforts around technologies, new structure, frameworks being created with opportunities to be involved (CCS).

• Minister Renner We want to control our own destiny in Alberta. We also recognize our role and want to do the right thing. We are making a concerted effort to get ahead of the federal government, we want to lead by example and to be able to say we’ve dealt with this issue, no need to interfere.

• Marlo Raynolds We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Look at partnerships with those who have been successful elsewhere.

• Gord Lambert It’s easy to default to a “siege” mentality. We have world scale resources – we also need a world class view of who we partner with and the outcomes to be achieved. Be outward-looking to world class organizations, best practices and knowledge—and operate at that calibre. Once solution-oriented, even critics will move to help you make things happen. Get out of the defensive mode.

of 22

• Minister Morton It’s also about money. Government is concerned about the net transfer of provincial revenue out of Alberta. Significant new net transfer of funds out of Alberta will create a backlash. Negative impacts of hydro carbon development – most environmental damage happens in Alberta – we want to be able to use our dollars to mitigate the damage in Alberta.

• Lester Lave Identify risks of continuing business as usual (2-page memo). • Frede Cappelen: If Alberta could be a global leader on CCS - really able to provide

solutions for other countries – that is a most promising option. Alberta will also get acknowledgement for the effort, to develop and build confidence and acceptance.

• Gord Lambert Governance, EUB, capacity to develop regulations to manage that activity. Helping to transfer a lot of the competencies we’ve built up in addition to the technical.

Closing Comments

The Honourable Rob Renner, Minister of Environment, responded to the thoughts and ideas that had emerged during the day. He came into the day with high expectations and they were met. He felt the experts solidified some of the issues heard from Albertans and pointed out useful direction to consider. There was plenty of food for thought about potential roadblocks, barriers.

“My thanks to you all. Alberta is committed to action. I am optimistic we will deal with this issue and be stronger because we have chosen to deal with it. This discussion has been a significant step in the development of our action plan.”

Attachment 1

Attachment 1: Attendance at the Meeting

Experts (see complete bios in attachment 2)

Frede Cappelen Special Advisor, Corporate HSE, Environmental Policy, Statoil Leon Clarke Senior Research Economics, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Janet Peace Senior Research Fellow, Pew Center Diane Wittenberg President, California Climate Action Registry Vicky Sharpe President & CEO, Sustainable Development Technologies Canada Lester B. Lave Professor of Economics and Finance, Urban and Public Affairs,

Engineering and Public Policy, Harvard University Lewis Milford President of Clean Energy Group John Drexhage Director of IISD's Climate Change and Energy Program David Sauchyn Professor of Geography, Research Coordinator for the Prairie

Adaptation Research Collaborative and PARC/Manitoba Hydro Research Professor

Paul M. Boothe Professor of Economics, Fellow, Institute for Public Economics, University of Alberta

Gord Lambert Vice President, Sustainable Development, Suncor Energy Inc. Marlo Raynolds Executive Director, Pembina Institute for Sustainable Development

Government of Alberta Elected Officials Honourable Ron Renner Minister of Environment Honourable Ted Morton Minister of Sustainable Resource Development (2 hrs only)

Government of Alberta Staff Robert Bhatia Deputy Minister, Alberta Finance Dan McFadyen Deputy Minister, Alberta Energy Peter Watson Deputy Minister, Alberta Environment Bev Yee Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Stewardship Shannon Flint Section Head, Policy Integration, Alberta Environment Observers: Goldie Edworthy Section Head, Intergovernmental Relations, Alberta Environment Angela McGonigal Senior Advisor, Stakeholder Relations, Alberta Environment Don Macdonald Manager, National Climate Change, Alberta Environment Michelle Casorso Policy Research Analyst, Alberta Environment Andy Ridge Project Director Climate Change and Air, Alberta Environment Ron Stojanowski Environmental Education Coordinator, Alberta Environment Kim McLeod Public Affairs Officer, Alberta Environment Lisa Grotkowski Public Affairs Officer, Alberta Environment

Moderator and Note Taker Bill McMillan Principal, Defining Common Ground Carolyn Brandon Principal, E-Office Pro

Attachment 2 Page 1 of 7

Attachment 2: Biographies of Invited Experts

Frede Cappelen

Special Adviser, Corporate HSE, Environmental Policy, Statoil [email protected], 47 51 99 00 00 Frede Cappelen is a special advisor on environmental policy at the Corp Centre, in the HSE department, Statoil ASA. He has followed the climate change issue for many years, and has represented his company in several international organizations. Frede is a leading figure in the corporate world especially as a champion of carbon capture and storage. He was State Secretary in the Norwegian Minister of Environment from 1986-88. Frede was a lawyer of training from the University of Oslo in 1970 and served as an Assistant County Governor when he joined Statoil in 1983.

Leon Clarke

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [email protected], (301) 314 6738 Dr. Clarke is a Senior Research Economist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and he is a staff member of the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), a collaboration between PNNL and the University of Maryland at College Park. Dr. Clarke’s current research focuses on the role of technology in addressing climate change, scenario analysis, and integrated assessment model development. Dr. Clarke is the coordinator of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s ongoing emissions scenario development process, and he is a contributing author on the Working Group III contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Prior to joining PNNL, Dr. Clarke worked for RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc. (1990-1992), Pacific Gas & Electric Company (1992-1996), and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2002-2003). He was also a research assistant at Stanford’s Energy Modeling Forum (1999-2002), where he worked on issues related to technological change and integrated assessment modeling. Dr. Clarke received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering from U.C. Berkeley and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Engineering Economic Systems and Operations Research at Stanford University.

Janet Peace

Senior Research Fellow, Pew Center [email protected] 1-703-516-0602 Janet Peace is a Senior Research Fellow in the Economics Program at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. At Pew she serves as the in-house economist and together with the


Director of Policy Analysis coordinates the Center's research on the economic modeling of climate change policies. As part of this role, she provides quantitative analysis of policy proposals, assessing relative merits and dissecting underlying assumptions. She is also responsible for communicating these results to policy-makers, academic researchers and business leaders, by means of reports, briefings, and presentations. Prior to coming to the Pew Center, Dr. Peace was the Director of Offsets Development and Industry Relations with a Canadian non-profit group, Climate Change Central. Here she worked on issues related to implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, including the assessment of cost effective, alternative policies that were politically feasible for industry and all levels of government. Working with these stakeholders, she was a founding Chair of the National Offsets Quantification Team - an intergovernmental /industry group currently developing standardized offset quantification protocols for use in the Canadian offset system. In 2004, she was part of a team selected for a Premier’s Award of Excellence for recommendations associated with implementing an air emissions trading program for the Province of Alberta. To the climate change topic, Dr. Peace brings a spectrum of experience on environmental issues. She has been an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Calgary- teaching environmental and natural resource economics, a resource specialist with the U.S. General Accounting Office - working on air quality and resource development issues and a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey- assessing the mineral potential of wilderness study areas. Dr. Peace holds an MS and PhD in Resource (Mineral) Economics from the Colorado School of Mines and a BA in Geology from the University of Colorado.

Diane Wittenberg President, California Climate Action Registry [email protected], 213-891 1444 Diane Wittenberg is the President of the California Climate Action Registry, a non-profit corporation created by California legislation to register greenhouse gas emissions nationwide, to help create accounting standards for greenhouse gas inventories, and to work to reduce global warming. Ms. Wittenberg also has an expertise in the arena of electric vehicles and electric transportation policy. Prior to taking the helm at the California Climate Action Registry, Ms. Wittenberg was president of Edison EV and Edison Utility Alliances. She was also vice president of Edison International. Diane is currently or in the past has served on the Boards of EV Global Motors Company , Transmagnetics, the Thunderbird School of International Management in Glendale, Arizona, the International Women's Forum, the Women's Leadership Board at the Kennedy School of Government, Partners in Care Foundation, L. A. Women's Foundation, CORO Foundation, and CalStart. She was appointed as an Energy Commissioner for Los Angeles County and was honored as the recipient of the Clean Air Citizen Award from the Coalition for Clean Air in 1995. Ms. Wittenberg is a graduate of Monmouth College and attended graduate school at the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford Graduate School of Business Executive Program.


Vicky Sharpe President & CEO, Sustainable Development Technologies Canada [email protected], 613-234-6313 ext. 225 Vicky Sharpe is President and CEO of Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Previously, she was President of GRI Canada and Astral Group where she demonstrated leadership and vision in the use of innovative technologies in the energy sector. Dr. Sharpe has more than 20 years’ experience in the energy industry and, over the course of her multifaceted career, has successfully integrated sustainable development into business practices. She built an international business in the areas of energy efficiency and the environment while serving as Vice President of Ontario Hydro International. Prior to this, she was responsible for leading-edge marketing, business development and technology innovation in the industrial sector, serving in various management positions at Ontario Hydro. A recipient of the inaugural National Energy Conservation Association's Energy Efficiency Award for outstanding contributions to the energy industry, Dr. Sharpe has served as an international advisor on sustainability issues and represented the Canadian energy sector at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Forum. Dr. Sharpe has chaired several boards including the National Advisory Board on Energy, Science and Technology, and the Board of Directors of Clean Air Canada Inc. She co-chaired the City of Toronto's Sustainability Roundtable. Dr. Sharpe holds a B.Sc. Honours in Applied Biology (Co-op Program) from Bath University, U.K. She earned her Ph.D. in Microbiology and Chemistry from Trent University, U.K. where she spent five years as a doctoral researcher and lecturer.

Lester B. Lave University Professor and James Higgins Professor of Economics and Finance, Professor of Urban and Public Affairs, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy, PhD, Economics, Harvard University [email protected], 412-268-8837 Director, Carnegie Mellon Green Design Initiative; Co-Director, Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center In addition to being a professor of economics, Lester B. Lave is also a professor of engineering and public policy, director of the Carnegie Mellon Green Design Initiative and co-director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center. With expertise in economics and political economy, especially in environmental issues, Lave has special interest in applied economics, particularly identification and structuring public policy issues; deregulation of the electricity industry (market power, transmission, and ancillary services); environmental regulation; designing products and processes for the environment; nanotechnology; the value of information in testing toxic chemicals; rethinking regulation; automobile safety, emissions, and fuel economy; and pollution prevention. Lave's published papers include, "Evaluating Automobile Fuel/Propulsion System Technologies," "Predicting Human Carcinogenicity," "Market Power in Deregulated Wholesale Electricity Markets," and "Bolstering the Security of the Electric Power System."


Lewis Milford President of Clean Energy Group, a leading U.S.-based nonprofit advocacy organization working on innovative technology, finance, and policy programs for a variety of clean energy and climate change issues. Concord, MA 01742 [email protected] 802.223.2554 Clean Energy Group (CEG) is a non-profit organization dedicated to greater use of cleaner energy technologies, such as fuel cells and solar, in newly restructured energy markets. CEG was organized in January 1998. CEG promotes policies and programs that support replacement of the existing electricity generation system with new, less polluting clean energy technologies in the U.S. and abroad through creative financing, business partnerships, public policy and advocacy. Lewis Milford, president and founder of CEG, was formerly a vice-president of Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) and headed its energy project during the restructuring negotiations in New England. CEG works with nonprofit officials from around the U.S. that are responsible for over $3.5 billion in new clean energy funds. CEG now manages the Clean Energy States Alliance (CESA) (www.cleanenergystates.org), a new nonprofit organization assisting these funds in multi-state strategies. It also manages the Public Fuel Cell Alliance (PFCA), a new consortium of public fuel cell funders working to collaborate on fuel cell and hydrogen technologies. CEG also works with public officials in Europe interested in trans-Atlantic efforts to build clean energy markets. CEG is funded by the the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Surdna Foundation, The John Merck Fund, Oak Foundation, The New York Community Trust, Educational Foundation of America, and The Bullit Foundation.

John Drexhage John Drexhage is Director of IISD's Climate Change and Energy Program. With a team of 15 staff and associates across Canada and overseas, Mr. Drexhage’s work on climate change is based on 12 years of experience on the issue, first as a domestic advisor and international negotiator on climate change and then as an expert analyst and manager for IISD. Drexhage’s expertise covers a broad range of areas related to climate change, and he is currently focusing on regulatory frameworks for greenhouse gas emissions, post-2012 climate change regimes, market based instruments and more fully exploring linkages between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development. Drexhage is also a Leading Author with Working Group 3 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Prior to his current position with IISD, he was Associate Director, with the International Relations Directorate, (Environment Canada) coordinating the Government's policy positions in formal negotiations on climate change. Prior to this position in 1998, his other roles with Environment Canada in respect of Climate Change, included Manager Climate Change - International, Global Air Issues Branch and Senior Policy Advisor, Domestic Climate Change Program representing Environment Canada in federal- provincial negotiations on domestic actions on climate change.


Dr. Dave Sauchyn

Professor of Geography, Research Coordinator for the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative and PARC/Manitoba Hydro Research Professor

Dave Sauchyn is a Professor of Geography at the University of Regina, where he has been a faculty menber since 1983. Since July, 2000, he has been Research Coordinator for the Prairie Adaptation Research Collaborative (PARC) and since July, 2001, he has been the PARC-Manitoba Hydro Research Professor at the U of R. Dr. Sauchyn’s main research interest is in the climate of the past millennium in Canada’s western interior and what past climate can tell us about the climate to expect in the near future. He is involved in two National Centres of Excellence, the Sustainable Forest Management Network and the Canadian Water Network. He is a co-investigator in a five-year multi-disciplinary comparative study of institutional adaptation to climate change in northern Chile and the Canadian plains. He is also involved in an international training program in Rural Water Conservation in Chile. Dr. Sauchyn’s other international scientific activities include Canadian leader of International Geological Correlation Project #500, “Drylands Change: Past, Present and Future”. His international work has taken Dave to South Africa, Ukraine, Chile and throughout the US.

Among his many affiliations, Dr. Sauchyn is Past-President of the Canadian Quaternary Association and the Canadian Geomorphological Research Group, a national director of the Canadian Water Resources Association, a member of the national advisory committee for the Climate Change Impacts Scenarios project, and a Fellow of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society. In 2001, he received the John Warkentin Award for Scholarly Contributions of the Geography of the Western Interior and has been the Wiley / Royal Canadian Geographical Society Distinguished Guest Lecturer, the Kansas Academy of Science Distinguished Guest Speaker and the Owen Holmes lecturer at the University of Lethbridge.

Paul M. Boothe

Professor of Economics, Fellow, Institute for Public Economics, University of Alberta; PhD, University of British Columbia, 1981and BA (Honors), University of Western Ontario, 1976 [email protected], (780) 492-2989 Paul Boothe is Professor of Economics and Fellow, Institute for Public Economics at the University of Alberta. He served as Deputy Minster of Finance and Secretary to Treasury Board for the Province of Saskatchewan for 1999-2001 and Associate Deputy Minister of Finance and G7 Deputy for Canada for 2004-05. Dr. Boothe received his undergraduate training in economics at the University of Western Ontario and his doctoral degree from the University of British Columbia. Before joining the Economics Department at the University of Alberta, Dr. Boothe worked in the International Department of the Bank of Canada. He has held visiting positions at Queen’s University, University of Tasmania, and Alberta Treasury and has served as an advisor or consultant to federal and provincial government departments and international agencies.


His current research interests include fiscal relations between governments, government budgeting and public sector performance measurement. Dr. Boothe has authored or edited numerous books, articles and monographs, including: Tax Collection in Canada: Principles for Design, Prospects for Reform (with T. Snoddon, C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, 1994), The Growth of Government Spending in Alberta (Canadian Tax Foundation, 1995), Reforming Fiscal Federalism for Global Competition (University of Alberta Press, 1996), Finding a Balance: Renewing Canadian Fiscal Federalism (C.D. Howe Institute, 1998). Deficit Reduction in the Far West (University of Alberta Press, 2001), Eric Hanson's Financial History of Alberta: 1905-1950 (with H. Edwards, University of Calgary Press, 2003) and What Happened to Health Reform? (with M. Carson, C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, 2004).

Gord Lambert Vice President, Sustainable Development Suncor Energy Inc. Gord Lambert is Vice President, Sustainable Development. In this role, Gord directs Suncor’s environment, health and safety policies and works with senior management and external stakeholders to align and improve the company’s long-term financial, social and environmental performance. Prior to assuming this role in July 1997, Gord spent two years as Director, Sustainable Development for TransAlta Corporation and 15 years with a major Canadian integrated oil and gas company. He is involved with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development in support of its work on climate change and sustainable development within the business community. He is currently on the Boards of the Suncor Energy Foundation, Learning for a Sustainable Future (LSF), and NatureServe, which supports conservation efforts of governments and non-government organizations internationally. He is also a Canadian representative on the Joint Public Advisory Committee to the U.S., Canadian and Mexican Environment Ministers under NAFTA (The Commission for Environmental Cooperation). Gord is a current member and past director/treasurer of the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists. Gord graduated in 1980 from the University of Guelph with an honors bachelor of sciences degree majoring in biological science with a minor in economics.

Marlo Raynolds Dr. Raynolds is the executive director at the Pembina Institute, an independent, not-for-profit environmental organization. The Pembina Institute's major policy research and education programs are in the areas of sustainable energy, climate change, environmental governance, ecological fiscal reform, sustainability indicators, and the environmental impacts of the energy industry.


The Pembina Institute also provides advisory services to the corporate sector, First Nations, and municipalities. These services include comprehensive Life-Cycle Value Assessments; technology assessments; community energy planning; pre-project environmental and social issue scanning; customized software/web development; design-for-sustainability; leadership training; scenario planning; and strategic planning for sustainability. The multi-disciplinary team of over 40 professional staff at the Pembina Institute work from offices in Drayton Valley, Calgary, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Edmonton. Dr. Raynolds has worked with the Pembina Institute since 1995 in the development and practical application of triple-bottom-line decision-making tools, energy systems, and strategies for sustainability. Marlo has worked with a wide range of clients including many of the large Canadian energy companies. Marlo Raynolds is an adjunct professor of Sustainable Development at the Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary.

discussion notes from an expert panel held on june 8, 2007 at … · 2014-05-06 · discussion...

Documents