LINKING MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION GOALS IN
THE ENERGY SECTOR
A Case Study Synthesis Report
2015
A Case Study Synthesis Report
2
Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation
Resources (OCCIAR)
OCCIAR at MIRARCO (Laurentian University) is a
university-based resource hub for researchers and
stakeholders and provides information on climate change
impacts and adaptation. The Centre communicates the
latest research on climate change impacts and
adaptation, liaises with partners across Canada to
encourage adaptation to climate change and aids in the
development and application of tools to assist with
climate change adaptation. The Centre is also a hub for
climate change impacts and adaptation activities, events
and resources.
www.climateontario.ca
Yukon Energy Solutions Centre (ESC)
The Energy Solutions Centre is a branch of the Yukon
Government's Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources. The mandate of the branch is to encourage
improvements in energy efficiency and the adoption of
more forms of renewable energy. To accomplish this
mandate, the branch participates in the design of energy
policies, and delivers energy programs and projects that
enhance the environmental, economic and social
sustainability of the territory. Their clients consist of
Yukon citizens, other government departments, First
Nations, municipalities and businesses.
www.energy.gov.yk.ca
Authors:
Annette Morand
Community Adaptation Coordinator
OCCIAR
amorand@mirarco.org
Ryan Hennessey
Utilities Specialist
Energy Solutions Centre
ryan.hennessey@gov.yk.ca
Jeremy Pittman
PhD Candidate
University of Waterloo
Pittman17@hotmail.com
Al Douglas
Director
OCCIAR
adouglas@mirarco.org
Please cite this document as:
Morand, A., R. Hennessey, J. Pittman and A. Douglas. (2015). Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in
the Energy Sector: A Case Study Synthesis Report. Report submitted to the Climate Change Impacts and
Adaptation Division, Natural Resources Canada, 122p.
This project was made possible with the support from Natural Resources Canada through the
Adaptation Platform
1
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Climate Change Impacts on the Canadian Energy Sector ............................................................... 5
1.2 Exploring the Intersection of Adaptation and Mitigation ............................................................... 6
1.3 Defining Adaptation/Mitigation Actions in the Energy Sector ....................................................... 7
2.0 Overview of Adaptation/Mitigation Case Studies .............................................................................. 9
2.1 Canadian ......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 International ................................................................................................................................. 11
3.0 Co-Benefits ........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Reduced Competition for Resources ............................................................................................ 13
3.2 Reduced Influence of Uncertainty ................................................................................................ 14
3.3 Increased Harmonization of Project Outcomes ............................................................................ 14
3.4 Improved Social License ................................................................................................................ 15
4.0 Tools for Accessing Adaptation/Mitigation Co-Benefits ................................................................... 17
5.0 A Case for Linking Adaptation and Mitigation in the Energy Sector ................................................. 21
6.0 References ........................................................................................................................................ 24
APPENDIX A: Adaptation/Mitigation Case Studies ................................................................................. 27
A Case Study Synthesis Report
2
This page intentionally left blank.
3
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
LINKING MITIGATION AND
ADAPTATION GOALS IN THE ENERGY
SECTOR
A CASE STUDY SYNTHESIS REPORT
1.0 Introduction
Climate change, and the risks associated with it, is of increasing concern for the Canadian energy sector.
The sector is well positioned to respond to climate change, both through GHG mitigation and adaptation
to current and future risks. Climate change mitigation is important to limit the degree of climate change
as a whole, while adaptation is required to respond to current and future risks to energy. While either
approach can yield successful climate change risk reduction, when harmonizing adaptation and
mitigation, “responses can complement each other and together can greatly reduce the risks of climate
change” (IPCC, 2014). Interest in the nexus between adaptation and mitigation and exploring potential
synergies, or co-benefits, between the two approaches is growing (Pachauri & Reisinger, 2007).
The co-benefits of adaptation and mitigation have been more demonstrated in theory, and less is known
about how benefits appear in reality. Also, little has been published on how the energy sector
specifically can implement these two approaches and derive benefit. This research aims to identify and
evaluate opportunities to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation within the Canadian energy
sector. A compendium of 6 national and 5 international case studies have been developed that illustrate
how adaptation and mitigation activities can result in mutual co-benefits that promote the advancement
and attainment of both GHG reduction and adaptation resilience objectives.
This report introduces select climate change impacts on the Canadian energy sector, explains what
adaptation/mitigation actions look like in the energy sector, and discusses the intersection or ‘nexus’ of
adaptation and mitigation. We also summarize more broadly, the lessons learned from the co-benefits
evident in the 11 case studies to demonstrate ideas and concepts for integrating the two areas of
interest in practice.
The results are generally geared towards energy sector planners, engineers, and policy-makers and
provide general recommendations on how to improve the integration of adaptation and mitigation in
the Canadian energy sector. By establishing a basis from which to promote adaptation and mitigation
A Case Study Synthesis Report
4
co-benefits (or win-win solutions that reduce GHG emissions while enhancing resilience), this project
aims to improve the Canadian energy sector’s ability to generate a fulsome response to climate change.
1.1 Climate Change Impacts on the Canadian Energy Sector
Climate change is expected to lead to continued increases in temperature, region-specific variability in
precipitation and an increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather. More regional impacts
will include higher sea levels and storm surges, coastal erosion, droughts, permafrost thaw, increased
precipitation variability, and ice storms (Kenward & Raja, 2014; Romero-Lankao et al, 2014; Policy
Research Initiative, 2009; Lemmen et al, 2008). The cumulative impact of these stresses could lead to
decreased water availability and infrastructure stress, with resulting implications including service
interruptions across the entire energy system, including the oil and gas sector (Policy Research Initiative,
2009; Shaeffer et al, 2012). For example, hydropower is dependent on water availability, and therefore
the future of hydropower is highly dependent upon future changes in precipitation patterns and
extreme weather events (Dorner et al, 2013; Faust et al, 2014).
There is a significant economic cost to all sectors that goes along with the disruption of power stemming
from extreme weather, including lost output and wages, spoiled inventory, delayed production, as well
as inconvenience (US Executive Office of the President, 2013). Extended power outages can interrupt
the flow of clean water and solid waste removal from municipal water treatment facilities, cause
hospitals to lose power and access to clean water, and result in businesses having to close, affecting
sales and profitability (Kenward & Raja, 2014). Disruptions to the energy system can have significant
effects on other critical services such as communications, transportation and human health (Dorner et
al, 2013). To put this into perspective, the average annual cost of power outages caused by severe
weather in the United States is estimated to be between $18 and $33 billion per year, but can cost much
higher for years with record breaking storms. Superstorm Sandy, which struck the Eastern Seaboard of
the United States in 2012, cost the U.S. economy between $27 and $52 billion (US Executive Office of
the President, 2013).
In addition to addressing rising climate change vulnerability, the energy sector is currently struggling to
address issues like aging infrastructure, capitalizing on changing technologies, and meeting energy
demands of a growing population (Canadian Electricity Association, 2014). The Canadian electricity
sector is expected to invest $11 billion in infrastructure renewal each year for the next 20 years simply
to replace its existing assets (Canadian Electric Association, 2011a, 2011b), while the Conference Board
of Canada projects that an investment of $350 billion will be required for Canadian electricity
infrastructure between 2011 and 2030 (Baker et al, 2011; Canadian Electricity Association, 2011a; Coad
et al, 2011).
Aging infrastructure is more susceptible to climate change impacts and severe weather events (Davis &
Clemmer, 2014; US Executive Office of the President, 2013; Romero-Lankao et al, 2014). Studies show
that small increases in weather and climate extremes can result in large increases in damage to existing
5
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
infrastructure (Auld & MacIver, 2007). As a result, it is an opportune time for the energy sector to be
thinking about how to reduce its overall contribution to climate change (through mitigation efforts) and
increase its resilience to future climate impacts (through adaptation strategies).
1.2 Exploring the Intersection of Adaptation and Mitigation
To date, the energy sector has focused its attention on actions that
either mitigate GHG emissions or help the industry adapt; yet, there
is benefit in implementing strategies that accomplish both. A
number of actions undertaken to reduce GHG emissions can have
direct or indirect benefits that also increase the resilience of the
energy sector to help ensure safe, secure and uninterrupted energy
supply. Once established, these actions have mutual co-benefits and
can be a more cost-effective way to respond to climate change in the
energy sector.
A “co-benefit” is an additional
benefit beyond the initial
increases in resilience
(adaptation) and reductions in
GHG emissions (mitigation).
Policies, programs or projects
with co-benefits can be a more
cost-effective way to respond to
climate change in the energy
sector.
The adaptation/mitigation space is defined by those strategies that
harness the synergies between climate change adaptation and
climate change mitigation. These synergies emerge from technology
and resources, sound policy development, and access to credible
information and/or credible decision-makers (Yohe, 2001). The resilience of the energy sector can also
be improved by integrating adaptation and mitigation. Such activities can decrease the likelihood of a
risk or the severity of its consequences by working to improve the response of energy sector
infrastructure to environmental stresses while also improving its efficiency (McAllister, 2011; Jones et al,
2007). The resulting co-benefits, derived from the optimization of synergistic adaptation/mitigation
responses, can improve the ability of the energy sector to implement programs to respond to climate
change. The synergies between adaptation and mitigation therefore define the adaptation/mitigation
space while anticipated co-benefits that can be derived from it establish its value.
The value of these co-benefits to the energy sector to implement climate change solutions can be far
reaching. An extensive literature review resulted in the identification of four main co-benefits:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Reduced competition for resources both within the sector and with other land-users;
Reduced influence of uncertainty on policy development and project design;
Increased harmonization of project outcomes that achieves multiple ends; and
Improved social license for energy project implementation.
These co-benefits will be necessary to respond to the emerging challenges that must be addressed by
the energy sector in the coming decades. These decades, as described by Canadian Electricity
Association in their Vision 2050, will be transformative and require the Canadian energy sector to
address the multiple long-term objectives with limited resources (Canadian Electricity Association,
2014).
A Case Study Synthesis Report
6
Challenges of institutional complexities, varying perspectives, and insufficient opportunities could limit
any benefits that could emerge from the integration of adaptation and mitigation (Klein et al, 2005).
Such challenges will be exacerbated by increased competition between adaptation and mitigation goals
as climate change further reduces the availability of some resources, especially water, and places
increasing strain on infrastructure (Vine, 2012). How aspects of climate change adaptation and
mitigation are integrated will be very important, given that how systems develop is important to their
effectiveness, to ensuring the energy sector can optimize any benefits derived from the climate change
program or policy development going forward.
1.3 Defining Adaptation/Mitigation Actions in the Energy Sector
A scoping exercise conducted at the outset of the project enabled the identification of actions in the
energy sector to integrate adaptation with mitigation. The results of this scoping exercise were
supported by a literature review and subsequently adopted as a basis for reviewing and categorizing
case studies to identify the net benefit of integration.
Adaptation and mitigation were
very simply defined at the
beginning of the project.
Adaptation was defined as
actions that increase the
resilience of a sector, region,
company or government to
those vulnerabilities associated
with climate change. One
important aspect of this
definition was that the benefits
of adaptation are typically felt
locally. Mitigation was defined
as actions that manage
anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions. The benefits of a
mitigation action were
established as global in scale.
Figure 1: Conceptual Understanding of the Adaptation/Mitigation Space
A conceptual understanding of the adaptation/mitigation space (Figure 1) was subsequently derived
from the two common elements of these definitions:
 They both refer to actions with outcomes at a global or local proximity or geographic scale.
 They are intended to manage human systems to control either vulnerability or pollution.
7
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
The fundamental utility of this approach was the articulation of two theoretical areas where the
characteristics of adaptation/mitigation benefits differ. The literature suggested that these areas are
ones that contribute to the capacity of the energy sector to respond to climate change, or the ability of
the energy sector to respond to impacts, or its resilience.
Similarities between adaptation and mitigation were also established based on their attributes. The
definition for adaptation was expanded to include an “array of potential responses ranging from purely
technological, through behavioural, to managerial, and to policy” (Brunner & Lynch, 2010:47). Similar
attributes were established for mitigation by UNEP (2014), which stated that managing carbon
emissions uses “new technologies and renewable energies, making older equipment more energy
efficient, or changing management practices or consumer behaviour”. The overlap of attributes
between adaptation and mitigation was later refined based on the work of Yohe (2001) and Winkler et
al (2007) yielding a generalized matrix for categorizing solutions in the adaptation/mitigation space
(Table 1).
Table 1: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
A working definition of adaptation/mitigation solutions was subsequently developed from the
conceptual scoping exercise and the established inter-relationship between identified attributes.
Adaptation/mitigation solutions in the energy sector have broadly been defined as activities that
change the technologies utilized to provide goods and infrastructure OR alter consumer or corporate
behaviour OR inform managerial practices OR develop policy that alter the energy sector activities
sufficiently to achieve a combination of reduced local vulnerability and a reduced contribution to
global greenhouse gas emissions.
This working definition established the basis for identifying adaptation/mitigation actions in the energy
sector, the type of solution identified, and the attributes to be discussed within each case study.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
8
2.0 Overview of Adaptation/Mitigation Case Studies
In order to illustrate how adaptation and mitigation activities can result in mutual co-benefits which
promote the advancement and attainment of GHG reduction and resilience objectives in the energy
sector, a compendium of national and international case studies was developed (see Appendix A). The
following section provides a short description of the 6 Canadian (C) and 5 International (I) case studies.
Table 1 provides an overview of where each case study falls on the adaptation/mitigation contribution
matrix.
Table 2: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for all 11 Case Studies
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Technological
Behavioural
C2
Managerial
Policy
C1
Behavioural
I5
Managerial
Policy
I4
I2 / I3
C5
C4
C3 / C6 / I1
2.1 Canadian
C1: Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
Newfoundland and Labrador (NL)
Development a hydroelectric power generation facility at Muskrat Falls in
Labrador will enhance the amount of clean, renewable electricity in the province
of Newfoundland and Labrador. The project will connect Newfoundland to the North American grid for
the very first time and will help to displace fossil fuels as power sources while simultaneously increasing
energy security, improving local air quality, providing opportunities for energy export, and increasing
local employment and business opportunities.
 Go to this case study
C2: Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power (HARP)
Bella Coola, British Columbia (BC)
The HARP system is a demonstration project that determined the feasibility of
storing excess renewable energy in remote communities isolated from the
provincial electricity grid in order to increase energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a community’s
energy system and reduce the reliance on diesel fuel. The HARP system allows remote communities to
increase the stability, reliability and security of their energy supply while also reducing GHG emissions,
improving local air quality, reducing energy costs, and creating local employment opportunities.
 Go to this case study
9
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
C3: Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (CCEMF)
Alberta (AB)
Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to pass climate change
legislation in 2007, requiring large GHG emitters to reduce their emissions
according to specific targets set by the province. Emitters who cannot meet targets contribute to the
CCEMF which supports investment in innovation and clean technologies aiming to reduce Alberta’s GHG
emissions and improve its ability to adapt to a changing climate. By including both mitigation and
adaptation in the same fund, competition for resources between adaptation and mitigation is reduced.
 Go to this case study
C4: First Nations Power Authority (FNPA)
Saskatchewan (SK)
FNPA is a not-for-profit corporation that helps build capacity of Saskatchewan
First Nations to participate in the province’s power sector. FNPA’s focus on
renewable energy production in remote areas will help produce a more resilient power generation and
transmission system while simultaneously reducing GHG emissions, as well as providing jobs and
climate-smart development opportunities for Saskatchewan First Nations communities.
 Go to this case study
C5: Markham District Energy (MDE)
Markham, Ontario (ON)
MDE is a thermal energy utility owned by the City of Markham and a clear leader
in district energy development. MDE currently operates a number of Combined
Heat and Power (CHP) thermal energy plants. Introducing district energy to Markham increases the
reliability and resiliency of the local energy system while simultaneously increasing energy efficiency,
thereby reducing GHG emissions, while also increasing economic growth, energy self-sufficiency, energy
redundancy, the flexibility of the system to allow for use of alternative fuels, and the flexibility in the
way local energy is managed.
 Go to this case study
C6: Independent Power Production and Micro-Generation Policies
Yukon (YK)
The Yukon government’s Energy Strategy for Yukon sets out government goals,
strategies and actions for energy efficiency and conservation in the Yukon over
the next 10 years. It outlines how electricity will be purchased from independent power producers and
how individuals will be allowed to connect renewable energy sources to the grid (micro-generation).
These policies incent investment in renewable energy projects and increase the mitigative and adaptive
capacity of Yukon, which in turn can be utilized to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, improve local energy
security, increase the social capacity of new energy generating projects, and enhance the ecosystem
benefits available to residents.
 Go to this case study
A Case Study Synthesis Report
10
2.2 International
I1: Green Roof Incentives
Basel, Switzerland
The City of Basel has a long history of green roofs. A combination of financial
incentives and building regulations has helped the City achieve the highest
percentage of green roof area per capita in the world. Green roofs increase the insulation properties of
buildings and reduce energy consumption while simultaneously improving stormwater management and
reducing the urban heat island effect. Basel’s green roofs also help to conserve regional biodiversity,
improve water quality, provide financial benefits to building owners and local businesses, and add
additional urban green space.
 Go to this case study
I2: Sustainable Energy Production
Borough of Woking, England, UK
Woking is considered the most energy efficient local authority in the UK,
spending the last few decades successfully implementing small- and large-scale
renewable and sustainable energy projects, including Combined Heat and Power (CHP). Using the CHP
distributed energy system increases the security of Woking’s energy supply and independence from the
national grid in the event of a power outage. Woking has reduced its levels of GHG emissions while
simultaneously increasing the resilience and reliability of its energy system, offering competitive energy
prices, providing affordable energy for social housing residents, increasing system efficiency, all while
creating profits that are reinvested back into energy efficiency within the community.
 Go to this case study
I3: Geothermal Power Plant Project
Chena Hot Springs Resort, Alaska, USA
The Chena Hot Springs Resort became the first business in Alaska to install a
geothermal power plant in 2006. The introduction of renewable energy in a
remote northern community not only reduces the dependence on diesel fuel for energy use, but also
improves self-sufficiency in terms of energy and food production, reducing the dependence on imported
resources that are susceptible to the impacts of climate change. There are also significant cost savings
when switching from diesel fuel to geothermal.
 Go to this case study
I4: Green Infrastructure Plan
New York, New York, USA
NYC released its Green Infrastructure Plan in 2010 in order to help manage
stormwater within the city and meet two overarching goals: better water quality
in NYC Harbour and creating a livable and sustainable NYC. Green infrastructure is able to capture and
store stormwater runoff, thus reducing the amount of water entering sewer systems (saving energy
11
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
costs associated with pumping and treating the water and GHG emissions) and reducing the amount of
urban flooding. Green infrastructure also helps to reduce pollution to local water bodies, improve local
air quality and public health, increase the amount of green space for recreation and wildlife, and
mitigate the urban heat island effect.
 Go to this case study
I5: Smart Grid Project
Washington, District of Columbia, USA
Pepco is the energy company responsible for delivering electricity to Washington,
D.C. and is a well recognized leader in smart grid technology. The Smart Grid
Project in Washington, D.C. modernizes the electrical grid using new infrastructure such as meters,
monitors, wires and switches. The smart grid provides Pepco with more visibility into the electricity grid
and its operations in order to increase the reliability and resiliency of the grid, while simultaneously
providing customers with the tools necessary to increase their energy efficiency and reduce their energy
demand, thereby reducing GHG emissions.
 Go to this case study
A Case Study Synthesis Report
12
3.0 Co-Benefits
Co-benefits provide the value for integrating adaptation and mitigation in the energy sector. Four main
co-benefits were identified from the literature review at the onset of the project (refer to section 1.2):
1)
2)
3)
4)
Reduced competition for resources both within the sector and with other land-users;
Reduced influence of uncertainty on policy development and project design;
Increased harmonization of project outcomes that achieves multiple ends; and
Improved social license for energy project implementation.
In this section we describe each of these co-benefits and provide evidence that they are readily
identifiable in the case studies. It is the assumption of this report that each co-benefit can be derived
from those interfaces between adaptation and mitigation that exist in each project, and that sufficient
interfaces exist within a project for all four co-benefits to be derived from. A potential project could
therefore be optimized to yield all four co-benefits and subsequently optimize the value to be derived
from it.
3.1 Reduced Competition for Resources
Competition for resources within the energy sector will likely grow as human and capital constraints
build over time (Hulme et al, 2009). Incorporating both adaptation and mitigation goals within one
policy, program or project can help to reduce this competition for resources within the energy sector,
avoiding the possible duplication of effort and cost should they be treated separately (Warren, 2011).
For example, the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (CCEMF) in Alberta captures the
regulatory penalty from those who cannot meet targets for emissions reduction to help the province
reduce its GHG emissions and adapt to a changing climate by supporting innovative research projects.
Using these funds to support innovation for both adaptation and mitigation projects helps to decrease
the competition for resources. Chena Hot Springs Resort was the first location in Alaska to install a
geothermal power plant, successfully reducing the community’s dependence on diesel generators. The
managerial decision to explore cheaper forms of electricity reduces the consumption of financial
resources and enables them to be invested elsewhere, such as building local greenhouses in order to
increase food security.
Case studies characterized by this co-benefit:
 C3: Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (CCEMF)
 C4: First Nations Power Authority (FNPA)
 C5: Markham District Energy (MDE)
 I2: Sustainable Energy Production
 I3: Geothermal Power Plant Project
 I5: Smart Grid Project
13
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
3.2 Reduced Influence of Uncertainty
The quantifiable outcomes of GHG emission reduction over the short term can be utilized to overcome
the more significant uncertainties usually associated with climate change adaptation. The decreased
uncertainty and associated project risk results from the much narrower scope and systems functioning
of GHG management projects (which are much better understood and easier to build a business case
on), and can thereby emphasize the short-term and demonstrable outcomes of mitigation projects.
When combined with an adaptation project, which typically yield benefits over a long timeline through
significant assumptions, these demonstrable outcomes can reduce the uncertainty associated with the
nature and timing of climate change and its impacts, subsequently leading to an improved case for
adaptation (McAllister, 2011). Including both adaptation and mitigation goals in an energy project can
therefore reduce the influence of uncertainty on policy development and project design and better
enable adaptation projects to be implemented.
For example, the HARP ‘proof-of-concept’ project in Bella Coola, BC demonstrated opportunities for
both adaptation and mitigation to climate change, although adaptation was not an explicit goal of the
project. The energy storage project ultimately had a goal of reducing the dependence on diesel
generators and overall GHG emissions, yet it also helped to increase the stability and reliability of the
community’s energy system – which advances climate change adaptation. Additionally, green roofs
developed in Basel, Switzerland were driven by energy savings and advancing climate change mitigation.
Yet, green roofs also provide adaptation measures such as moderating stormwater and local ambient air
temperatures. Thus, the uncertainty in adaptation decisions can be reduced by placing the emphasis on
the relative certainty available in mitigation decision-making processes which are made possible through
the quantifiable attributes of mitigation.
Case studies characterized by this co-benefit:
 C1: Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
 C2: Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power (HARP)
 I1: Green Roof Incentives
 I2: Sustainable Energy Production
3.3 Increased Harmonization of Project Outcomes
The harmonization of climate change responses within implementation objectives can help achieve
multiple ends. Some adaptation solutions in the energy sector can lead to increased GHG emissions
(mal-adaptation), while some mitigation solutions may increase the sectors vulnerability to extreme
weather events (mal-mitigation). Increased awareness of the adaptation/mitigation space could reduce
the likelihood of mal-adaptation and mal-mitigation if harmonized (McAllister, 2011).
The Yukon government had equally important mitigation and adaptation goals in mind when it
developed the Independent Power Production and Micro-Generation Policies. The policies aimed to
harmonize the long term objectives of reducing Yukon’s carbon footprint while increasing its adaptive
A Case Study Synthesis Report
14
capacity. The Saskatchewan First Nations Power Authority (FNPA) showed how competing priorities can
be balanced to address climate change from both an adaptation and mitigation standpoint. While the
main drivers and mandate of the FNPA pertains to the development of economic opportunities for First
Nations, the benefits of climate change responses are clear and will serve the First Nations and the
province writ large.
Case studies characterized by this co-benefit:
 C1: Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project
 C2: Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power (HARP)
 C3: Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund (CCEMF)
 C4: First Nations Power Authority (FNPA)
 C5: Markham District Energy (MDE)
 C6: Independent Power Production and Micro-Generation Policies
 I3: Geothermal Power Plant Project
 I4: Green Infrastructure Plan
3.4 Improved Social License
The harmonization of climate change responses may also lead to improved social license to operate for
energy projects. That is, the payback from mitigation actions is improved by direct contributions to
resilience (adaptation) and sustainability (Veneman & Rehman, 2007). Highlighting the adaptive element
of a mitigation project has been demonstrated to reduce public resistance by demonstrating immediate
air quality and recreation benefits (Veneman & Rehman, 2007).
For example, the cases of Basel, Switzerland and New York City involved the development of green roofs
and green infrastructure, respectively. Not only do these types of projects advance both adaptation and
mitigation, they also result in additional environmental, social and economic benefits. Many of these
additional benefits help to improve the social license of the projects, including opportunities for
workforce development, improved quality of life, improved local air quality and public health, and
increased amount of green space for recreation and wildlife. The Smart Grid project in Washington, D.C.,
specifically smart meters that collect, measure, and analyze energy usage data in order to identify power
outages and provide notification, can provide energy users with useful information. In emergency
situations, such as Superstorm Sandy, smart meters can help utilities focus resources on the areas of the
city most affected by extreme weather, allowing managers to respond more effectively to public need,
thus highlighting a connection to improved social license.
Case studies characterized by this co-benefit:
 I1: Green Roof Incentives
 I2: Sustainable Energy Production
 I4: Green Infrastructure Plan
 I5: Smart Grid Project
15
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Evidence of all four potential benefits were present in the case studies, although no case study
demonstrated more than two, suggesting that each project could potentially yield further value to the
owner if purposefully framed to achieve climate change outcomes. Further, while establishing the nearterm benefits of the co-benefits should improve the business case for a climate change (or
sustainability) project, few of the case studies were undertaken with the objectives of building resilience
(i.e. adaptation) or reducing emissions (i.e. mitigation).
To optimize the conclusion of this report we next turn to the case studies to derive key lessons for
implementing climate projects in the energy sector in order to inform our discussion of optimizing the
immediate value of project implementation, while also achieving climate change outcomes that benefit
the energy sector over the long-term.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
16
4.0 Tools for Accessing Adaptation/Mitigation Co-Benefits
This section highlights some of the key lessons evident in the case studies that inform the
implementation of energy sector projects that achieve climate change outcomes. Each key lesson
identifies a tool that can be utilized to improve the business case of climate change projects. Each lesson
is supported with context directly from the case studies.
1)
Policy is important for achieving adaptation/mitigation responses to climate change in the energy
sector. The policy instruments of any administration; municipal, First Nation, provincial/territorial,
and federal, are critical to fostering adaptation and mitigation. These instruments can be utilized to
prescribe regulations that require climate change actions, or provide incentives that foster market
development, and can ultimately provide tools to combine adaptation and mitigation responses in
the energy sector and others.
For example, the City of Markham introduced a policy that requires City Council and senior staff to
promote district energy. This is reinforced through the city’s current Official Plan which encourages
the evaluation and consideration of district energy in new development and reinforces it in current
areas. Since introducing district energy systems helps to increase the reliability and resiliency of the
local energy system while simultaneously increasing energy efficiency, the policy contributes to
both adaptation and mitigation goals.
The Building and Construction Law in Basel, Switzerland was amended in 2002 requiring all new and
renovated flat roofs to have green roofs. This not only has adaptation benefits (by reducing the risk
of urban flooding through stormwater retention and reducing the urban heat island effect), but
mitigation by enhancing the thermal properties of buildings which increases energy efficiency,
thereby reducing GHG emissions.
The Basel, Switzerland and New York case studies identify how green roofs can reduce GHG
emissions (e.g. by enhancing the thermal properties of buildings and decreasing the energy needed
for heating and cooling) and increase adaptation (e.g. by increasing stormwater
storage/management thus reducing the risk of urban flooding, and reducing the urban heat island
effect). Green roofs and other forms of urban greening are examples of no-regrets actions that can
fulfill multiple objectives; thus municipalities can play a big role in reducing energy consumption
and demand by integrating policies or regulations that promote the development of green
infrastructure.
Additionally, municipalities can introduce policies that promote the inclusion of district energy
systems, as in the Markham, Ontario and Woking, UK case studies. For example, Markham, Ontario
recently introduced a policy that requires City Council and senior staff to promote district energy,
and Markham’s current Official Plan encourages the evaluation and consideration of district energy
in new development and reinforces it in current areas. Provisions for district energy in high level
17
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
municipal plans and policies related to growth and land use planning will lead to GHG reduction and
improved resilience.
2)
Strong leadership can play an important part in contributing to both adaptation and mitigation in
the energy sector. As is evident in the case studies, strong leadership can be pivotal in the success
or failure of a project. Leadership is a benefit of itself, and early adopters are often rewarded for
experimentation, although having a champion to reduce concerns is often a key attribute for
success. For example, the leadership shown by the owners of the Chena Hot Springs Resort in
Alaska was integral in 1) obtaining partners to provide support for the project; 2) installing the
geothermal generators at the resort despite the marginal economics associated with the energy
source; and 3) leveraging the benefits provided by the generators to build adaptive capacity,
despite the obvious business risk associated with each action.
In Saskatchewan, the First Nations Power Authority is a model of leadership from First Nations and
provides the mechanisms for fair and inclusive participation of Saskatchewan First Nations in the
energy sector. This leadership provides capacity for those First Nations who participate in
renewable energy projects, ultimately generating benefits related to climate change adaptation.
In Woking, UK, Council identified the need to reduce GHG emissions and combat climate change
and developed the first Energy and Environmental Service Company in the UK in order to increase
distributed generation capacity. The sustainable energy achievements in Woking are a direct result
of the political leadership from the Council members who made energy efficiency and sustainability
a priority. This dedication to sustainable and renewable energy enabled Woking to reduce its levels
of GHG emissions while also increasing the resilience and reliability of its energy system.
3)
Assembling effective partnerships is critical for financing technology projects that yield
adaptation and mitigation benefits. Many of the projects were government funded, with some
involving public/private partnerships. For example, in order to address the high capital cost of
building its first district energy system, the City of Markham, Ontario partnered with the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities’ Green Municipal Fund, Infrastructure Ontario and private lenders, along
with contributing its own resources from the Federal Gas Tax rebate. The owners of the Chena Hot
Springs Resort in Alaska developed a geothermal power generation station with support from the
U.S. Department of Energy and a grant from the Alaska Energy Authority, and partnered with a
private company that designed, assembled, tested and installed the power plant at Chena. These
types of partnerships and the resulting funding equations help to lessen the financial burden on any
individual partner.
4)
Previous or current energy/cost saving projects can use funds to re-cycle back into adaptation
and mitigation projects. Climate change legislation in Alberta requires large GHG emitters to
reduce their emissions according to specific targets defined by the province. One of the options for
companies that cannot meet their targets is to contribute to the Climate Change and Emissions
Management Fund (CCEMF). These funds are then used to support investment in innovation and
A Case Study Synthesis Report
18
clean technologies that aim to further reduce Alberta’s GHG emissions and improve its ability to
adapt to climate change. The idea of penalizing the companies that cannot meet specified GHG
reduction targets and using that money to further research adaptation and mitigation could be
implemented in any jurisdiction. The influence of policy and regulations can help incentivize
behaviour change to drive companies towards reducing GHG emissions.
Additionally, the Borough of Woking used revenues saved as a result of municipal energy efficiency
projects to reinvest in the community year after year to continuously improve overall energy
efficiency. From this, the Council was able to save money and raise capital for energy infrastructure
development, including its two energy service companies.
5)
Investment options will create opportunities for adaptation and mitigation. It is clear from the
Bella Coola, BC case study that there are adaptation and mitigation benefits associated with
increasing energy storage capacity. The hydrogen energy storage system and Microgrid control
system tested in Bella Coola, BC was able to increase the efficiency of the intermittent, and
unpredictable nature of the run-of-the-river hydropower facility by storing excess electricity during
off-peak periods to use during periods of high-demand, thus reducing the dependence on diesel
generators in Bella Coola. The introduction of energy storage can allow a community to increase
the stability, reliability and security of its energy supply while simultaneously reducing GHG
emissions, improving local air quality, and reducing energy costs for residents.
6)
A strong business case helps incent both adaptation and mitigation goals into energy sector
projects and policies. Strong business cases do exist to support adaptation and mitigation projects
and many of the case studies demonstrate paybacks or returns on investment. The City of
Markham views its district energy system as a business; as investments start to slow over the longterm the system will generate a significant cash flow for the city. The Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric
Power Generation project in Newfoundland and Labrador will produce enough electricity to meet
domestic needs and presents an opportunity for the province to sell excess power to the North
American market.
Smart meters installed in Washington, D.C. as part of the Smart Grid project have helped streamline
operations, which improve the efficiency of electricity delivery and reduce utility costs associated
with equipment failure, meter reading, as well as operation and maintenance costs. The Chena
Geothermal Power Project in Alaska highlights the low cost of the power generation equipment and
the feasibility of producing low cost electricity. Even though the initial installation costs of
geothermal power may be higher than conventional heating and cooling systems, the costs can be
recovered over a relatively short period through energy savings, particularly in remote communities
that rely on diesel fuel.
Additionally, New York City is focused on increasing the amount of green infrastructure across the
city with its Green Infrastructure Plan because it has clear cost-savings when compared to
19
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
traditional grey infrastructure, including reductions in capital costs, operation expenses, land
acquisition costs, repair and maintenance costs, and infrastructure replacement costs. These cost
savings, along with the long list of co-benefits, makes for a very strong business case for green
infrastructure.
Having a single transmission line over long stretches of land and in vulnerable areas makes energy
supply to northern or remote locations extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate extremes.
Vulnerability of transportation routes to these northern/remote locations (such as Bella Coola, BC
and Chena, Alaska) threatens the supply of diesel fuel. Creating local sources of energy (geothermal
in the case of Chena and hydropower in the case of Bella Coola) can lessen the risk to movement of
diesel and lower GHG emissions. Although the two communities are small, the energy activities are
scalable to larger communities and transferrable to other remote communities.
While some of these tools may seem obvious, it is important to demonstrate that the means to
implement climate change projects do exist, and are being used. When combined with the co-benefits
described in Section 3.0, which demonstrate the rationalization for using these tools, a compelling case
emerges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in the energy sector.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
20
5.0 A Case for Linking Adaptation and Mitigation in the
Energy Sector
Results from the case studies suggest that the energy sector is currently accumulating co-benefits from
the interfaces suggested by the literature. These co-benefits demonstrate the immediate value of
implementing climate change projects, while each project also demonstrates longer term values that
will accrue from the investment, such as improved resilience. The immediacy of the benefits derived
from the integration of adaptation and mitigation opportunities in a given energy project constitutes the
case for linking them. While the energy sector may be accruing benefits from the potential interface of
adaptation and mitigation in their projects, the following recommendations for improving the ability of
the energy sector to capitalize on such benefits emerge more from what is not evident in the case
studies, than what is:



In the majority of instances the co-benefits of linking adaptation and mitigation were not well
understood in advance of project implementation, yet the identified benefits accrued
nonetheless. In some instances neither adaptation nor mitigation was a determining factor in
project design, despite the accrual of co-benefits associated with them.
While some co-benefits were derived from projects, the potential benefits were not necessarily
optimized to the extent possible. Each case study demonstrates evidence of one, but no more
than two, of the four possible co-benefits that were established based on these interfaces. This
suggests that the energy sector may not yet be taking full advantage of the array of co-benefits
attributable to the synergies between adaptation and mitigation goals where they exist.
Adaptation is less emphasized in the case studies than mitigation. As is evident from the
discussion, adaptation can be incorporated into near term actions, and yield immediate benefits
to the energy sector. These benefits would accrue in addition to the longer term benefits
associated with resilience and/or capacity development.
The following recommendations therefore suggest how these three items can be addressed utilizing the
tools identified in the preceding section. The tools identified are: policy, leadership, partnerships,
funding streams, investment options, and business case development. Given that these tools were
successfully utilized to improve the economics of a project, incorporate aspects of adaptation and
mitigation into seemingly unrelated projects or policies, or improve the capacity of an agency to
implement a climate change project, they are likely highly valuable for accessing the value of linking
adaptation and mitigation in the energy sector.
1) Seek out adaptation/mitigation synergies at the beginning of any new project or policy in
order to identify potential co-benefits. This action will ensure all potential interfaces between
adaptation and mitigation are identified, strategies for optimizing potential co-benefits are
established, and provide the greatest opportunity to leverage the benefits of all four possible
co-benefits through any one policy, program or project. Among other advantages, a clear
21
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
linkage between climate change responses and implementation objectives can help achieve
multiple ends and clearly identify potential near-term benefits.
2) Clearly anticipate the financial benefits of integrating adaptation and mitigation. These
benefits can be identified through the evaluation of investment options and/or the
development of a clear business case in support of a policy or program. In this instance, the
focus of the investigation would likely be the immediate benefits and reduction of risk that the
interface between adaptation and mitigation can provide. The quantifiable attributes of
mitigation will likely help to reduce the risk of implementing an adaptation activity (which is
often challenged as financially beneficial due to the uncertainty of timing and magnitude of
climate change and its impacts), and create the opportunity for adaptation at an early
operational stage rather than leaving it as a long-term investment.
3) Where possible, highlight the adaptation/mitigation synergies and co-benefits of a project in
order to improve the social license for project implementation. The co-benefit derived from
improved social license was not appreciated in many of the projects evaluated. While this may
be because it was not necessary to project success, this particular co-benefit does have
significant potential to serve energy sector projects going forward, and could certainly be
utilized further. Highlighting the adaptive element of a project and how it will increase resilience
to climate change over the long-term is likely to improve the social license/acceptability of a
project.
4) Do not underestimate the power of leadership in project success. Leadership was
demonstrated as an integral factor in overcoming the initial risk of some energy projects. While
the co-benefits derived from integrating adaptation and mitigation accrued after effective
leadership was demonstrated, it is also important to note that champions often support projects
for philanthropic reasons, and may be attracted to a project precisely because it is taking action
on climate change. In this instance, the synergies between acting on climate change, in the form
of attracting a champion, and the co-benefits derived from integrating adaptation and
mitigation may be mutually supporting and improve implementation success.
5) Continue to create funding streams to support climate change actions that integrate
adaptation and mitigation. Pricing carbon through various mechanisms (cap and trade, tax and
dividend, etc.) can generate funds that can subsequently be used to drive innovation and further
action on reducing emissions or adaptation. Incentive programs that support the emergence
adaptation and mitigation co-benefits can also be created based on local economics in remote
areas. In either instance, by fostering the development of funding streams that purposefully
incorporate climate change adaptation and mitigation, funding agencies will be providing the
incentive for energy sector projects to adequately investigate such co-benefits and how they can
benefit from them.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
22
6) Public-private sector partnerships for research and development can be leveraged to improve
adaptation in the energy sector. Many private sector entities are investing in renewable energy
projects across Canada. In many instances these entities are seeking public sector partners to
improve funding potential or to ensure market penetration. As is evident in the case studies,
funding streams are emerging to support such partnerships. These partnerships should be
encouraged to take a broader perspective on their projects, including the adaptive benefits that
may be derived from new technologies, to ensure that any available opportunities are
identified. Such actions could include educational resources or line items included in funding
applications.
These recommendations, while high level, suggest how the energy sector can improve the
implementation of climate change projects and benefit from the identified linkages between adaptation
and mitigation. While often not considered in project planning or communication of outcomes, these
benefits can be accrued immediately, while also generating long-term benefits such as economic
development and improving natural systems. The interfaces and co-benefits identified can also reduce
the risk of adaptation investments, which usually provide a return over a long period, by ensuring that
such actions yield a near-term return.
23
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
6.0 References
Audinet, P., J. Amado and B. Rabb. (2014). Climate Risk Management Approaches in the Electricity Sector: Lessons
from Early Adaptors. In A. Troccoli, L. Dubus and S. E. Haupt (Eds.), Weather Matters for Energy (pp. 17–64).
New York, NY: Springer New York. Doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-9221-4.
Auld, H. and D. MacIver. (2007). Changing Weather Patterns, Uncertainty and Infrastructure Risks - Emergine
Adaptation Requirements. Occasional Paper 9. Adaptation and Impacts Research Division (AIRD),
Environment Canada. Accessed from www.ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download.php?id=7166.
Baker, B., I. Sklokin, L. Coad and T. Crawford. (2011). Canada’s Electricity Infrastructure: Building a Case for
Investment. The Conference Board of Canada. Energy, Environment and Transportation Policy. Accessed from
www.electricity.ca/media/ReportsPublications/11-257_ElectricityInfrastructure[1].pdf.
Brunner, R. and A. Lynch. (2010). Adaptive Governance and Climate Change. American Meteorological Society.
Boston, MA. 404pp.
Canadian Electricity Association. (2011a). How will we power canada’s future? Our Electricity System in Transition.
A Canadian Electricity Association Discussion Paper: First Edition. Accessed from
www.electricity.ca/media/ReportsPublications/lowFINALCEA_HowWillWePower_E7.pdf.
Canadian Electricity Association. (2011b). The Smart Grid: A pragmatic approach. A “State-of-Play” Discussion
Paper Presented by the Canadian Electricity Association. Accessed from
www.electricity.ca/media/SmartGrid/SmartGridpaperEN.pdf.
Canadian Electricity Association. (2014). Vision 2050: The Future of Canada’s Electricity System. Canadian Electrical
Association. Accessed from www.powerforthefuture.ca/vision-2050/.
Coad, L., T.A. Crawford and A. Macdonald. (2011). Shedding Light on the Economic Impact of Investing in Electricity
Infrastructure. The Conference Board of Canada. Accessed from www.conferenceboard.ca/elibrary/abstract.aspx?DID=4673.
Davis, M. and S. Clemmer. (2014). Power Failure: How Climate Change Puts Our Electricity at Risk and What We
Can Do?. Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed from www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/Power-FailureHow-Climate-Change-Puts-Our-Electricity-at-Risk-and-What-We-Can-Do.pdf.
Dorner, D., M. Baroni, C. Besson, C. Hood, F. Kesicki, P. Olejarnik, J. Trueby, K. van Noort, B. Wanner and D.
Wilkinson. (2013). Redrawing the Energy-Climate Map: World Energy Outlook Special Report. International
Energy Agency. Accessed from
www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/WEO_Special_Report_2013_Redrawing_the_Energy_
Climate_Map.pdf.
Faust, E., J.P. Hella, S. Kumar, K.M. Strzepek, F.L. Toth and D. Yan. (2014). IPCC WG II Chapter 10: Key Economic
Sectors and Services. Accessed from www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FGDall.pdf.
Hulme, M., H. Neufeldt, H. Colyer and A. Ritchie. (2009). Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting
European Climate Policy. The Final Report from the ADAM Project. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Accessed from www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/adamfinal-report-revised-june-2009.html_.pdf.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
24
IPCC. (2014). Summary for Policymakers, In: Climate Change 2014, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner,
P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Jones, R.N., P. Dettmann, G. Park, M. Rogers and T. White. (2007). The relationship between adaptation and
mitigation in managing climate change risks: a regional response from North Central Victoria, Australia.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Vol. 12: 685-712.
Kenward, A., and U. Raja. (2014). Blackout: Extreme Weather, Climate Change and Power Outages. Climate Central.
Accessed from www.climatecentral.org/wgts/filetracker.php?file2dl=PowerOutages.pdf.
Klein, R. J. T., Schipper, E. L. F., and Dessai, S. (2005). Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and
development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science & Policy, 8, 579-588.
Lemmen, D.S., F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix and E. Bush. (2008). From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing
Climate 2007 . Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division, Natural Resources Canada. Accessed from
www.nrcan.gc.ca/environment/resources/publications/impactsadaptation/reports/assessments/2008/10253.
McAllister, L.K. (2011). Adaptive mitigation in the electric power sector. BYU Law Review. Vol. 6(8): 2115-2155.
Pachauri, R.K. and A. Reisinger. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II
and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC, Geneva,
Switzerland. Accessed from www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-3.html.
Policy Research Initiative. (2009). Climate Change Adaptation in the Canadian Energy Sector: Workshop Report.
Government of Canada. Accessed from www.horizons.gc.ca/eng/content/climate-change-adaptationcanadian-energy-sector.
Romero-Lankao, P., J.B. Smith,D. Davidson, N. Diffenbaugh, P. Kinney, P. Kirshen, P. Kovacs and L.V. Ruiz. (2014).
Final Draft - IPCC WGII AR5 Chapter 26: North America. Accessed from www.ipccwg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap26_FGDall.pdf.
Schaeffer, R., A.S. Szklo, A.F. Pereira de Lucena, B.S. Moreira Cesar Borba, L.P. Pupo Nogueira, F.P. Fleming, A.
Troccoli, M. Harrison and M.S. Boulahya. (2012). Energy sector vulnerability to climate change: A review.
Energy. Vol. 38(2012): 1-12.
UNEP. (2014). Climate Change Mitigation. United Nations Environment Program. Accessed from
www.unep.org/climatechange/mitigation/.
US Executive Office of the President. (2013). Economic Benefits of Increasing Electric Grid Resilience to Weather
Outages. Accessed from
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/08/f2/Grid%20Resiliency%20Report_FINAL.pdf.
Venema, H.D. and I.H. Rehman. (2007). Decentralized renewable energy and the climate change
adaptation/mitigation nexus. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. Vol. 12: 875-900.
Vine, E. (2012). Adaptation of California’s electricity sector to climate change. Climatic Change. Vol. 111(1): 75-99.
Warren, R. (2011). The role of interactions in a world implementing adaptation and mitigation solutions to climate
change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Vol. 369(1934): 217-241.
25
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Winkler, H., K. Baumert, O. Blanchard, S. Bruch and J. Robinson. (2007). What factors influence mitigative
capacity?. Energy Policy. Vol. 35(1): 692-703.
Yohe, G. (2001). Mitigative capacity – the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side: An editorial.
Climatic Change. Vol. 49(3): 247-262.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
26
APPENDIX A: Adaptation/Mitigation Case Studies
27
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project:
Enhancing Renewable Electricity and Reducing GHG
Emissions in Newfoundland and Labrador
Focus: Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation
Project
Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
Lead: Nalcor Energy
Other stakeholders: Emera Inc. and the Government of
Newfoundland and Labrador
Stage: In development
Cost: $8.5 billion
Ownership: Public
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project will
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
enhance the amount of clean, renewable electricity in the
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), which in turn
gases (GHGs).
will help displace oil- and coal-fired power generation in the
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
Atlantic region. Hydropower is commonly known as one of
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
the cleanest forms of energy, and has the ability to play a
taking advantage of opportunities.
major role in addressing climate change due to its minimal
1
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The lower Churchill River
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
in Labrador is one of the best undeveloped sources of
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
hydroelectric power in North America. The Muskrat Falls
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
and proposed Gull Island generating stations will collectively
extreme weather events).
generate more than 3,000 megawatts (MW) of power and
2
would be able to supply 16.7 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity per year. Upon completion of Muskrat Falls, NL’s
3
electricity supply will stem from more than 98% renewable sources.
The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project is being developed in two phases: Muskrat Falls and Gull
Island.
Phase One: Muskrat Falls
In 2010, Provincial Government owned Nalcor Energy partnered with Emera Inc. and announced plans to develop
the Muskrat Falls generation station (“Muskrat Falls”), as well as three transmission links (described below). The
development of Muskrat Falls was approved and sanctioned by the Government of NL in December 2012, at which
point construction began. The facility is expected to be completed in late 2017 and fully operational the following
year. Once the facility is fully operational, Muskrat Falls will provide 40% of its capacity to meet electricity needs in
Newfoundland, Emera Inc. will purchase 20% of the power for use in Nova Scotia, and the remaining 40% could
potentially be exported for use into Atlantic Canada or New England markets, or simply retained for use in NL. By
A Case Study Synthesis Report
28
2036, it is estimated that the province of NL will need close to 80% of the
4
power at Muskrat Falls to account for additional industrial growth.
The existing Churchill Falls
Hydroelectric Generating
Station is located upriver from
the Muskrat Falls location. On
average, the facility generates
over 34 TWh of energy per
year. The majority of the
power produced is sold to
Hydro-Quebec through a longterm power purchase
agreement. The agreement
expires in 2041.
Muskrat Falls includes the construction of:
1) An 824 MW hydroelectric dam. Muskrat Falls is located on the lower
Churchill River in Labrador and will be the second-largest
5
hydroelectric facility in the province.
2) The Labrador-Island Link. This link will carry electricity from Muskrat
Falls in Labrador to the Island of Newfoundland, connecting these two
parts of the province for the very first time via an electricity system.
The Link is composed of overland transmission (approximately 1,100
km) and underwater cables in the Strait of Belle Isle.
3) Labrador Transmission Links. Two parallel transmission links will be
constructed between Muskrat Falls and the existing Upper Churchill
6
Falls Generating Station in order to transmit power between the facilities.
4) The Maritime Link. This bi-directional link will connect the Island of Newfoundland to the North American
power grid (via Nova Scotia) for the first time in history, enhancing the reliability of NL’s electricity
7
system.
8
The current capital costs for Muskrat Falls and the associated transmission links in NL are an estimated $6.99B ,
9
while the costs to Emera Inc. for construction of the Maritime Link are an estimated $1.52M, making the total
project value $8.5B.
Figure 1: This image shows the main portions of Phase 1 of the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric
Generation Project: the Muskrat Falls Generation station, the Labrador-Island Transmission Link,
26
and the Maritime Transmission Link.
29
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Once Muskrat Falls is in service, one of the measures of success will be the
amount of GHG emissions displaced from the thermal generation plant in
Holyrood, NL and the coal-fired power plants in Nova Scotia, as well as the
increase in reliability of the electricity system and the availability of power to
meet the growing demand in the province of NL. Other standard criteria will
also serve to measure success, for instance if the project was completed on
time and on budget.
Muskrat Falls will eventually
allow for the decommissioning
of the oil-fired generation
station in Holyrood, NL.
Forecasts indicate that if
Holyrood were to continue
operations, between 1.1Mt and
3Mt of GHGs would be emitted
annually by 2030 (the range
reflects low and high industrial
27
load growth forecasts).
Phase Two of the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project is currently
in discussion, and would include the construction of a 2,250 MW generating
facility at Gull Island. Since Gull Island would produce more electricity than the
province currently needs, construction of the proposed facility is contingent on
securing long-term customers in external markets (e.g. Ontario, the United
10
States via Quebec, etc.). There is currently no set date for the development of
Gull Island.
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project will enhance NL’s electricity system by diversifying the
energy supply, reducing the reliance on fossil fuels, and using clean energy sources. It is listed in NL’s 2007 Energy
Plan and 2005 and 2011 Climate Change Action Plans as one of the ways in which the province will manage its GHG
emissions from increased electricity demand, and has the potential to offset GHG emissions from other sources by
11
up to 15 million tonnes per year (Muskrat Falls and Gull Island combined).
The Muskrat Falls project contributes to mitigation of GHGs through managerial decisions and actions (Table 1).
The management decision to develop Muskrat Falls will eventually allow for the decommissioning of the 490 MW
12
oil-fired generation station in Holyrood. The closure of the more than 40-year-old facility will reduce GHG
emissions by 1.2 million tonnes annually in NL, and will almost eliminate the province’s dependence on imported
13
fossil fuels. The construction of the Maritime Link will also allow power from Muskrat Falls to reach Nova Scotia
thereby displacing some of the 1,243 MW coal-fired power generation in Nova Scotia. Muskrat Falls also has the
14
potential to displace imported fossil fuels and coal in the Northeastern United States. GHG-conscious policies and
procedures (anti-idling, fuel consumption monitoring, etc.) have also been implemented during construction of the
Muskrat Falls facility. In addition, there will be a reduced contribution of GHGs stemming from decomposing
15
vegetation in a smaller flood reservoir area.
Table 1: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric
Generation Project
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
X
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
A Case Study Synthesis Report
30
The Muskrat Falls project utilizes technology that will serve to adapt to a
changing climate (Table 1). The Island of Newfoundland’s current electricity
According to Nalcor Energy,
Muskrat Falls and Gull Island
system is isolated, with a portion of its generation supply coming from
will reduce greenhouse gas
thermal sources. By connecting Newfoundland and Labrador through the
emissions equivalent to
transmission link, Muskrat Falls will increase the amount of clean,
taking 3.2 million cars off the
renewable electricity to the island from Labrador and will enhance the
28
road each year.
system reliability. It will also increase resiliency, as isolated grids are limited
in how well they perform and respond under extreme conditions, including
climate change. Similarly, the Maritime Link will also increase grid resilience and reliability in Nova Scotia, making
the system more adaptable to various stresses, including extreme weather events.
Supply contributions from more intermittent renewable energy sources (i.e. wind, run-of-river hydro) are not as
attractive since they may not meet dispatch requirements to meet customer demand. By linking to the North
American grid, Newfoundland’s capacity to develop and add renewable electricity to the grid will increase
significantly.
Measures of climate change adaptation have also been built into the development of Lower Churchill Hydroelectric
Generation Project. Nalcor worked with researchers at Memorial University in St. John’s, NL and used various
climate change models to determine the anticipated changes in weather and precipitation patterns in Labrador
(e.g. changes in expected runoff, river flows, etc.) and incorporated this information into project design.
Furthermore, Nalcor invested $206M towards design enhancements in order to improve the quality and reliability
of its transmission links, including further corrosion protection for HVac tower foundations, thereby creating a
16
more robust tower design able to withstand increasingly harsher weather conditions.
Table 2: Summary of the Contribution of the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Generation Project to Climate Change
Adaptation and Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
The managerial decision to develop Muskrat Falls and
enhance renewable energy in Newfoundland will displace
oil-fired power generation on the Island, as well as coalfired power generation in Nova Scotia, thereby reducing
GHG emissions.
Introducing the renewable energy into the grid will increase
the resiliency and reliability of the electricity system,
especially by connecting Newfoundland to, and bringing
renewable energy to Nova Scotia.



The decommissioning of the oil-fired power
generation station in Holyrood will reduce GHG
emissions by 1.2 million tonnes annually.
The need for additional fossil-fuel power
generation in the future will be eliminated,
thereby avoiding related GHG emissions.
The project will displace some of the coal-fired
power generation in Nova Scotia, and potentially
in the Northeastern United States.


The island of Newfoundland will connect to
Labrador, and the North American grid, for the
very first time thereby making it more adaptable
to changing factors such as climate change.
The Maritime Link will increase grid resilience and
reliability in Nova Scotia, making the electrical
system more adaptable to various system
stresses.
Adapting to climate change and mitigating GHGs were lesser considerations in the development of this project,
behind the ever increasing provincial electricity demand. Following a cost-benefit analysis that considered the
various electricity choices for NL (e.g. keeping Holyrood and the isolated energy system, adopting wind with
31
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
thermal or wind with battery, etc.) it was decided that developing Muskrat Falls would be the most cost-effective
alternative for the province.
Co-Benefits
Introducing additional renewable capacity to the grid not only helps to displace fossil fuels as electricity sources in
NL and Nova Scotia (mitigation), it also increases energy security and reliability for Newfoundland by increasing its
resilience to a variety of stresses including extreme weather events (adaptation). There are also a number of cobenefits that are apparent:
1) More cost-effective. Developing Muskrat Falls is more cost effective than remaining on an isolated grid
system. Since the Holyrood generation plant is over 40 years old, the continued use of the facility would
17
mean increasing maintenance costs, capital investments, upgrades, emission control equipment, etc. It
is more cost effective to increase renewable electricity sources than to rely on oil-fired thermal
generation into the future, particularly when considering changing and unpredictable fuel prices.
2) Reducing risks to human health. Closing Newfoundland’s thermal generation facility at Holyrood will
result in a significant reduction in GHG emissions (annual average of 1.1 million tonnes between 2000 and
2012) and a significant reduction in sulphur dioxide emissions (annual average of 11,610 tonnes between
18
2000 and 2012), benefiting local air quality and reducing potential risks to human health.
3) Meeting electricity demand. Muskrat Falls will meet the domestic electricity needs of NL and will provide
sufficient capacity for future industrial developments in the province. For example, when Muskrat Falls
comes online provincial demand is expected to capture 40% of the power generated at the facility. This
presents an opportunity for the province to sell excess power to the North American market, potentially
19
displacing existing or planned fossil fuel generation in export markets.
4) Greater energy exchanges. Muskrat Falls will allow the four Atlantic Provinces to work more closely
together on energy related matters. An Atlantic Canada grid linked to neighbouring grids will allow for
greater energy exchanges within the region, more economic use of electricity-generating resources, and
20
increased resiliency and reliability of the system.
5) Increased employment opportunities. A short term co-benefit is the increase in employment and
business opportunities to the people of NL during the construction phase. In 2014 more than 1,800
21
people were working on Muskrat Falls, with numbers expected to rise to 3,300 in 2015. Of these
workers, many benefit from learning a skilled trade; for example, Nalcor implemented a
Labrador/Aboriginal partnership that provided training for Aboriginal people, which they can take forward
in future employment opportunities. Once Muskrat Falls is operational, approximately 100 positions will
be required to maintain and operate the facility.
6) Increased renewable capacity. As mentioned earlier, the transmission links between Labrador and
Newfoundland and Newfoundland and Nova Scotia will increase the capacity to further develop
22
renewable energy sources, such as wind, on the Island for export.
7) Stable electricity rates. Once Muskrat Falls is in operation, it is expected to generate more long-term
stable electricity rates for generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, bringing relatively lower23
cost power to homes and businesses.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
32
Box 1: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to the Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric
Generation Project
The Muskrat Falls project focuses on harnessing renewable energy and connecting Newfoundland to the North American
grid for the very first time and will help to displace thermal oil and other fossil fuels as power sources while simultaneously
increasing energy security, improving local air quality, providing opportunities for energy export, increasing local
employment and business opportunities, and is ultimately the most cost-effective way for future energy supply to the Island.
Lessons Learned
There are three primary ‘climate change and energy’ lessons that stem from the development of Muskrat Falls.
Although the development of Muskrat Falls is a significant venture with an equally large budget, it demonstrates
how introducing a renewable energy source, driven largely by the need for additional electricity generation
capacity and improved reliability, can also respond to climate change challenges by the reduction of fossil fuel
sources (reducing GHG emissions) and increasing the reliability and resiliency of a grid (adaptation). With 163,000
MW of undeveloped hydro potential across Canada, it is safe to say that hydropower could play a larger role in
24
Canada’s future energy mix. Thus, more hydropower could contribute adaptation and mitigation benefits,
especially if replacing power from fossil fuel such as coal or connecting an isolated grid (assuming that the
environmental costs are not larger than the economic benefits)
Second, development and evaluation of historic and future climate trends provides immense value to a
hydroelectric generation project, and can help inform robust design for future weather and climate conditions. It is
particularly important to evaluate the changing hydrologic regime and how climate change will influence water
25
supply over the average life span of hydroelectric generation facilities. In the case of the Lower Churchill
Hydroelectric Generation Project, the relationship with a local university to provide data, analyses and advice on
future climate change impacts is an example of the benefits of such partnerships.
Finally, the Muskrat Falls project highlights the fact that climate change adaptation and mitigation are both direct
and indirect outcomes of the project even if the impetus stemmed from other reasons. This highlights the fact that
climate change considerations can contribute additional reason for the development of similar projects.
Further Information
Nalcor Energy: www.nalcorenergy.com
Muskrat Falls: www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com
Contact
Marion E. Organ, M. Eng., P.Eng., PMP
Environmental Services Manager, Nalcor Energy
Email: marionorgan@nalcorenergy.com
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
33
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
References
1
Canadian Electricity Association. Power for the Future: Hydro. Accessed from
www.powerforthefuture.ca/electricity-411/electricity-fuel-source-technical-papers/hydro/.
2
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Backgrounder – Muskrat Falls. Accessed from
www.gov.nl.ca/lowerchurchillproject/backgrounder_3.htm.
3
Nalcor Energy. Environment. Accessed from www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/environment/.
4
Nalcor Energy. Project Overview. Accessed from www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/project-overview/.
5
Nalcor Energy. Muskrat Falls Hydroelectric Generating Facility. Accessed from
www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/project-overview/muskrat-falls-hydroelectric-generation-facility/.
6
Nalcor Energy. Labrador-Island Link and Transmission Assets. Accessed from
www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/project-overview/labrador-island-link-and-transmission-assets/.
7
Nalcor Energy. Maritime Link. Accessed from www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/project-overview/maritimelink/.
8
Nalcor Energy. (2013). Nalcor Energy provides update on the Muskrat Falls Project. Accessed from
www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/News-Release_Muskrat-Falls-ProjectUpdate_26Jun2014.pdf.
9
Emera Inc. The Maritime Link Project. Accessed from
www.snl.com/irweblinkx/Mobile/file.aspx?IID=&FID=15889999&O=3&OSID=9.
10
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2012). Gull Island: Why not develop Gull Island first?. Department
of Natural Resources. Accessed from www.powerinourhands.ca/pdf/GullIsland.pdf.
11
Nalcor Energy. (2013). Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project Environmental Impact Statement –
Volume II Part A: Biophysical Assessment. Accessed from www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/04/Volume-IIA.pdf.
12
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2012). Environmental Benefits of Closing the Holyrood Thermal
Generation Station. Department of Natural Resources. Accessed from
www.powerinourhands.ca/pdf/MuskratEnvironment.pdf.
13
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Backgrounder – Muskrat Falls. Accessed from
www.gov.nl.ca/lowerchurchillproject/backgrounder_3.htm.
14
Emera Inc. The Maritime Link Project. Accessed from
www.snl.com/irweblinkx/Mobile/file.aspx?IID=&FID=15889999&O=3&OSID=9.
15
International Rivers. (2014). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Dams FAQ. Accessed from
www.internationalrivers.org/resources/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-dams-faq-4064.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
34
16
Nalcor Energy. (2014). Backgrounder: Key Factors Influencing Capital Costs. Accessed from
www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Backgrounder_Muskrat-Falls-ProjectUpdate-Key-Cost-Drivers_26Jun2014.pdf.
17
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2012). Environmental Benefits of Closing the Holyrood Thermal
Generation Station. Department of Natural Resources. Accessed from
www.powerinourhands.ca/pdf/MuskratEnvironment.pdf.
18
Ibid
19
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. Backgrounder – Muskrat Falls. Accessed from
www.gov.nl.ca/lowerchurchillproject/backgrounder_3.htm.
20
Weil, G.L. (2012). The Muskrat Falls Hydro Project: Opportunities and Risks. Atlantic Institute of Market Studies
(AIMS) Commentary. Accessed from www.aims.ca/site/media/aims/Muskrat%20Falls.pdf.
21
Nalcor Energy. (2014). Nalcor Energy provides update on the Muskrat Falls Project. Accessed from
www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/News-Release_Muskrat-Falls-ProjectUpdate_26Jun2014.pdf.
22
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. (2007). Section 4: Electricity. In Focusing Our Energy: Energy Plan.
Accessed from www.nr.gov.nl.ca/nr/energy/plan/index.html.
23
Nalcor Energy. Muskrat Falls Generation and Labrador-Island Link. Accessed from
www.muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/.
24
Canadian Hydropower Association. (2014). Five Things You Need to Know about Hydropower: Canada’s Number
One Electricity Source. Accessed from www.canadahydro.ca/hydro-facts/hydro-in-5-points.
25
Canadian Electricity Association. Power for the Future: Hydro. Accessed from
www.powerforthefuture.ca/electricity-411/electricity-fuel-source-technical-papers/hydro/.
26
Nalcor Energy. (2014). Lower Churchill Project. Accessed from www.nalcorenergy.com/lower-churchillproject.asp.
27
Nalcor Energy. (2009). Information Request No.: JRP.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Accessed from
www.rethinkmuskratfalls.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ir007.pdf.
28
Nalcor Energy. (2014). Lower Churchill Project. Accessed from www.nalcorenergy.com/lower-churchillproject.asp.
35
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power: Renewable Energy
Storage Technology for Remote Communities
Focus: Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power
Jurisdiction: Bella Coola, British Columbia, Canada
Lead: Powertech Labs Inc.
Other stakeholders: BC Hydro and Power Authority and
General Electric
Stage: Completed (2007-2011)
Cost: $6 million
Ownership: Private/Public
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
The Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power (HARP) system was
a demonstration project that determined the feasibility of
storing excess renewable energy in remote communities
isolated from the provincial electricity grid, in order to
increase energy efficiency and cost-effectiveness of a
community’s energy system and reduce reliance on diesel
generators. The project involved the installation of a
hydrogen energy storage system and Microgrid Control
System in Bella Coola, British Columbia (BC) – one of over
1
fifty remote communities in the province.
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
taking advantage of opportunities.
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
extreme weather events).
Bella Coola is located approximately 400 km north of
Vancouver on BC’s central coast and is home to roughly
2,000 residents. Bella Coola is a relatively large remote
community with a peak power demand of up to 2.5 megawatts (MW). The community relies heavily on diesel
generators for power, since its local run-of-river hydroelectric power facility located at Clayton Falls (2.1 MW
2
capacity) does not always supply sufficient energy to meet load requirements. Although diesel generators can be
reliable sources of energy and generally have low capital costs, they have high operating costs, low levels of
efficiency, and emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to climate change. In addition, there are high costs
associated with transporting diesel fuel to remote locations. For these reasons, it is a priority for many remote
3
communities to reduce their dependence on diesel-fueled power generation.
Harnessing renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, or in the case of Bella Coola, hydropower, is a way to
limit the use of diesel in remote communities; however, this type of energy generation can be intermittent and
unpredictable. Taking into account these challenges, the objectives of the HARP project were fourfold:
1) Demonstrate the viability of storing the excess electricity generated from Clayton Falls during off-peak
periods (mostly at night);
2) Demonstrate the ability of the Microgrid Control System to optimize the management of energy
generation and storage;
A Case Study Synthesis Report
36
3) Demonstrate the reliability of different energy storage
technologies (hydrogen storage and a flow battery); and
4) Use the findings from the project to inform future installations of
hybrid renewable systems (systems that consist of two or more
4
sources of renewable energy).
At the time, the project team
was working under the Clean
Energy Act in British
Columbia, which was one of
the drivers of the project. A
number of policy actions were
focused around increasing
energy efficiency in remote
communities.
The HARP project was a partnership between BC Hydro, the owner and
operator of the HARP system in Bella Coola, Powertech Labs Inc., a
subsidiary of BC Hydro that provided the consulting services, equipment
testing and evaluation of the HARP system, and General Electric, who
provided the Microgrid Control System as well as advanced optimization
5
and management software. The project was sponsored and co-funded by Sustainable Development Technology
6
Canada (SDTC) and the BC Innovative Clean Energy Fund (ICE). In total, the cost of the project was approximately
$6M.
The impetus of the project stemmed from a number of factors: (1) the high price of diesel and price fluctuations
that expose remote communities to high fuel and electricity costs, (2) the impact of fuel transportation and diesel
operation on the environment, (3) issues with the intermittency and unpredictability of renewable power, and (4)
deliberate attempts to shave off the distinct peaks in power usage. In terms of total power, the HARP system had
the capacity to store approximately 200 kilowatts (kW). Even though the system contributing 200 kW was
insufficient for the larger (up to 2.5 MW) needs of Bella Coola, the pilot study was designed as a proof-of-concept
rather than trying to match the energy needs of Bella Coola.
How the HARP System Functions
The HARP system stores the electricity generated by the Clayton Falls hydroelectricity facility in two ways: (1) as
hydrogen gas stored in high pressure tanks; and (2) a flow battery. To trigger conversion of power into hydrogen
and vice versa, the supply and demand of renewable energy (hydropower) was wirelessly monitored by a
Microgrid Control System, effectively improving the efficiency of energy management system within the
7
community. The hydrogen gas can be stored for as long as needed, and this particular HARP system was able to
store enough hydrogen gas to power the community of Bella Coola for 40 hours. Additional storage capacity is
possible if warranted. The functions of the HARP system are depicted in Figure 1.
The technology proved to be successful by demonstrating its ability to reduce GHG emissions in the range of 600
tonnes per year through reductions in diesel fuel usage (200,000 litres) and was able to reduce the total operation
8
costs on a typical summer day from $803 to $293. The Microgrid Control System was also effective in improving
the management of energy systems within the community. The testing period of the HARP system in Bella Coola
ended in 2011 due to funding constraints, at which time BC Hydro disassembled the equipment and moved it to
another location for further long-term utilization studies. Even though the HARP demonstration project was only
operational at Bella Coola for a few years, it was successful in demonstrating the
viability of the HARP energy storage technology and provided valuable lessons
The HARP technology
for the application of similar systems in other remote communities.
reduced Bella Coola’s annual
diesel consumption by
200,000 litres and reduced
GHG emissions by 600 tonnes
per year.
37
The project team faced moderate operational and technological challenges
while implementing the new technologies in Bella Coola. For instance, the steep
and bumpy terrain along the 1,000 km route from Vancouver to Bella Coola
made it difficult to transport equipment for use; in fact, some system
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
components required additional protection during transportation. As well, the intermittent and unpredictable
nature of renewable sources of power meant that the system was not able to run during periods of low- or no-flow
periods during the winter months, during which time the system had to revert back to diesel.
Figure 1: The functions of the HARP system in Bella Coola, BC. An electrolyzer splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. The
hydrogen is compressed and stored in high pressure tanks while the oxygen is released to the atmosphere. When power is
needed, the stored hydrogen is fed into a 100 kW fuel cell to generate electricity, with hot water as a bi-product, while the
9
flow battery produces an additional 100 kW of electricity which is sent directly to the community.
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
The HARP proof-of-concept project demonstrated opportunities for both mitigation and adaptation to climate
change (Table 1). However, the adaptation aspect of the project, though anticipated, was not an explicit goal.
Table 1: Summary of the Contribution of the HARP Project to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
The storage technology increased the efficiency of the
hydropower facility and ultimately decreased the
community’s dependence on diesel generators.
The storage technology increased the stability and reliability
of the community’s energy system.


Stored clean and renewable energy as hydrogen
gas during non-peak hours for use during times of
peak demand.
Decreased need for transporting diesel to the
A Case Study Synthesis Report


Reduced the risk of power outages during times of
peak demand.
Reduced the community’s reliance on externally
sourced fuel.
38

community, therefore reducing total GHG
emissions.
Ultimately contributed to the overall resilience
and stability of the community’s energy supply.
The HARP system advanced climate change mitigation in Bella Coola through the development and installation of
green energy technology (Table 2). The hydrogen energy storage system and Microgrid Control System technology
increased the efficiency of the Clayton Falls run-of-the-river hydropower facility and ultimately decreased the
community’s dependence on diesel generators. The operation of the fuel cells did not release harmful emissions
and allowed waste heat – a bi-product of the fuel cells – to be utilized for district heating. This amplified the overall
10
efficiency of the system and further reduced GHG emissions. Additionally, reduced diesel consumption resulted
in a decreased need for transporting diesel to the community, therefore reducing total GHG emissions.
Since many remote communities often only have one road in and out of the area, they are particularly vulnerable
to interruptions due to extreme weather such as rain/floods, snow, storms, etc. Subsequently this presents risk to
the supply of diesel to the community. By reducing the dependence on diesel and storing what would have been
‘wasted’ renewable energy for use during times of peak demand, the hydrogen storage technology increased the
community’s energy security, while also making the community’s energy supply much more stable and reliable.
Therefore, the HARP project contributed to climate change adaptation through advancements in the storage
technology in Bella Coola (Table 2).
Table 2: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for the HARP Project
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
X
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Co-Benefits
There were several co-benefits provided by the HARP system in addition to the direct adaptation and mitigation
contributions previously described. For example, reducing the need to burn diesel fuel during times of high energy
11
demand improves local air quality and reduces energy costs for residents. Another co-benefit is the creation of
local high-value employment opportunities; in the case of Bella Coola, two full time positions were required to run
and maintain the equipment.
Box 1: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to the HARP Project
The energy storage capabilities of the HARP technology allowed a remote community to increase the stability, reliability and
security of its energy supply while simultaneously reducing GHG emissions, improving local air quality, reducing energy costs
for residents, and creating local employment opportunities.
39
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Lessons Learned
Two main lessons emerge from the demonstration project in Bella Coola. First, the fact that the HARP energy
storage and Microgrid Control System were successful provides hope that they can be used as a measure to adapt
to climate change in other remote communities. Combined with the level of GHG mitigation, the sum of savings
may present a stronger business case for the technology in remote communities. Second, as this proof-of-concept
project was in part made possible from government funding through Sustainable Development Technology
Canada, it is recommended to establish these types of partnerships with outside funding sources in order to lessen
the financial burden on remote communities. Costs of implementing the technology are based on the desired level
of energy storage, the availability and variability of renewable resources, and the desired level of diesel
replacement, among others. In addition, sunken costs related to development and testing, as well as efficiencies of
scale, will dictate the initial level and return on financial investment.
In Canada, there are approximately 300 remote communities that, like Bella Coola, are not connected to a large,
12
stable electrical grid and must generate most of their electricity using diesel generators. Since the system
considered here works with any type of renewable energy source (including wind, solar and hydropower), remote
communities across Canada that have access to renewable energy could apply these lessons as an approach to
mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Further Information
Powertech Labs Inc.: www.powertechlabs.com
Contact
Joe Wong, P.Eng.
Project Consortium Manager, Powertech Labs Inc.
Email: joe.wong@powertechlabs.com
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
Powertech Labs Inc. (2011). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power System: Displacing diesel in remote
communities. Accessed from
www.powertechlabs.com/temp/20112439066/HARP_DataSheet_Feb_4_2011web.pdf.
2
Allan, S., J. Wong and W. Jeschke. (2012). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power H.A.R.P. – Project Report. SDTC2006-1-1092, Final Report Prepared for BC Hydro and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
40
3
Glandt, J.D. (2012). Fuel Cell Power as a Primary Energy Source for Remote Communities. Solutions Engineering.
Accessed from www.ballard.com/files/PDF/Distributed_Generation/Fuel_Cells_for_Remote_Communities__White_Paper_-_Apr_2012.pdf.
4
Grant, A. (2010). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power (HARP) Project in British Columbia. Vancouver 2010
Symposium on Microgrids. Powertech Labs Inc. Accessed from
www.der.lbl.gov/sites/der.lbl.gov/files/vancouver_grant-sagoo.pdf.
5
Powertech Labs Inc. (2011). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power System: Displacing diesel in remote
communities. Accessed from
www.powertechlabs.com/temp/20112439066/HARP_DataSheet_Feb_4_2011web.pdf.
6
Grant, A. (2010). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power (HARP) Project in British Columbia. Vancouver 2010
Symposium on Microgrids. Powertech Labs Inc. Accessed from
www.der.lbl.gov/sites/der.lbl.gov/files/vancouver_grant-sagoo.pdf.
7
Powertech Labs Inc. (2011). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power System: Displacing diesel in remote
communities. Accessed from
www.powertechlabs.com/temp/20112439066/HARP_DataSheet_Feb_4_2011web.pdf.
8
Renewable Energy Focus. (2013). Off grid renewables – could this be an end to diesel dependency? Accessed from
www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/31285/off-grid-renewables-could-this-be-an-end-to-dieseldependency/.
9
Powertech Labs Inc. (2011). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power System: Displacing diesel in remote
communities. Accessed from
www.powertechlabs.com/temp/20112439066/HARP_DataSheet_Feb_4_2011web.pdf.
10
Glandt, J.D. (2012). Fuel Cell Power as a Primary Energy Source for Remote Communities. Solutions Engineering.
Accessed from www.ballard.com/files/PDF/Distributed_Generation/Fuel_Cells_for_Remote_Communities__White_Paper_-_Apr_2012.pdf.
11
Grant, A. (2010). Hydrogen Assisted Renewable Power (HARP) Project in British Columbia. Vancouver 2010
Symposium on Microgrids. Powertech Labs Inc. Accessed from
www.der.lbl.gov/sites/der.lbl.gov/files/vancouver_grant-sagoo.pdf.
12
Ballard Power Systems. (2011). Clean, Reliable Power for Remote Off-Grid Communities. Accessed from
www.altenergymag.com/emagazine/2011/08/clean-reliable-power-for-remote-off-grid-communities/1762.
41
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
The Alberta Climate Change and Emissions Management
Fund: Investing in Mitigation and Adaptation Initiatives
Focus: Climate Change and Emissions Management
Fund
Jurisdiction: Alberta, Canada
Lead: Climate Change and Emissions Management
Corporation
Other stakeholders: Government of Alberta and large
emitters in Alberta
Stage: Implemented – up for renewal on December 31,
2014
Cost: $237 million (to date)
Ownership: Public/Private
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Capacity
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
In 2007, Alberta became the first jurisdiction in North
America to pass climate change legislation. The Specified Gas
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
Emitters Regulation (SGER), under the Climate Change and
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
Emissions Management Act, requires large greenhouse gas
taking advantage of opportunities.
(GHG) emitters to reduce their emissions according to
specific targets defined by the province. Large emitters,
Capacity: increasing the sectors’ ability to develop
which constitute 50% of the total GHG emissions each year
policies, programs or projects thereby building their
capacity to deal with climate mitigation and
in Alberta, are defined as companies that emit more than
adaptation.
100,000 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2e)
per year. Facilities classified as large emitters must reduce
their emissions intensity by 12% below their 2003-2005 baseline intensity (i.e., the volume of GHG emissions per
1
unit of production). For new facilities, the emissions intensity target is phased in at 2% per year, from a baseline
2
established in the facility’s third year of operation. Since implementation began in 2007, the SGER has reduced
emissions by 7 megatonnes (Mt) on average each year from business as usual. This is helping Alberta meet its
target of reducing GHG emissions by 200 Mt, or 50% below business as usual, and 14% below 2005 levels by 2050,
3,4
as set out in Alberta’s Climate Change Strategy.
The reasons for which the SGER follows an intensity-based, facility-specific historic baseline system are twofold.
First, the facility-specific nature of the regulation assures the inclusion of various facilities and sectors in the
regulation (e.g. landfill, petro-chemical operations, fertilizer facilities, cement plants, oil sands facilities, electricity
facilities, etc.). Second, the Government of Alberta sought to reduce emissions in a way that would not hinder
economic activity; therefore each facility has a performance target (emissions per unit output) so that it cannot
reach its target by simply shutting down or cutting back on production.
For companies that cannot meet their targets as set out in the SGER, there are three compliance options:
1) Purchase Alberta-based offset credits;
A Case Study Synthesis Report
42
2) Purchase Emission Performance Credits; or
3) Contribute $15 into the Climate Change and Emissions
Management Fund (CCEMF) for every 1 tonne of GHG emissions
5
they exceed beyond their allocated limit.
The CCEMF was established under the Climate Change and Emissions
Management Act by the Government of Alberta to support investment in
innovation and clean technologies aiming to reduce Alberta’s GHG emissions
6
and improve its ability to adapt to climate change. The deliberate creation
of this fund assured that the money collected would not simply go into
general revenue, but rather to further the goals of the SGER thus creating a
self-sustaining system for climate change action where funds are reinvested
to further reduce emissions or adapt to climate change.
In Alberta, companies that
emit more than 100,000
metric tonnes of CO2 per
year must reduce their
intensity by 12% below
their 2003-2005 baseline
intensity. One compliance
option for those who
cannot meet their target is
to contribute $15 into the
Climate Change and
Emissions Management
Fund (CCEMF) for every 1
tonne of GHG emissions
they exceed beyond their
16
allocated limit.
CCEMF contributions are collected by the Government of Alberta and
transferred twice a year in the form of a grant to the Climate Change and
Emissions Management Corporation (CCEMC). The CCEMC is an arm’s-length
organization that works independently from government and is responsible for reinvesting the funds from the
7
CCEMF into initiatives and projects that either reduce GHG emissions or help Alberta adapt to climate change. In
its fifth year of operations, the CCEMC’s mandate is to support the discovery, development and deployment of
8
clean technologies. The Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development also has the ability to
directly fund projects related to the mandate of the fund, independent of the CCEMC, but use of this ability has
been limited to date.
The CCEMF is a strategic investment in a long term process. There is a lot of anticipated growth in the energy
sector in Alberta and a great need to develop and apply new clean energy technologies. The CCEMC considers
funding projects at various levels of innovation (i.e., from early stage research and development to pilot projects
9
that are near commercialization) in the areas of clean energy production, renewable energy, energy efficiency,
carbon capture and sequestration, innovative carbon uses, adaptation and reducing GHG emissions from biological
10
sources. To date, $503M has been paid into the CCEMF and of that, $237M has been allocated to 90 clean
11
technology projects. It is important to note that these projects are leveraged by other funding sources (minimum
of 1:1, but on average 6:1) in order to spur investment and innovation in adaptation and mitigation projects.
Table 1: Examples of Projects Funded by the CCEMF
MITIGATION PROJECTS
Type of Project
Organization
CCEMC Funding
Project
Location
Total Project Value
Renewable Energy
Suncor Energy
Inc., Oil Sands
$9,201,063
Wintering Hills
Battery Storage
Pilot Project
Fort
McMurray,
AB
$18,410,000
Energy Efficiency
Devon Energy
$1,951,581
Organic Rankine
Cycle Waste Heat
Recovery Project
Conklin, AB
$5,850,000
43
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Cleaner Energy
Production from
Fossil Fuels
Saltworks
Technologies
Inc.
$500,000
Low Energy
Produced Water
Treatment
Vancouver,
BC
$2,200,000
ADAPTATION PROJECTS
Type of Project
Organization
Adaptation
Foothills
Research
Institute/Tree
Improvement
Alberta
Adaptation
Alberta
Biodiversity
Monitoring
Institute
Adaptation
Alberta
Innovates –
Energy and
Environment
Solutions and
WaterSMART
Solutions Ltd.
CCEMC Funding
Project
Location
Total Project Value
$3,000,000
Tree Species
Adaptation Risk
Management
Project
Alberta
$3,000,000
$2,400,000
Biodiversity
Management and
Climate Change
Adaptation
Alberta
$2,400,000
$1,600,000
South
Saskatchewan
River Basin (SSRB)
Adaptation to
Climate
Vulnerability
Project
Bow River
and Oldman
River subbasins of the
South
Saskatchewan
River Basin
$1,600,000
* Note that the CCEMC has also funded projects outside of Alberta; however the projects must be applicable to Alberta in
some way.
The CCEMC is governed by a Board of Directors tasked with providing leadership, policy development and the
allocation of resources to achieve strategic results. The Board is made up of representatives from the public at
large and sectors of the economy that have large emitters. The Board also provides access to expertise from the
fertilizer industry, mineral manufacturing, chemical producers, academia, conventional oil and gas, government,
12
the pipeline industry, electricity generation, the forest industry and the oil sands.
Twice a year, the Board identifies opportunities for GHG reduction and adaptation that will maximize the impact of
the funds while staying in line with the strategic interests of the Province and the
CCEMC. Once the Board chooses a subject area for a particular round of funding
The CCEMC follows a
(e.g. carbon capture projects, renewable energy technologies, adaptation
rigorous multi-step process
projects, etc.), they release a call for proposals that outlines the types of projects
when choosing projects to
they are seeking. The CCEMC then follows a rigorous multi-step process to
fund in order to ensure that
evaluate each proposal and ensure that the funds are invested in accordance
the funds are invested in
with its mandate. The process takes approximately eight months from beginning
accordance with its
mandate. The process takes
to end and involves seven steps.
Assembling the initial Board of Directors to reflect a broad range of expertise on
a variety of topics was challenging yet necessary to ensure that funding decisions
are not swayed by any particular sector. The CCEMC also ensures it has a clear
A Case Study Synthesis Report
approximately 8 months
from beginning to end and
involves 7 steps.
44
and structured process for how projects are evaluated and how funding is allocated. This helps overcome issues
related to stakeholders lobbying their own ideas for spending the money.
Currently, the CCEMC does not explicitly seek out projects that have both adaptation and mitigation components;
rather, they use the CCEMF to fund mitigation projects and adaptation projects separately. The CCEMC tracks their
success through the number of projects funded and the amount of GHGs reduced. Tracking the success of
mitigation projects is relatively straightforward because reductions in CO2 are easily quantified and reported to the
funding agency. In contrast, it is much more difficult to assess the success of adaptation projects since they are
very different from one other and do not have common metrics. Therefore, project-specific milestones, intents or
goals serve as indicators of success for adaptation initiatives.
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
The CCEMF contributes both to climate change adaptation and mitigation through the Climate Change and
Emissions Management Act and accompanying Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) (Table 2).
Table 2: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for the CCEMF
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
X
The CCEMF advances mitigation by funding the development of technologies that will significantly reduce Alberta’s
GHG emissions. The funded projects contribute to the research and development of carbon capture and storage,
renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean energy production technologies. It is estimated that CCEMC-funded
projects will reduce GHG emissions by approximately 10.3 Mt by 2020, which is equivalent to removing roughly 2.1
13
million cars from the roads. Additional reductions are expected due to the broader adoption and
14
commercialization of the clean energy technologies.
The funds for adaptation projects are not necessarily tied to the energy sector or clean technologies. Instead, these
projects focus on understanding the impacts of climate change and evaluating potential management responses
15
related to wildlife, ecosystems, forestry and watersheds (refer back to Table 1). The adaptation projects are more
research-focused than the mitigation projects and provide opportunities to become long-term initiatives where
there is potential for uptake and continuation of the projects beyond the defined CCEMF funding period.
From current and previous research initiatives by both the Alberta government and research institutions, insight
into knowledge gaps has been highlighted which help to steer the direction of CCEMF-funded projects. The CCEMF
funds projects that will advance understanding of adaptation management for all stakeholders in the province,
which include industry, academia, government and Alberta residents.
45
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
While there is no set formula that dictates how funding is allocated between adaptation and mitigation projects,
the imbalance is clear: to date, adaptation projects have received $7M in funds in comparison to over $200M
allocated to mitigation projects. These strategic decisions are made by the Board of Directors, members of which
are often part of industries that are largely interested in mitigation. However, the Board recognizes the importance
of adaptation and its relationship with mitigation and plans to review the manner in which funds are distributed in
order to increase the CCEMF’s contribution to adaptation in the future.
Table 3: Summary of the Contribution of the CCEMF to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
Policy funds the development of clean energy technologies
that will significantly reduce GHG emissions in Alberta.
Policy funds adaptation projects that help increase
resiliency to climate change in Alberta.



Contributes to the research and development of
carbon capture and storage, renewable energy,
energy efficiency and clean energy production
technologies, all of which work to reduce GHG
emissions.
GHG emissions will be reduced by approximately
10.3 Mt by the year 2020.
Additional reductions are expected due to the
broader adoption and commercialization of the
clean energy technologies.


Projects help to enhance the understanding of
climate change impacts and adaptation on
wildlife, ecosystems, forestry and watersheds.
Projects recommend and evaluate potential
management responses to climate change
impacts.
Co-Benefits
The CCEMF was intentionally put in place to maximize the co-benefits of the SGER by using the funds collected
from large emitters in Alberta to help the province reduce its GHG emissions and adapt to a changing climate.
There are also a number of other co-benefits that arise from the fund. First, the energy industry is certainly
impacted by climate change (e.g. increasing demand, interruptions to lines, decreasing water supply, etc.) and
each area of the energy industry is also in tune with their contribution to GHG emissions. Therefore, there is value
in a program like the CCEMF that has a dual focus, and adequately addressed both adaptation and mitigation in
one policy. Second, there are many transferrable skills between the adaptation and mitigation projects in terms of
administrative efficiency, in particular, project management and coordination (e.g. setting up contracts and
planning agreements, administration work, etc.). By including adaptation and mitigation in the same fund,
competition for resources between adaptation and mitigation goals is reduced. Finally, the SGER has the ability to
include requirements of demonstration of both adaptation and mitigation in their projects; truly a win-win
opportunity.
Box 1: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Resulting from the CCEMF
The CCEMF’s purpose is to help Alberta reduce its GHG emissions by investing in clean energy technologies and adapt to a
changing climate by funding adaptation research. Addressing both adaptation and mitigation increases the efficiency of the
CCEMF by sharing resources.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
46
Lessons Learned
In its six years of existence, the CCEMF in Alberta has demonstrated that policy has an integral role to play in
building both adaptation and mitigation capacity. Developing a provincial regulation that requires large emitters to
reduce GHG emissions, and penalize those who cannot meet the specified targets, helps to generate the funds
necessary to achieve multiple climate change objectives. Due to this purposeful harmonization of outcomes, the
CCEMF reduces the competition for human and financial resources for adaptation and mitigation.
Further, CCEMF-funded adaptation projects address Alberta’s capacity to adapt to the changing climate. Projects
funded by the CCEMF thus far have supported knowledge development and broadened understanding of risks and
benefits of climatic changes in Alberta where funding is minimal through other avenues, such as projects focusing
on biodiversity, watersheds, and forestry. Thus, funds for adaptation projects can be focused on understanding the
impacts of climate change and evaluating potential management responses where information gaps currently
exist.
Further Information
Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation: www.ccemc.ca
Government of Alberta: www.esrd.alberta.ca
Contact
Justin Wheler
Climate Change Engineer, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development
Email: Justin.wheler@gov.ab.ca
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
CCEMC. About. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/about/.
2
Leach, A. (2012). Policy Forum: Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. Canadian Tax Journal. Volume 60(4)
881-898.
3
Bankes, N. and E. Wilman. (2014). Summary of Papers and Proceedings from a Workshop on Key Issues in the
th
Design of Carbon Management Policies and Regulations in Alberta, Calgary, January 27 and 28 , 2014.
47
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Accessed from www.ablawg.ca/2014/02/18/summary-of-papers-and-proceedings-from-a-workshop-on-keyissues-in-the-design-of-carbon-management-policies-and-regulations-in-alberta-calgary-january-27-28th2014/.
4
Government of Alberta. (2008). Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy: Responsibility / Leadership / Action.
Accessed from www.environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7894.pdf.
5
Government of Alberta. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program. Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource
Development. Accessed from www.esrd.alberta.ca/focus/alberta-and-climate-change/regulating greenhousegas-emissions/greenhouse-gas-reduction-program/default.aspx.
6
CCEMC. (2013). 2012/ 2013 Annual Report. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CCEMC2013-AnnualReport-web-R1.pdf.
7
Leach, A. (2012). Policy Forum: Alberta’s Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. Canadian Tax Journal. Volume 60(4)
881-898.
8
CCEMC. (2013). 2012/ 2013 Annual Report. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/CCEMC2013-AnnualReport-web-R1.pdf.
9
CCEMC. (2013). Performance. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/about/performance/.
10
CCEMC. About. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/about/.
11
Government of Alberta. Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund. Alberta Environment and Sustainable
Resource Development. Accessed from www.esrd.alberta.ca/focus/alberta-and-climate-change/climatechange-and-emissions-management-fund.aspx.
12
CCEMC. (2013). The Board. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/about/the-board/.
13
CCEMC. (2013). FAQS. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/apply/faqs/.
14
Ibid
15
CCEMC. (2013). Adaptation Projects. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/projects/adaptation/.
16
CCEMC. About. Accessed from www.ccemc.ca/about/.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
48
First Nations Power Authority of Saskatchewan Inc.:
Capacity-building for First Nations in the Energy Sector
Focus: First Nations Power Authority of Saskatchewan
Inc.
Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan, Canada
Other stakeholders: SaskPower and the Government of
Saskatchewan
Stage: In Development
Cost: ~$2 million
Ownership: Private/Public
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Capacity
The value and necessity of First Nations participation in the
power sector in Saskatchewan has been recognized by First
Nations and others for some time. Significant economic
growth in resource extraction sectors will require adequate
and reliable supplies of power in rural and remote locations of
the province. These requirements could potentially translate
into economic opportunities for Saskatchewan First Nations.
Until recently, the capacity of First Nations to develop power
production projects had been limited due to difficulties
accessing financing and expertise, despite opportunities to
develop energy resources in certain locations. In order to
overcome some of the challenges associated with First
Nations power production projects, the First Nations Power
Authority of Saskatchewan Inc. (FNPA) was created.
Climate Change Mitigation: actions that reduce the
magnitude or rate of human-induced emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Climate Change Adaptation: preparing for adverse
effects of climate change by preventing or
minimizing impacts or taking advantage of
opportunities.
Capacity: increasing the sectors’ ability to develop
policies, programs or projects thereby building their
capacity to deal with climate mitigation and
adaptation.
FNPA is a membership-based, not-for-profit corporation
headquartered in Regina, Saskatchewan that works to build the capacity of Saskatchewan First Nations to
participate in Saskatchewan’s power sector. With the support of its members, FNPA:
1) Facilitates the development of First Nations‐led power projects and promotes First Nations participation
in procurement opportunities with SaskPower (the principal electric utility in Saskatchewan) through a
1
well-defined, mutually beneficial, long-term agreement;
2) Serves as a point of contact between SaskPower and Saskatchewan First Nations, providing First Nations
with access to SaskPower’s knowledge and expertise in the power sector; and
3) Helps First Nations prioritize and choose power production projects that are technically feasible and will
provide the most benefit and value in relation to expected costs and most importantly, meet the energy
needs associated with expected development.
4) Promotes the development of renewable energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
support sustainable local energy systems
49
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
FNPA functions through support of its members, who fall into two categories:
general and industry. General members are typically First Nations
communities or First Nations-owned development corporations, while
industry members are usually corporations who are involved with various
aspects of the energy sector, such as project development, Engineering,
Procurement and Construction (EPC), process design, equipment provision
and project management. There are currently 17 general members and 12
2
industry members.
SaskPower, FNPA and the Government of Saskatchewan signed a
Memorandum of Understanding in 2011 to formalize the partnership
3,4
arrangement. Subsequently, in June of 2012, FNPA and SaskPower signed
5
the First Nations Power Master Agreement ; a 10 year agreement that
provides guidance on how the parties will work together to establish an array
6
of First Nations-led power generation facilities. Once operational, the
projects developed through FNPA will supply power to SaskPower.
Highlights of the Master
Agreement include:
1) An initial 10 MW set
aside from SaskPower
for renewable energy
projects;
2) Additional future
generation
opportunities for
FNPA members; and
3) A defined process for
evaluating unsolicited
First Nation power
8
project proposals.
FNPA focuses largely on renewable energy technologies both on- and off-grid. They are particularly interested in
developing power projects for industrial operations and northern and remote communities. FNPA is a young
organization and without any operational power projects, is strengthening the capacity of First Nations to build
renewable energy projects.
Although there are currently no operational power projects, the FNPA has begun developing its first 10MW of
power generation by setting up a solar demonstration project in Swift Current, and planning three solar power
projects with First Nations communities in Saskatchewan’s Far North. FNPA has also been working towards the
development of the Meadow Lake Bioenergy Centre, which is expected to be operational in 2015.
Since the FNPA is in the early stages of project development, there has been minimal monitoring to date. However,
given the focus and objectives of FNPA, success will be measured using indicators of First Nations community
development and well-being. For instance, once these indicators are developed they could be used to measure
economic returns from the production projects, changes in individuals’ livelihoods, or access to essential
community services (e.g. electricity, health and recreation). Additional examples of potential indicators include:
number of projects developed; volume of GHG emission reduced; number of First Nations communities involved;
changes in employment rates in First Nations communities; percentage change in power service reliability to
remote communities; number of homes with access to sustainable energy; number of homes off the grid; and
many others.
Financial sustainability is one challenge facing FNPA. Currently, FNPA has two sources of funding: membership fees
and government. First Nations maintain membership through a $500/year membership fee, while other
corporations and governments have annual membership fees based on revenue. FNPA is also subsidized by
government. Sustaining FNPA into the future will require developing sources of interim and long term funding to
build future project revenues (e.g. additional grants, project development, and membership fees) in order to
maintain and improve the benefits that the organization provides as it moves to a more self-sustaining business
model.
A second challenge involves the preferred scale of new renewable energy projects by SaskPower. First Nation
communities are relatively small communities spread out across the province, and would likely prefer small-scale
renewable energy projects located at the community level. However SaskPower has a preference for large-scale
A Case Study Synthesis Report
50
projects, as they are easier to manage and integrate into the existing grid. As a result, FNPA is challenged with
balancing the needs and preferences of First Nations communities and SaskPower.
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
In addition to building capacity within the First Nations to get involved in new power projects, contributions to
GHG reduction at the FNPA has been recognized through managerial activities. As new renewable projects arise at
FNPA, reliance on fossil fuel-dependent generation will subside (Table 1). Currently, FNPA functions as a bridging
organization to help individual First Nation communities across Saskatchewan become engaged in the power
industry and develop renewable energy projects, which will have future climate change mitigation benefits. In
particular, FNPA’s role could lead to considerable, but yet to be estimated, reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions in the future. These GHG emission reductions could be realized through a shift away from the reliance
on fossil fuels for power production in remote communities or through the development of greenfield renewables
such as wind, solar, bioenergy and hydro.
Table 1: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for FNPA
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
X
The member-driven policy mandate of the FNPA contributes to power grid resilience and increased adaptive
capacity in Saskatchewan. Their activities encourage the decentralization and diversification of power production
7
thus lessening the vulnerability of power infrastructure to the impacts of extreme weather and improving
reliability of power supply, notably in remote locations. FNPA also provides a mechanism for First Nations to 1)
contribute to the diversification of Saskatchewan’s power supply; 2) bring new sources of power to previously unor under-serviced First Nation communities; and 3) strengthen the economies of smaller, remote communities
through training, employment and renewable power business opportunities.
The FNPA will also implement electrical grid infrastructure enhancements such as microgrid, smart-grid and other
distributed generation technologies. These technologies will manage the electricity from a number of power
generation technologies with greater efficiency, allowing for a greater power fleet diversity and, as detailed above,
a greater number of power generation options to rely upon when dealing with climate change impacts or stressors
to the electrical grid. These initiatives are expected to demonstrate the benefits of distributed generation for the
energy supply mix, while maintaining reliable electricity supply for users.
Although recognized as important, adapting to climate change has not been the primary driver for development of
the FNPA. FNPA was created to improve First Nations participation in the energy sector, ensure that First Nations
benefit directly from the future development of power production projects, and provide effective linkages
between the main players in Saskatchewan’s power industry (e.g. SaskPower, other developers, federal and
provincial government agencies) and First Nations communities. Within this set of drivers, climate change
51
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
mitigation has also been a direct focus of FNPA through the development of Saskatchewan’s renewable energy
sector.
Table 2: Summary of the Contribution of FNPA to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
Will help First Nations communities access the expertise and
resources they need to develop renewable energy projects.
Policy mandate will help improve the adaptive capacity of
the power production system by promoting decentralization
of the grid and the diversification of power generation
types.


Will shift reliance away from fossil fuels for energy
production across the Province of Saskatchewan.
Could lead to considerable, but yet to be
estimated, reductions in GHGs in the future.


Will contribute to the adaptive capacity of First
Nations communities by improving their access to
resources.
Will maintain reliability, build needed redundancy,
and improve resiliency within the electricity grid.
Co-Benefits
FNPA provides a mechanism for development of renewable energy projects. This provides adaptation/mitigation
co-benefits through power supply resiliency and GHG emissions reduction. Additional benefits of improved access
to local power, such as reduced vulnerability to the impacts of extreme events on power infrastructure, are also
achieved through the FNPA.
Box 1: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to FNPA
FNPA’s focus on renewable energy production in remote areas will help produce a more resilient power generation and
transmission system while simultaneously reducing GHG emissions and providing jobs and climate-smart development
opportunities for Saskatchewan First Nations communities.
Lessons Learned
There are four main lessons that can be learned from this case study. First, FNPA demonstrates a successful model
for community engagement. FNPA acts as a bridging organization and point of contact to provide a conduit and
concentration of information to build capacity within First Nations who wish to participate in the power production
sector. Such an organization provides the basis for developing effective and efficient relationships between
individual First Nations and key players in the sector (e.g. SaskPower).
Second, sustainable funding is a necessity to support FNPA’s efforts. The organization will be seeking ways to
broaden its financial support base in order to be less dependent on government funds, as power production
projects become operational. Long project development periods (3-20+ years) will make continued government
support necessary, if benefits are derived from new, and operating renewable energy projects. Alternative
financing mechanisms, including renewable energy certificates, property assessed clean energy (PACE), and
community-funded renewable energy projects, could also be pursued.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
52
Third, the FNPA is a model of leadership from First Nations and provides the mechanism for fair and inclusive
participation of Saskatchewan First Nations in Saskatchewan’s energy sector and growing economy. This
leadership, in turn, provides capacity for the direct participation of First Nations in climate change mitigation
projects and provides associated benefits related to climate change adaptation.
Fourth, FNPA demonstrates how competing priorities can be balanced to address climate change from both an
adaptation and mitigation standpoint. While the main drivers and mandate of FNPA pertains to the development
of economic opportunities for First Nations, the benefits of climate change responses are clear and will serve the
First Nations and the province writ large.
Further Information
First Nations Power Authority: www.fnpa.ca
Contact
Phone: (306) 359-3672
Email: info@fnpa.ca
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
FNPA. (2014). About. Accessed from www.fnpa.ca/about/.
2
FNPA. (2014). Membership. Accessed from www.fnpa.ca/membership/.
3
FNMR. (2011). Annual Report of the Ministry of First Nations and Métis Relations, 2010-11. Government of
Saskatchewan, Regina, SK. 30 p.
4
SaskPower. (2011). Energizing Growth: SaskPower Annual Report 2011. SaskPower, Regina, SK, 132 p.
5
SaskPower and FNPA. (2012). First Nations Master Power Agreement. SaskPower and FNPA, Regina, SK, 12 p.
6
FNPA. (2014). About. Accessed from www.fnpa.ca/about/.
7
Sauchyn, D. and S. Kulshreshtha. (2008). Prairies. In Lemmen, D., F. Warren, J. Lacroix and E. Bush. (Eds) From
Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, p. 275-328.
53
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
8
Eggerman, C. (2013). First Nations Power Authority of Saskatchewan and SaskPower launch innovative new
program for renewable energy projects. Accessed from
www.renewableenergylawyer.blogspot.com/2013/03/first-nations-power-authority-of.html.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
54
Markham’s District Energy Systems: Using Locally-sited
Combined Heat and Power to Increase Energy Efficiency
Focus: Markham’s District Energy Systems
Jurisdiction: Markham, Ontario, Canada
Lead: Markham District Energy Inc.
Other stakeholders: City of Markham
Stage: Operational/In Development
Cost: >$150 million
Ownership: Public
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
Instead of relying on energy produced externally (i.e., outside
their community or province), many communities across
Canada are now looking towards district energy as a way to
achieve greater energy security, reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, manage rising energy prices, increase
economic competitiveness, and achieve financial benefit
1
through the sale of electricity. District energy is classed as
thermal energy (steam, hot water or chilled water) that is
produced at central plants and distributed to surrounding
buildings via closed-loop, underground piping distribution
2
systems known as ‘thermal grids’.
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
taking advantage of opportunities.
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
extreme weather events).
Markham District Energy Inc. (MDE) is a thermal energy
utility owned by the City of Markham and was founded in
2000. MDE has become a leader in new district energy system development and currently operates four energy
centres in two distinct areas of the city known as Markham Centre and Cornell Centre. The energy centres also
incorporate Combined Heat and Power (CHP) or ‘co-generation’ technology. Markham is currently the only
Canadian municipality to own and operate two district energy systems within city borders.
The City of Markham is located directly
north of Toronto and has a population
of just over 300,000, which is expected
to reach 444,000 by the year 2031. In
order to meet the growing energy
needs associated with an increase in
population and employment growth,
the City is planning to add to their list
of centres that receive district
33
energy.
55
The CHP facilities operated by MDE recover the waste heat from
natural gas-fueled electricity generation and use it to heat and cool
3
buildings within these two urban centres. By simultaneously
producing electricity and thermal energy from one fuel source, there
4
are substantial gains in energy efficiency. More than 60% of the
City’s energy consumption is used to heat and cool buildings, thus
the energy distributed by MDE is primarily for space heating, hot
5
water and air conditioning. As a result of district energy, the need
for boilers, furnaces, chillers and air conditioners in connected
buildings is eliminated and replaced with heat exchangers. Buildings
that are commonly connected to a thermal grid include commercial
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
buildings, condominiums, hotels, sports facilities, universities, and others.
6
Markham Centre
In 1994, Markham City Council approved the Markham Centre Secondary
Plan, which provided the framework for transforming greenfield lands in
7
the centre of Markham into a sustainable downtown core. In the late
1990’s it was the unique combination of Ontario power industry deregulation, the 1998 ice storm, and interest from IBM Canada to locate a
major facility in Markham, that provided the impetus for the city to
8
develop a district energy system along with its new downtown core.
At current, Markham Centre has three thermal energy plants: the Warden
Energy Centre which includes an 8.5 MW CHP, Clegg Energy Centre and
Birchmount Energy Centre which includes a 3.0 MW CHP that provide
2
heating and cooling to over 744,000 m of building space in Markham
2
Centre, with another 279,000 m of buildings in various stages of
construction. When complete in the year 2028, Markham Centre will
2
include over 2,700,000 m of mixed-use buildings and will be home to
41,000 residents and 39,000 employees. At full build-out, district energy is
forecast to reduce GHG emissions by 50% (exceeding 100,000 tonnes
9
annually) over conventional development.
QUICK FACTS ABOUT
MARKHAM’S DISTRICT ENERGY
SYSTEMS
 Owned by the City of
Markham
 Two district energy systems
are up and running at:
1) Markham Centre
(2000)
2) Cornell Centre
(2012)
 MDE is made up of:
o Four Energy Plants
(3 at Markham
Centre, 1 at Cornell
Centre)
o Hot water and
chilled water
distribution systems
o Large grid of
underground
thermal pipes (~30
km of pipe)
o 15MW CHP fleet
Cornell Centre
Development of the Cornell Centre grew out of a unique opportunity through the expansion of the Markham
Stouffville hospital expansion in 2007. The hospital’s original heating and cooling assets were nearing end of life
and the expansion along with plans to develop the Cornell Centre, presented the perfect opportunity to consider
building a new district energy system. As a result, in 2012 Markham opened its second district energy system to
10
serve Markham Stouffville Hospital and the surrounding area known as Cornell Centre.
Designed in the mid-1990’s and covering 250 acres, Cornell Centre is a high-density, mixed-use community with a
2
retail core. Currently, MDE serves over 93,000 m of building space in Cornell Centre. When fully developed, the
2
Centre will be home to over 10,000 residents and 10,000 employees, with over 930,000 m of residential,
11
commercial and institutional buildings. Cornell Centre has one thermal energy plant: the Bur Oak Energy Centre
that includes a 4 MW CHP facility.
Challenges and Successes
Building owners are not obligated to connect to Markham’s district energy systems, however 100% of new building
projects have connected due a variety of factors: 1) the system is very reliable – with Markham Centre
demonstrating 99.998% heating reliability and 99.997% cooling reliability; 2) it reduces life cycle costs – building
owners do not need to purchase their own boilers or chillers, resulting in reduced upfront capital costs with less
financial risk; 3) increased comfort and convenience – building operators can control their own indoor
environments and the system reduces vibration and noise pollution associated with traditional heating and cooling
systems; and 4) architectural design flexibility – the district heating system frees up space that would otherwise be
12
taken up by boilers and chillers, thus allowing building developers to use what would have been wasted space.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
56
Development of the district energy systems in Markham was driven by the
desire to increase community energy resilience and decrease the
dependency on external energy sources. The notorious ice storm of 1998 did
not affect Markham directly, yet the Mayor and City Council recognized the
advantages of having a local energy platform that would increase energy
resilience and reduce dependency on the Provincial electricity grid in times
of outage.
The City of Markham is the
sole shareholder of MDE
and they view the district
energy system as a
business; a long-term, very
patient investment. Over
the long-term as the system
is built out and the
investments start to slow,
this will generate a
significant cash flow for the
city.
Markham’s district energy systems have proven successful (including
reducing GHG emissions, increasing resilience and attracting investment to
Markham), yet there were challenges associated with their development.
One such challenge is the high capital cost of distributed, underground
thermal grids that provide the heating and cooling. The upfront cost to build
Markham’s first district energy plant at Markham Centre and bring energy to
its first customer was approximately $16M, with subsequent spending
13
exceeding $100M to build additional energy plants and infrastructure. To tackle the high capital costs, the City of
Markham developed a funding partnership comprised of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ Green
Municipal Fund, Infrastructure Ontario and private lenders, along with the City’s equity position stemming from a
portion of its Federal Gas Tax rebate.
Even though funding such capital intensive projects can be a challenge for municipalities, Markham regarded its
district energy systems as a business decision with carefully calculated long term return on investment. As the
systems mature over the next ten years, the City will realize a stable return on its invested capital. Over the longterm the district energy systems will generate a significant cash flow for the city, thus providing a sound business
investment.
Incentives to develop district energy systems in most Canadian provinces are limited, with no significant policy
drivers in place. Yet, some municipalities are taking the initiative to move district energy forward in their
respective communities through policy. Markham recently introduced a policy that requires City Council and senior
staff to promote district energy and Markham’s current Official Plan (adopted by City Council in December, 2013)
encourages the evaluation and consideration of district energy in new development and reinforces it in current
14
areas. The Plan explicitly states that a district energy system, with one or more CHP facility, is the preferred
15
option in specific areas where the City is developing higher density communities. Funded by the Ontario Ministry
of Energy, Markham has also embarked on a Municipal Energy Plan (to be completed in 2016), which will identify
16
opportunities to achieve net zero energy, water, waste and emissions by 2050.
Since MDE is a non-regulated utility where customers are not mandated to connect to the service, breaking the
comfort of traditional energy was also challenging. At the onset, the building community resisted the new process
and protocols associated with district energy systems in construction of new buildings. The City and MDE took
steps to explain the benefits of the district energy system in order to win them over. MDE customers were also
resistant to signing on, but again the City took steps to respond to their objections and educate them on the
benefits of connecting. As a result, Markham Centre now has a 100% sign on level.
In the future, MDE plans to follow in the footsteps of European communities with district energy systems and
move into fuel switching. Currently, Markham uses natural gas to produce their heating; however, MDE is actively
57
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
exploring opportunities to switch a portion of the energy source from natural gas to renewables (e.g. solar
thermal, biomass and biogas). This fuel switch has the potential to reduce GHG emissions by up to 70% below
business as usual.
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Markham advances climate change mitigation through changes to policy that helps promote further development
of district energy systems (Table 1). Markham’s new Official Plan sets out policies to guide future development in
order to manage growth, and provides a policy framework for City Council decisions. It contains a policy for the
17
City to evaluate the option of district energy in new development and reinforce it where it currently exists.
Specifically, policy 7.2.3.10 states that City Council must “work in partnership with MDE to provide leadership in
the design, development and use of community energy systems in Markham and to promote Markham as a
18
demonstration site for new technologies addressing climate change and energy.”
The two district energy systems currently reduce GHG emissions by more than 17,000 tonnes annually which
19
represents a 50% reduction from business as usual and is equivalent to removing 4,300 cars from the road.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) is a key factor in this reduction, as it produces considerable heating energy by
20
recovering waste heat from the power plants, thereby increasing the energy efficiency of fuel use.
MDE also has the capacity to store thermal energy, which helps to mitigate greenhouse gases. To demonstrate,
during the summers of 2010 and 2011 MDE’s thermal tank stored 3,600 megawatt hours (MWh) of heat recovery
from CHP operations, which was then discharged to meet the community’s heat load at night. This process avoided
3
21
the use of 432,000m of natural gas; equivalent to 852 tonnes of GHGs.
Table 1: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for Markham’s District Energy System
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
X
Policy
In terms of adaptation, communities that use locally-sited CHP generators are often able to maintain power and
heating during emergency situations (e.g. ice storms and other weather events that disable the main electricity
22
grid). This is possible because district energy systems operate independently from the larger utility grid and can
produce their own power if the electric utility grid goes offline. As well, district energy systems typically use a
network of underground pipes and wires, which are less likely to be affected by storms than above ground utility
23
lines and poles. As evidence of the resiliency of its energy system, Markham’s district energy system continued to
24
function during the infamous 2003 blackout that left 10 million people in Ontario without power.
With extreme weather events expected to occur more frequently as a result of climate change, it will be critical for
25
utility systems to recover from unexpected outages in a timely manner. In the event of a major power outage
that leads to a state of municipal emergency, MDE works with the local distribution company to redirect power to
A Case Study Synthesis Report
58
certain key facilities (e.g. city hall, high schools, regional hospitals, community centres). With Markham’s power
usage peaking at 400 MW in a day, not enough energy is produced by the CHP fleet in order to maintain power to
2
the whole city; therefore, power is strategically managed in order to heat and power over 372,000 m of select
26
building space that could be used as emergency reception centres. Therefore, Markham’s district energy system
advances climate change adaptation through changes to managerial practices (Table 1).
Table 2: Summary of the Contribution of Markham’s District Energy System to Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
Policy requires City Council to encourage the evaluation and
consideration of district energy in new development and
reinforce it where it currently exists.
Utility companies can strategically manage which facilities
receive power (usually prioritizing hospitals and emergency
centres) during large grid outages.


Markham’s two district energy systems currently
reduce GHG emissions by 17,000 tonnes annually
(50% from business as usual).
Combined Heat and Power (CHP), energy
efficiency and energy storage are all contribute to
GHG reduction.


Provides resiliency to critical service providers
during times of outage.
District energy systems use a network of
underground pipes and wires that are less
exposed to intense weather events.
Co-Benefits
Markham’s district energy system was developed to both increase the reliability and resiliency of local energy
systems to intense weather (adaptation) and to increase efficiency of fuel use through the recovery of waste heat
(GHG mitigation).
A number of co-benefits stem from the district heating/cooling system. These include: (1) a contribution to local
economic growth and development by attracting large companies (such as IBM and Bell Canada in Markham) and
residential developers who seek reliable energy supply; (2) increasing energy self-sufficiency by sheltering
customers from market volatility; (3) increasing energy redundancy by supplying backup power in the case of
provincial grid outages; (4) technological flexibility in the system allowing for use of alternative fuels; and (5)
flexibility in the way local energy is developed and managed in response to local conditions and opportunities (i.e.,
27,28
peak demand).
Box 1: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Resulting from Markham’s District Energy System
Introducing district energy systems to the City of Markham increased the reliability and resiliency of the local energy system
while simultaneously increasing energy efficiency, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Co-benefits include increasing economic
growth, energy self-sufficiency, energy redundancy, the flexibility of the system to allow for use of alternative fuels (fuel
switching), and the flexibility in the way local energy is managed.
59
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Lessons Learned
29
Municipalities play a significant role in the planning, support and initial launch of district energy systems. District
energy companies (like MDE) can be solely private, wholly owned by the municipality, or a form of public-private
partnership. Regardless of the ownership structure, success is derived from strong working relationships between
municipalities and the district energy companies to ensure that the benefits provided by district energy systems
30
are identified and maximized in municipal plans.
Municipal policy can play an integral role in pushing district energy forward at the local level. Markham did this in
reverse, creating MDE and its district energy systems first before developing the municipal policy; yet, provisions
for district energy could benefit from being included in high level municipal plans and policies related to growth
31
and land use planning. High capital costs and longer payback periods can often cause angst to undertake district
energy systems at the municipal level. Support and patience, and a clearly defined vision from mayor, Council and
City can help the process proceed to fruition.
Finally, district energy providers should be engaged in municipal planning and decision-making processes in order
32
to take advantage of opportunities to coordinate infrastructure development into land-use planning. Breaking
the status quo of using traditional energy systems is often a challenge when developing district energy systems;
therefore it is crucial that a professional and knowledgeable team be in place to identify and communicate to
municipal staff, developers and customers, the benefits of district energy.
Further Information
Markham District Energy: www.markhamdistrictenergy.com
City of Markham: www.markham.ca
Contact information
Bruce Ander
President and CEO, Markham District Energy Inc.
Email: bander@mdei.ca
Graham Seaman
Senior Manager, Sustainability Office, City of Markham
Email: GSeaman@markham.ca
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
A Case Study Synthesis Report
60
References
1
Brown, S.J. The Potential for District Energy Systems to Contribute to Municipal Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation: Lessons from Hamilton and Markham. Canadian Institute of Planners, Poster. Accessed from
www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Resources/DISTRICTENERGY_POSTER_E.
2
Markham District Energy Inc. District Energy: The Basics. Accessed from
www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/district-energy-101/.
3
Ander, B. and J. Baird. (2007). District Energy: Fuelling sustainable development in Markham Centre. Municipal
World. August, 2007. Accessed from www.districtenergy.org/assets/CDEA/Case-Studies/Markham-CenterAnder-MunicipalWorld-Aug2007.pdf.
4
Canadian Electricity Association. Electricity Fuel Source Technical Papers: Cogeneration. Accessed from
www.powerforthefuture.ca/electricity-411/electricity-fuel-source-technical-papers/cogeneration/.
5
Ander, B. (2011). District Energy/Combined Heat & Power. Presentation at York University. Accessed from
www.sei.info.yorku.ca/files/2012/04/Bruce-Ander.pdf.
6
Markham District Energy Inc. District Energy: The Basics. Accessed from
www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/district-energy-101/.
7
Markham District Energy Inc. Serving Markham Centre. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/servingmarkham-centre/.
8
Ibid
9
Ander, B. (2007). Markham District Energy: Putting the Urban in Suburban. International District Energy
Association Case Study. Accessed from www.districtenergy.org/assets/CDEA/Case-Studies/Markham-DistrictEnergy-5-29-07.pdf.
10
Markham District Energy Inc. Who We Are. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/who-we-are/.
11
Markham District Energy Inc. Serving Cornell Centre. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/servingcornell-centre/.
12
Markham District Energy Inc. Our Customers. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/whobenefits/customers/.
13
Ander, B. (2007). Markham District Energy: Putting the Urban in Suburban. International District Energy
Association Case Study. Accessed from www.districtenergy.org/assets/CDEA/Case-Studies/Markham-DistrictEnergy-5-29-07.pdf.
14
Ander, B. (2013). Cornell Centre, Ontario: Markham’s continuing commitment to district energy, CHP and city
building. District Energy Association. District Energy, Third Quarter 2013. Accessed from
http://markhamenergy.pixelshopdesign.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IDEA-3Q13-Cover-Story-1.pdf.
61
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
15
Ander, B. (2014). Personal Correspondence. October 23, 2014.
16
Seaman, G. (2014). Markham’s Municipal Energy Plan. Presentation for the Municipal Leaders Forum Working
Group, June 27 2014. Accessed from
www.cagbctoronto.org/files/Markham's%20Municipal%20Energy%20Plan.pdf.
17
Ander, B. (2013). Cornell Centre, Ontario: Markham’s continuing commitment to district energy, CHP and city
building. District Energy Association. District Energy, Third Quarter 2013. Accessed from
http://markhamenergy.pixelshopdesign.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IDEA-3Q13-Cover-Story-1.pdf.
18
City of Markham. (2013). Chapter 7: Transportation, Services and Utilities. In: City of Markham Official Plan –
Part 1. Accessed from
www.markham.ca/wps/portal/Markham/BusinessDevelopment/PlanningAndDevelopmentServices/OPZoning
/new-official-plan.
19
Ander, B. (2007). Markham District Energy: Putting the Urban in Suburban. International District Energy
Association Case Study. Accessed from www.districtenergy.org/assets/CDEA/Case-Studies/Markham-DistrictEnergy-5-29-07.pdf.
20
Markham District Energy Inc. Home. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/.
21
Ander, B. (2011). District Energy/Combined Heat & Power. Presentation at York University. Accessed from
www.sei.info.yorku.ca/files/2012/04/Bruce-Ander.pdf.
22
Markham District Energy Inc. Our Community. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/whobenefits/community/.
23
Fitzgerald, M. (2014). When the Power Goes Out, Microgrids Keep Electricity Flowing. The Wall Street Journal.
Accessed from www.online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579544200059257532.
24
Ander, B. (2007). Markham District Energy: Putting the Urban in Suburban. International District Energy
Association Case Study. Accessed from www.districtenergy.org/assets/CDEA/Case-Studies/Markham-DistrictEnergy-5-29-07.pdf.
25
Markham District Energy Inc. Who Benefits. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/who-benefits/.
26
Markham District Energy Inc. Who We Are. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/who-we-are/.
27
Ander, B. (2007). Markham District Energy: Putting the Urban in Suburban. International District Energy
Association Case Study. Accessed from www.districtenergy.org/assets/CDEA/Case-Studies/Markham-DistrictEnergy-5-29-07.pdf.
28
Brown, S.J. The Potential for District Energy Systems to Contribute to Municipal Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation: Lessons from Hamilton and Markham. Canadian Institute of Planners, Poster. Accessed from
www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Resources/DISTRICTENERGY_POSTER_E.
29
Markham District Energy Inc. Our Community. Accessed from www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/whobenefits/community/.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
62
30
Brown, S.J. The Potential for District Energy Systems to Contribute to Municipal Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation: Lessons from Hamilton and Markham. Canadian Institute of Planners, Poster. Accessed from
www.cip-icu.ca/Files/Resources/DISTRICTENERGY_POSTER_E.
31
Ibid
32
Ibid
33
Ander, B. (2013). Cornell Centre, Ontario: Markham’s continuing commitment to district energy, CHP and city
building. District Energy Association. District Energy, Third Quarter 2013. Accessed from
http://markhamenergy.pixelshopdesign.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/IDEA-3Q13-Cover-Story-1.pdf.
63
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Yukon’s Independent Power Production and MicroGeneration Policies: Building Capacity for Decentralized
Clean and Renewable Energy in the North
Focus: Independent Power Production and MicroGeneration Policies
Jurisdiction: Yukon, Canada
Lead: Government of Yukon
Stage: Independent Power Production Policy = in
development, Micro-Generation Policy = complete
Cost: Independent Power Production Policy = to be
determined, Micro-Generation Policy = $100,000 over
first 10 years
Ownership: Public
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Capacity
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
The Yukon government released the Energy Strategy for
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
Yukon in 2009. The Strategy sets out government goals,
gases (GHGs).
strategies and actions for energy efficiency and conservation,
renewable energy, electricity, oil and gas, and energy choices,
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
which provide direction for the development, management
taking advantage of opportunities.
and use of energy in Yukon over the next 10 years. The
Strategy outlines both the mechanisms by which 1) electricity
Capacity: increasing the sectors’ ability to develop
will be purchased from independent power producers
policies, programs or projects thereby building their
(Independent Power Production) and 2) individuals will be
capacity to deal with climate mitigation and
allowed to connect renewable energy sources to the grid
adaptation.
(Micro-Generation), as priority actions. IPP and microgeneration projects will add to Yukon’s current energy mix, which is dominated by hydro-generating capacity,
supplemented by back-up thermal generation. Four Yukon communities, Watson Lake, Old Crow, Swift River, and
Burwash Landing/Destruction Bay are currently isolated from the main Yukon hydro-based grid. These
communities are currently powered by local thermal generators that use diesel for fuel. Watson Lake may be
fuelled by a combination of diesel and natural gas using fuel blending technology.
To collect public input on these two priority actions, the Net Metering and Independent Power Production
Discussion Paper was released for public consultation between November 2009 and February 2010. As a result of
suggestions from the public, the Yukon government decided to separate the two policies within the Strategy. As a
result, the Micro-Generation Policy was developed from the feedback on net metering and approved in advance of
the Independent Power Production (IPP) Policy on October 23, 2013. Public consultation and formal review of the
IPP Policy is still ongoing.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
64
Micro-Generation Policy
The Micro-Generation Policy allows Yukon residents to reduce their home
energy consumption by incorporating decentralized renewable energy
generating technologies such as solar photovoltaics (PV) or wind. This
option allows a home or business owner to export surplus energy to the
electrical grid at rates established by the Yukon government’s MicroGeneration Incentive Program, which currently runs at $0.21/kilowatt hour
(kWh) for connected electricity exports (Figure 1) and $0.30/kWh for those
isolated communities that continue to be powered solely by diesel
generation. The rates are predicated on the avoided cost of new power
generation in the territory and reflect the greater expense of powering
communities with fossil fuels.
The Micro-Generation Incentive Program is only available to those projects
with a generating capacity of up to 5 kilowatts (kW) for customers utilizing a
shared transformer, and less than 25 kW for customers utilizing a single
transformer. Projects with a nameplate capacity of up to 50 kW will be
considered on a case by case basis by the utilities and will be subject to a
detailed review of the project’s infrastructure capacity, a process made
necessary by the limitations of Yukon’s various isolated grids.
“Micro-generation is a term
used to describe the smallscale generation of electric
power by individuals, small
businesses and/or
communities to meet their
energy needs. This smallscale energy generation can
be used as an alternative or
to supplement power used
1
from the grid.”
“IPP is not about privatizing
public utility assets; it is
about providing
opportunities for non-utility
entities to generate new
power that can assist the
utilities in meeting the
demand for affordable,
reliable, flexible and clean
2
electrical energy.”
Independent Power Production (IPP) Policy
The IPP Policy differentiates itself from the Micro-Generation Policy based on project size; projects with a
nameplate capacity of over 50 kW will be considered under the IPP Policy.
The IPP Policy will apply to two levels of energy generation. Tier 1 will be for smaller projects and will have an
aggregate generation cap of 2 megawatts (MW) for projects connecting to the Yukon Integrated System, and 300
kW in Watson Lake, due to concerns about infrastructure limitations in that community. Tier 1 projects will be
restricted to renewable energy sources such as wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass and solar. Tier 1 projects will be
able to take advantage of a standard form contract and pre-approved rate.
Tier 2 projects, or those with a generating capacity of over 2 MW or any projects built in the remaining isolated
communities (Old Crow, Burwash Landing/Destruction Bay, and Swift River), have been classified differently from
Tier 1 projects because of the transmission limitations of Yukon’s grid. These projects will be assessed on a caseby-case basis by Yukon’s two franchised electric utilities (Yukon Energy Corporation and ATCO Electric Yukon) and
will require individual regulatory approval from the Yukon Utilities Board to proceed. Tier 2 projects will include
natural gas generation in addition to renewable energy generation. The IPP Policy will use the same method of
calculating benefits (using avoided costs) of generation and the same rate incentive structure as the MicroGeneration Policy.
Development of the IPP and Micro-generation policies was driven by anticipated growth in electricity demand.
Residential and commercial demand is anticipated to grow at a rate of 2.26% based on 2011 trends and exceed
Yukon’s current hydro generating capacity by the early 2020’s. Industrial demand, comprised primarily of mining
operations in the territory, could exceed Yukon’s hydro generating supply at any time. Any demand not met
through hydro must be met with thermal (diesel or natural gas) generated electricity at a much higher cost per
65
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
kilowatt. Subsequent drivers of these policies include managing the cost of energy to support economic
development, managing residential energy rates, and enhancing the renewable energy portfolio of Yukon.
At the time of policy development, the Yukon government had in mind both mitigation goals (i.e., increasing the
use of renewable energy and reducing fossil fuel consumption) and adaptation goals (i.e., increasing the use of
local, diversified and resilient energy sources), each perceived as equally important. This high level support helped
to drive the policy development in a more traditional top-down fashion with appropriate financial incentives.
Success of the IPP can be seen through an example of a local renewable energy generation project near Atlin,
British Columbia (shown in Figure 1). The run-of-river hydro project at Pine Creek constructed by the Taku River
Tlingit Nation demonstrates a small-scale (2.1MW current generating capacity) renewable project that has 1)
eliminated the need for power generation from diesel in the community, 2) increased the communities resiliency
to extreme weather events and power outages, 3) substantially reduced the community’s greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, 4) contributed to local employment, and 5) yielded health benefits.
Figure 1: Power provision to Yukon communities. Yukon communities that receive power from hydro are connected by the
3
Yukon Integrated Grid (blue, red, green and purple lines).
A Case Study Synthesis Report
66
Development and implementation of the IPP also has inherent challenges. For instance, the previous definition of a
‘public utility’ meant that even small producers/generators were subject to more stringent regulations.
Amendments to the Yukon Public Utilities Act, specifically related to regulatory exemptions for smaller producers,
have removed barriers for micro-generation and smaller independent power producers, and enabled a greater
diversity of power production options to be explored in Yukon.
The Yukon government has developed a program to track uptake of the policy. Over the long-term, the success of
the Micro-Generation Production Incentive Program will be measured by 1) reductions in electrical demand, 2)
reductions in consumption of diesel fuel and 3) the number of new micro-generation projects within the Territory.
The number of new micro-generation projects in its first year has exceeded the initial uptake estimates by more
than 100%. These results will help determine the effectiveness of the incentives, and advise their potential
adjustment.
The Yukon government is in the process of approving the IPP Incentive Program, and indicators similar to those of
the Micro-Generation Incentive Program will determine the effectiveness of the incentives on program uptake.
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Both the IPP and Micro-Generation Policies demonstrate opportunities for mitigation and adaptation to climate
change (Table 1).
Table 1: Summary of the Contribution of the IPP and Micro-Generation Policies to Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
Policies reduce the reliance of Yukon communities on diesel
fuel by enabling the construction of renewable energy
generation projects.
Policy helps to build redundancy in the grid by diversifying
the resources utilized to generate electricity.

Encourages investment in renewable energy
generation projects by incentivizing and
encouraging the development of renewable
energy projects to offset more GHG-intensive
energy sources in Yukon



Increases use of renewables should hydropower
resources be affected by climate change.
Generating stations built close to communities will
allow for faster access and repair during outages,
thus increasing local and system-wide resilience to
extreme weather.
Increases adaptive capacity through local
economic development, skills training, and new
employment opportunities.
The IPP and Micro-Generation Policies are intentionally designed to help reduce emissions of GHG in Yukon. Both
policies catalyze investment in the Yukon renewable energy market and enable the construction of new energy
generation projects by establishing an avoided cost of electricity, interconnections standards, purchase power
agreement principles, and regulated rates.
Both policies increase the redundancy in Yukon’s electrical generation and transmission capability by diversifying
the resources utilized to generate electricity and by decentralizing generating stations. Increased use of
67
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
solar/wind/biomass resources can provide generating alternatives, should Yukon’s hydropower resources be
negatively affected by shifting precipitation patterns and increased evaporation rates stemming from climate
change.
Decentralizing the generating stations and increasing redundancy on the grid will also improve transmission
reliability by de-emphasizing the contribution of any one generating station to the territory’s total load. Generating
stations built within close proximity to communities will also be easier to access and repair during outages, thus
increasing local and system-wide resilience to extreme weather. Transmission losses will also be reduced,
improving the efficiency of the transmission system.
The policies will enable residents, First Nations, municipalities, and private sector companies to invest in the local
energy generating projects by providing an incentive through the avoided cost of diesel to the grid. Financial
investments, skills development, and jobs created by these projects provide a net benefit to local economies,
thereby creating more resilient communities by increasing the resources available for responding to increased
variability in the local climate/environment. The policies also enhance the capacity to adapt to climate change not
through direct increases in resiliency, but rather they enable and incent alternative energy projects.
Table 2: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for the IPP and Micro-Generation Policies
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
X
Co-Benefits
The adaptation/mitigation co-benefits generated by these policies were anticipated. The objective of these policies
is to reduce GHG emissions (i.e., mitigation) and utilize local, diversified, renewable energy sources in order to
make the grid more reliable and resilient, which contributes to climate change adaptation. The major co-benefit
provided by the policies is that they reduce the barriers for entry into the electricity market for the private sector
and encourage investment in renewable generating technologies in Yukon.
Additionally, the policy aims to harmonize the long term objective of reducing Yukon’s carbon footprint while
increasing its adaptive capacity. Examples of such harmonized objectives include:
 Infrastructure renewal and expansion to meet the growing energy needs of Yukon.
 Local economic development and skills and training coupled with improved local energy security.
 Enhanced social licence for renewable energy projects that reduce environmental degradation from
electricity generating and increase long-term ecosystem benefits such as improved air quality or
recreational opportunities.
The long-term benefits are expected to emerge as new renewable energy projects come on-line.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
68
Box 1: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Resulting from the IPP and Micro-Generation
Policies
The focus of these policies on incentivizing investment in renewable energy projects increases both the mitigative and
adaptive capacity of Yukon. This capacity in turn can be utilized to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, improve local energy
security, increase the social capital of new energy generating projects, and enhance the ecosystem benefits available to
Yukon residents.
Lessons Learned
Three main lessons can be drawn from the Micro-Generation and IPP Policies. First, policy can be an essential
building block to develop capacity building necessary for achieving resilience. In the case of the two policies, such
resiliency outcomes include improved transmission reliability, diversified economic development potential and job
creation. Second, the case study demonstrates that these policies can be harmonized to achieve both adaptive and
mitigative objectives. Such complementary objectives are anticipated as a direct outcome of the policies in the
form of renewable energy projects that both reduce GHG emissions and increase local energy security. Third, this
harmonization can be purposeful. By recognizing that climate change adaptation was a possible outcome early in
the policy development process, the Yukon government has demonstrated that adaptation does not have to be an
onerous or expensive process. More specifically, adaptation was included in the policy costs adopted by the
government for the implementation of mitigation policies, and required no additional capital to implement.
Further Information
Micro-Generation: www.energy.gov.yk.ca/microgeneration.html
Independent Power Production: www.energy.gov.yk.ca/independent_power_production.html
Contact
Yukon Energy Solutions Centre
Phone: (867) 393-7063
Email: energy@gov.yk.ca
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
Yukon Government. (2014). Micro-generation. Energy Solutions Centre. Accessed from
www.energy.gov.yk.ca/microgeneration.html.
2
Yukon Government. (2014). Independent Power Production. Energy Solutions Centre. Accessed from
www.energy.gov.yk.ca/independent_power_production.html.
69
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
3
Next Generation Hydro. (2014). Yukon’s Electrical Grid. Accessed from www.nextgenerationhydro.ca/resourcecentre/yukons-transmission-and-generation-facilities/.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
70
Financial Incentives and Building Regulations for Green
Roofs: Increasing Energy Efficiency and Combating Climate
Change in Switzerland
Focus: Green roof incentives
Jurisdiction: Basel, Switzerland
Lead: City of Basel
Stage: First Subsidy Program (complete 1996/1997),
Second Subsidy Program (complete 2005/2006),
Building and Construction Law (ongoing since 2002)
Cost: 2.5 million Swiss Francs
Ownership: Public/Private
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
The City of Basel, Switzerland has a long history of green
roofs and currently boasts the highest percentage of green
roof area per capita in the world with more than 1.2 million
square metres of rooftop area covered with vegetation as of
1
2014. With a population of 195,000 people, and located on
the border between Switzerland, Germany and France, the
success of Basel’s green roof tendency is driven by a
2
combination of financial incentives and building regulations.
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
taking advantage of opportunities.
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
extreme weather events).
Throughout the 1970s, green roofs became popular in many
parts of Switzerland and were designed to provide additional
insulation value, thus reducing heating (energy savings), but
3
also as a way to increase biodiversity conservation. Green
roof construction continued throughout the 1980s, mainly as pilot projects. In the mid-1990s, the Department of
Environment and Energy conducted a public poll to determine the level of support for an electricity tax to fund
development of energy saving measures. With no strong public opposition to the idea, Basel introduced a
regulation which placed a 5% surcharge tax on customer electricity bills which was then
put into the Energy Saving Fund. The Fund was subsequently used to finance various
Basel is a canton
energy saving projects, including two green roof subsidy programs (first in 1996/97, and
(state) of Switzerland
4
later in 2005/06).
with its own
constitution,
legislature,
government and
courts. Therefore the
city has the ability to
implement local
45
regulations.
71
The European Unions’ ‘Year of Nature Conservation’ in 1995 provided impetus for
5
Basel’s first green roof subsidy program . The program was developed by the city’s
Department of Building and Transport and designed to stimulate awareness of, and
interest in green roofs by offering 20 Swiss Francs per square metre of installed green
6
roof on local homes and businesses. Approximately 1 million Swiss Francs were
allocated for subsidies during this first program, and within 18 months over 120 green
7
roofs were built in Basel (an area equal to 8 football fields). The primary objective of
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
the subsidy program to increase the insulation of existing buildings (energy savings), but other positive effects
were identified (i.e. benefits to human health and well-being, reduced stormwater runoff and reduced overheating
8
in the summer months.
Box 1: Green Roofs
Green roofs are passive cooling techniques that
absorb/reflect incoming solar radiation from
buildings, thus improving the insulation properties
of the structures and ultimately reducing annual
46
energy consumption. It is estimated that some
green roofs have been known to reduce surface
temperature by 30-60°C and ambient temperature
by 5°C, when compared to conventional black
47
Photo courtesy of: Stephan Brenneisen
roofs. Green roofs are popular energy
conservation strategies as they offer a number of other benefits to buildings and the surrounding
area, including: reduced stormwater flows, improved urban air quality, a reduction in the urban
48
heat island effect, habitats for wildlife, and an extended roof life. There are two main types of
green roofs: intensive and extensive. Extensive green roofs have a shallow soil depth and are
unable to support many types of vegetation, whereas intensive green roofs (although more
expensive to install) have deeper soils and are able to support a diverse array of plant species and
49
animal life.
Many of the green roofs constructed in Basel during the first subsidy program were extensive in nature (see Box 1);
however, a study conducted by Dr. Stephan Brenneisen, a green roof expert at Zürich University of Applied
Sciences in Wädenswil (ZHAW), revealed that more complex green roof systems (i.e. those with increased soil
depth and quality) have the ability to increase local biodiversity. The results of this study, in combination with the
success of the first subsidy program, led Basel to pass an amendment to its Building and Construction Law
(paragraph 72) in 2002. The law now states that all new and renovated flat roofs in Basel must be greened, and
developers must follow a series of guidelines for green roof construction in order to effectively support
9,10
biodiversity and species conservation. When new developments are approved, building owners are now
provided with detailed instructions on how to maximize the nature conservation properties of their green roof and
11
have direct access to a green roof expert, which is funded by the government.
The recognition that green roofs provide valuable species habitats and support
nature conservation objectives was one of the main drivers for Basel’s second
12
green roof subsidy program (2005/06). This program offered a total of 1.5
million Swiss Francs for subsidies through the Energy Saving Fund. Due to the
change in green roof guidelines which required green roofs to be more intensive
in nature, recipients received a higher subsidy amount to account for the
difference in cost (between 30 and 40 Swiss Francs per square metre of installed
green roof). The subsidy program was strictly dedicated to renovating existing
roofs (as new, flat-roofed buildings had been required by law to have green roofs
13
installed as of 2002).
A Case Study Synthesis Report
Although the original
purpose of the first green
roof subsidy program was
energy savings, research
found that birds and
invertebrates benefited
from the roofs as well,
including species at risk.
72
The two subsidy programs resulted in the development of 1,711 extensive green roof projects and 218 intensive
14
green roof projects; approximately 23% of Basel’s flat roof area. As a result of the awareness generated during
the subsidy programs, along with changes to the building law, green roof construction continues in Basel to this
day. As of 2014 there is over 1.2 million square metres of green roof in Basel, making up approximately 30% of the
city’s flat roof area.
The subsidy programs were
administered by the Canton of
Basel with support from the
national Department of
Environment and Energy. The
City consulted with a number of
local stakeholders to develop
the green roof initiatives,
including local business
associations, horticulture
association, green roof
association, other nongovernmental organizations,
15
and various city departments.
This engagement, consultation
and cooperation during the
development of the subsidies
and regulations have
significantly limited any backlash
16
from the builders , and
2
Figure 1: Graph depicting green roof growth (m ) in Basel, Switzerland from 1970 to
installing green roofs is now
17
2010; including the first and second green roof subsidy programs held by the city in
considered standard in Basel.
50
1996 and 2005, respectively.
Energy Savings
Around half of the primary energy consumption in developed countries comes from heating and cooling buildings.
Green roofs are considered a great way to improve the insulation properties of a structure and help reduce that
18
energy load. Some studies show that energy savings from green roofs can vary between 15 and 45% of annual
19
energy consumption, mainly from lowering cooling costs.
Green roofs incur energy savings by reducing heat loss from buildings during colder months, reducing heat gain
20
during warmer months, and stabilizing internal temperatures year-round. As well, green roofs are capable of
storing water and minimizing the amount of stormwater reaching sewer systems, thus resulting in additional
energy savings (see Figure 2). For example, rainwater in Basel drains from urban areas into a waste water
21
processing plant where it is cleaned and released back into the Rhine River. Basel’s green roofs help to decrease
the amount of water reaching stormwater outflows by delaying peak runoff and lowering the overall amount of
flow. By decreasing the peak rainwater flows, less stress is placed on the stormwater system and energy is saved as
22
a result of a reduced need for water processing.
Basel’s green roof incentives have played a large part in increasing energy efficiency within the city with 4
gigawatts (GW) per year of energy savings during phase one, and an additional 3.1 GW per year for the second
73
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
23
subsidy program. In total, green roofs contribute energy savings of 7.1 GW annually throughout Basel. Since air
conditioning systems are currently uncommon in private residences in Switzerland, energy savings are mainly from
24
reducing heat energy during winter months.
Contribution to Climate
Change Mitigation and
Adaptation
th
Since the beginning of the 20 century,
the frequency of rainstorm events in
northern Switzerland have increased by
15-70% and climate projections estimate
a 2.5°C increase in average summer
temperatures by the 2050s. The
construction of green roofs across the
city will help Basel deflect some of the
25
more extreme changes in weather.
Figure 2: A traditional roof (left) and a green roof (right). Green roofs
provide rainwater storage and heat absorption, resulting in reduced strain
on conventional stormwater infrastructure and more insulation from
51
incoming solar radiation.
While originally designed as a method to
conserve energy, green roofs have now
been recognized as a crosscutting technology that provides multiple benefits and can help meet the challenges of
climate change through mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and increasing Basel’s resilience to climate change
26
impacts through adaptation (Table 1).
Table 1: Summary of the Contribution of Basel’s Green Roof Initiatives to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
Basel’s green roofs enhance the thermal properties of new
and existing buildings, thereby increasing the energy
efficiency of cooling and heating systems in extreme
temperatures.
Basel’s green roofs increase the rainwater storage and heat
absorption abilities of buildings and decrease the urban
heat island effect in the city.


Decreases the energy needed for heating and cooling
buildings, thereby reducing the associated GHG
emissions.
Increases the vegetation present on roofs, thereby
reducing carbon dioxide and pollution through plant
respiration.


Reduces the risk of flooding in the event of heavy
rainfall through stormwater retention and helps
ease the stress on conventional stormwater
infrastructure.
Reduces the urban heat island effect and ambient
air temperatures within the city.
In the case of Basel, what advanced climate change adaptation and mitigation were changes to policy (Table 2).
The amendment to the city’s Building and Construction Law in 2002 states that developers are not only required to
install green roofs on all new flat-roofed buildings, but must also follow a particular set of guidelines; ultimately
resulting in the increased thermal properties of city buildings. With less energy consumed in the winter to heat
27
buildings, energy efficiency has increased and as a result, GHG emissions are reduced. The reduction in energy
A Case Study Synthesis Report
74
consumption will vary by structure and depends on the substrate depth of the green roofs; however the changes
28
to the Building and Construction Law in 2002 now dictates that substrate depth must be a minimum of 10 cm.
Basel’s green roofs also come in the form of an adaptive response to the impacts of climate change. The roofs help
manage larger amounts of precipitation, improve water quality through natural filtration, and reduce additional
localized warming through reduced urban heat island effect.
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of summer storms leading to flooding in urban
areas. In urban contexts, larger amounts of hardened surfaces can lead to higher peak stormwater flows which can
lead to downstream flooding and pollution. Green roofs reduce runoff by reducing peak flow rates and volumes,
29
which ultimately reduces the strain on stormwater infrastructure within an urban area. Some studies show that
30
green roofs can reduce annual stormwater run-off an average of 50-60%, including peak runoff. Additionally,
traditional building construction absorbs sunlight and heats up quickly during the day, releasing the radiation back
into the atmosphere at night, which increases local air temperature; this is known as the urban heat island effect –
the tendency for cities to be warmer than the surrounding areas. The soils and vegetation on green roofs help to
31
insulate buildings, and minimize the contribution to increased local air temperature.
Both of these adaptive benefits of green roofs contribute to the overall resilience of Basel to current and future
climate change impacts. Therefore, policy is an important driver in the positive impacts green roofs have on both
climate change adaptation and mitigation.
Table 2: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for Basel’s Green Roof Initiatives
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
X
Co-Benefits
In addition to the direct adaptation and mitigation benefits, there were several co-benefits provided by the
installation of green roofs in Basel:
1) Conserving biodiversity. Basel’s green roofs create habitats for plants, birds and invertebrates that may
have been impacted by previous land-use changes. For example, a species count on a green roof in Basel
found 79 beetle species and 50 spider species, of which 13 of the beetle species and 7 of the spider
32
species were listed as endangered. Ground-nesting birds are also found to use the green roofs.
2) Financial benefits for building owners. Green roofs can extended the life of roofs that are no longer
exposed to adverse weather conditions such as wind, UV rays and temperature fluctuations; sometimes
doubling the lifetime of a conventional roof. Green roofs can also increase the value of a property and
33
draw higher rental rates. These financial benefits for property owners can be a convincing argument
34
when introducing the idea of green roof installation.
75
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
3) Financial benefits for local businesses. Local businesses can profit from the sale of green roof material
and supplies. It is estimated that for every 1 million Swiss Francs worth of green roof subsidies in Basel, 13
35
million Swiss Francs were invested in the local green roof construction and material business.
4) Additional urban green space and public health. Green roofs create additional urban green space for
Basel residents and help to reduce outside noise pollution; which can also increase property values and
improve public health. As well, urban vegetation has been known to remove pollutants from the air and
36
improve air quality.
5) Water quantity and quality. Green roofs are able to retain stormwater (thereby decreasing peak loads
during heavy rainfall events) and filter out contaminants (thereby improving the quality of water reaching
37
the watershed).
Box 2: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to Basel’s Green Roof Initiatives
Green roofs increase the insulation properties of buildings and reduce energy consumption (mitigation) while simultaneously
improving stormwater management and reducing the urban heat island effect (adaptation). Other benefits include
conserving regional biodiversity, improving water quantity and quality, providing financial benefits to building owners and
local businesses, as well as adding additional urban green space and vegetation, which can improve human health in a
number of ways.
Lessons Learned
The significant advances in green roof coverage in Basel demonstrate a number of lessons for application to a
North American context as a response to climate change. The governance and legislative autonomy of Basel has
allowed the city to make changes to its building regulations that enable green roofs and ultimately mitigative and
adaptive responses to climate change. It is possible that a more restrictive governance framework would not allow
38
for such sweeping changes for building codes. Basel’s successful incentive program, policy, regulation and
guidance also offer a unique lesson which may not be simply transferred to the North American context. Offering a
large local financial incentive may not be feasible, and appetites for a levee, surcharge or fee on consumer’s
electrical bills may also encounter backlash. This incentive model may be best recognized through a partnership
39
with electrical or water utilities to raise revenue. Nonetheless, Basel’s comprehensive suite of mechanisms, from
financial incentives to statutory regulations, along with an information campaign and engagement of local
40,41
stakeholders, ensured a wide uptake of green roofs within the city.
In fact, many developers would likely not
have begun installing green roofs without the financial incentives and building regulations set out by the city.
The success of the subsidy programs was due in part to close cooperation between the municipal authority and
42
biodiversity experts, architects, construction and landscape planners, green roof companies and contractors.
Involving all pertinent stakeholders from the beginning ensured that all questions or concerns were addressed. The
subsidy programs also contributed to increased awareness of, and education about, green roofs in the community.
The messages included demonstration of the wider benefits (e.g. local businesses profited from sales of materials
43
and supplies, building owners saved energy and money, and the city of Basel received worldwide recognition).
Finally, in the case of Basel, goals for adapting to climate change can be compatible with those for mitigation, even
if not explicitly by design at the onset of the project. This case provides an example of how adaptation can occur as
a result of actions that were originally aimed at saving energy and climate change mitigation. Therefore, green
roofs and other forms of urban greening are example of both co-benefits and no regrets actions that can fulfill
44
multiple objectives, including climate change adaptation and mitigation.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
76
Further Information
Basel Office of Environment and Energy (in German): www.aue.bs.ch/energie/foerderbeitraege/daecher-baselssolarkraftwerk/abgeschlossene-aktionen/flachdach.html
Contact
Dr. Stephan Brenneisen
Professor of Geography, Zurich University of Applied Sciences ZHAW
Email: stephan.brenneisen@zhaw.ch
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
Kazmierczak, A. (2013). Innovative ways of supporting the establishment of green infrastructure in cities:
collaboration of local authorities with investors and property owners. In: Bergier, Tomasz, Kronenberg, Jakub
and Lisicki, Pawel eds. Sustainable Development Applications 4. Nature in the City: Solutions, Sendzimir
Foundation, pp. 98-109.
2
Kazmierczak, A. (2014). Combining climate change mitigation and adaptation: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland.
In: Prutsch, A., T. Grothmann, S. McCallum, I. Schauser and R. Swart. (2014). Climate Change Adaptation
Manual: Lessons Learned from European and other industrialised countries. Routledge, pp. 233-237.
3
Ibid
4
Banting, D., H. Doshi, J. Li, P. Missios, A. Au, B.A. Currie and M. Verrati. (2005). Report on the Environmental
Benefits and Costs of Green Roof Technology for the City of Toronto. Prepared for the City of Toronto and
Ontario Centres of Excellence by Ryerson University. Accessed from
www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/committees/ren/ren051123/it003a.pdf.
5
Brenneissen, S. (2008). From Pilot to Mainstream: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Accessed from
www.greenroofs.org/grtok/policy_browse.php?id=63&what=view.
6
Brenneisen, S. and D. Gedge. (2012). Green Roof Planning in Urban Areas. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol (2012)4716-4729.
7
Ibid
77
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
8
Brenneissen, S. (2008). From Pilot to Mainstream: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Accessed from
www.greenroofs.org/grtok/policy_browse.php?id=63&what=view.
9
Lawlor, G., B.A. Currie, H. Doshi and I. Wieditz. (2006). Green roofs: a resource manual for municipal policy
makers. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accessed from www03.cmhcschl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?cat=46&itm=21&lang=en&fr=1417202554104.
10
Kazmierczak, A. (2013). Innovative ways of supporting the establishment of green infrastructure in cities:
collaboration of local authorities with investors and property owners. In: Bergier, Tomasz, Kronenberg, Jakub
and Lisicki, Pawel eds. Sustainable Development Applications 4. Nature in the City: Solutions, Sendzimir
Foundation, pp. 98-109.
11
Brenneissen, S. (2008). From Pilot to Mainstream: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Accessed from
www.greenroofs.org/grtok/policy_browse.php?id=63&what=view.
12
Brenneisen, S. and D. Gedge. (2012). Green Roof Planning in Urban Areas. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol (2012)4716-4729.
13
14
15
Brenneissen, S. (2008). From Pilot to Mainstream: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Accessed from
www.greenroofs.org/grtok/policy_browse.php?id=63&what=view.
Brenneisen, S. and D. Gedge. (2012). Green Roof Planning in Urban Areas. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol (2012)4716-4729.
Brenneissen, S. (2008). From Pilot to Mainstream: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Accessed from
www.greenroofs.org/grtok/policy_browse.php?id=63&what=view.
16
Kazmierczak, A. (2013). Innovative ways of supporting the establishment of green infrastructure in cities:
collaboration of local authorities with investors and property owners. In: Bergier, Tomasz, Kronenberg, Jakub
and Lisicki, Pawel eds. Sustainable Development Applications 4. Nature in the City: Solutions, Sendzimir
Foundation, pp. 98-109.
17
Brenneissen, S. (2008). From Pilot to Mainstream: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland. Proceedings of the Sixth
International Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities Conference. Accessed from
www.greenroofs.org/grtok/policy_browse.php?id=63&what=view.
18
Castleton, H.F., V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck and J.B. Davidson. (2010). Green roofs; building energy savings and the
potential for retrofit. Energy and Buildings. Vol 42(10): 1582-1591.
19
Foster, J., A. Lowe and S. Winkelman. (2011). The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation.
The Center for Clean Air Policy. Accessed from www.ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-forUrban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
78
20
Castleton, H.F., V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck and J.B. Davidson. (2010). Green roofs; building energy savings and the
potential for retrofit. Energy and Buildings. Vol 42(10): 1582-1591.
21
Boller, M. (2004). Towards sustainable urban stormwater management. Water Science and Technology: Water
Supply. Vol 4(1): 55-65.
22
Berndtsson, J.C. (2010). Green roof performance towards management of runoff water quantity and quality: A
review. Ecological Engineering. Vol 36(4): 351-360.
23
Kazmierczak, A. (2013). Innovative ways of supporting the establishment of green infrastructure in cities:
collaboration of local authorities with investors and property owners. In: Bergier, Tomasz, Kronenberg, Jakub
and Lisicki, Pawel eds. Sustainable Development Applications 4. Nature in the City: Solutions, Sendzimir
Foundation, pp. 98-109.
24
Brenneisen, S. and D. Gedge. (2012). Green Roof Planning in Urban Areas. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol (2012)4716-4729.
25
Kaźmierczak, A. and J. Carter. (2010). Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure: A
database of case studies. Manchester: University of Manchester. Accessed from www.grabseu.org/membersArea/files/Database_Final_no_hyperlinks.pdf.
26
Brenneisen, S. and D. Gedge. (2012). Green Roof Planning in Urban Areas. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol (2012)4716-4729.
27
Shepard, N. (2010). Green Roof Incentives: A 2010 Resource Guide. DC Greenworks. Accessed from
www.dcgreenworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/dc-greenworks-2010-survey-of-green-roof-incentivepolicies.pdf.
28
Kazmierczak, A. (2013). Innovative ways of supporting the establishment of green infrastructure in cities:
collaboration of local authorities with investors and property owners. In: Bergier, Tomasz, Kronenberg, Jakub
and Lisicki, Pawel eds. Sustainable Development Applications 4. Nature in the City: Solutions, Sendzimir
Foundation, pp. 98-109.
29
Brenneisen, S. and D. Gedge. (2012). Green Roof Planning in Urban Areas. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol (2012)4716-4729.
30
Foster, J., A. Lowe and S. Winkelman. (2011). The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation.
The Center for Clean Air Policy. Accessed from www.ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-forUrban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf.
31
Brenneisen, S. and D. Gedge. (2012). Green Roof Planning in Urban Areas. Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science
and Technology. Vol (2012)4716-4729.
32
Brenneisen, S. (2006). Space for Urban Wildlife: Designing Green Roofs as Habitats in Switzerland. Urban
Habitats. Vol 4(1): 27-36.
79
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
33
Shepard, N. (2010). Green Roof Incentives: A 2010 Resource Guide. DC Greenworks. Accessed from
www.dcgreenworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/dc-greenworks-2010-survey-of-green-roof-incentivepolicies.pdf.
34
Kazmierczak, A. (2013). Innovative ways of supporting the establishment of green infrastructure in cities:
collaboration of local authorities with investors and property owners. In: Bergier, Tomasz, Kronenberg, Jakub
and Lisicki, Pawel eds. Sustainable Development Applications 4. Nature in the City: Solutions, Sendzimir
Foundation, pp. 98-109.
35
Ibid
36
Shepard, N. (2010). Green Roof Incentives: A 2010 Resource Guide. DC Greenworks. Accessed from
www.dcgreenworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/dc-greenworks-2010-survey-of-green-roof-incentivepolicies.pdf.
37
Boller, M. (2004). Towards sustainable urban stormwater management. Water Science and Technology: Water
Supply. Vol 4(1): 55-65.
38
Kazmierczak, A. (2014). Combining climate change mitigation and adaptation: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland.
In: Prutsch, A., T. Grothmann, S. McCallum, I. Schauser and R. Swart. (2014). Climate Change Adaptation
Manual: Lessons Learned from European and other industrialised countries. Routledge, pp. 233-237.
39
Lawlor, G., B.A. Currie, H. Doshi and I. Wieditz. (2006). Green roofs: a resource manual for municipal policy
makers. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accessed from www03.cmhcschl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?cat=46&itm=21&lang=en&fr=1417202554104.
40
Kazmierczak, A. and J. Carter. (2010). Basel, Switzerland: Building regulations for green roofs. In: Adaptation to
climate change using green and blue infrastructure: A database of case studies. University of Manchester.
Accessed from www.grabs-eu.org/membersArea/files/Database_Final_no_hyperlinks.pdf.
41
Kazmierczak, A. (2014). Combining climate change mitigation and adaptation: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland.
In: Prutsch, A., T. Grothmann, S. McCallum, I. Schauser and R. Swart. (2014). Climate Change Adaptation
Manual: Lessons Learned from European and other industrialised countries. Routledge, pp. 233-237.
42
Hutchins, A. Climate Change and Green Roofs – The example of three cities. Biotope City Journal. Accessed from
www.biotope-city.net/article/climate-change-and-green-roofs-example-three-cities.
43
Lawlor, G., B.A. Currie, H. Doshi and I. Wieditz. (2006). Green roofs: a resource manual for municipal policy
makers. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accessed from www03.cmhcschl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?cat=46&itm=21&lang=en&fr=1417202554104.
44
Kazmierczak, A. (2014). Combining climate change mitigation and adaptation: Green roofs in Basel, Switzerland.
In: Prutsch, A., T. Grothmann, S. McCallum, I. Schauser and R. Swart. (2014). Climate Change Adaptation
Manual: Lessons Learned from European and other industrialised countries. Routledge, pp. 233-237.
45
Lawlor, G., B.A. Currie, H. Doshi and I. Wieditz. (2006). Green roofs: a resource manual for municipal policy
makers. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accessed from www03.cmhcschl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?cat=46&itm=21&lang=en&fr=1417202554104.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
80
46
Castleton, H.F., V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck and J.B. Davidson. (2010). Green roofs; building energy savings and the
potential for retrofit. Energy and Buildings. Vol 42(10): 1582-1591.
47
Foster, J., A. Lowe and S. Winkelman. (2011). The Value of Green Infrastructure for Urban Climate Adaptation.
The Center for Clean Air Policy. Accessed from http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-forUrban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf.
48
Hutchins, A. Climate Change and Green Roofs – The example of three cities. Biotope City Journal. Accessed from
www.biotope-city.net/article/climate-change-and-green-roofs-example-three-cities.
49
Lawlor, G., B.A. Currie, H. Doshi and I. Wieditz. (2006). Green roofs: a resource manual for municipal policy
makers. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accessed from www03.cmhcschl.gc.ca/catalog/productDetail.cfm?cat=46&itm=21&lang=en&fr=1417202554104.
50
Brenneissen, S. (2012). Green roofs – key factors in habitat design: substrates, light weight solutions, species
groups and diversity. Presentation for the International Scientific Meeting for Green Roof Research. Accessed
from www.helsinki.fi/henvi/yvv/sciencedays12/16042012_05_Brenneisen.pdf.
51
Groundwork Sheffield. (2014). Green Roof Guide. Accessed from www.greenroofguide.co.uk/.
81
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
The Borough of Woking: Distributed Sustainable Energy in
the United Kingdom
Focus: Sustainable Energy Production
Jurisdiction: Borough of Woking, England, UK
Lead: Woking Borough Council
Other stakeholders: Thameswey Ltd., Thameswey
Energy Ltd. and Xergi Ltd.
Stage: Ongoing
Cost: ~ £77 million
Ownership: Public/Private
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
The Borough of Woking is a local government district in the
west of Surrey, England. The town is located approximately
50 km southwest of London, England with a population of
Climate Change Mitigation: actions that reduce the
approximately 95,000. Woking’s dedication to sustainable
magnitude or rate of human-induced emissions of
energy makes it one of the most energy efficient local
greenhouse gases (GHGs).
1
authorities in the UK. Most energy systems across the UK
are dependent on the national grid and natural gas as power
Climate Change Adaptation: preparing for adverse
supplies, yet Woking Borough Council (“Council”) – the key
effects of climate change by preventing or
policy decision-making body within the borough, made up of
minimizing impacts or taking advantage of
36 elected councillors – has spent the last few decades
opportunities.
successfully implementing small-scale sustainable energy
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
projects. Woking’s approach to local energy systems involves
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
supplying customers with Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
on a private wire network, as well as offering energy and
extreme weather events).
2
environmental services for both public and private sectors.
Using the CHP distributed energy system increases the
security of Woking’s energy supply and independence from the national grid in the event of a power disruption
3
(e.g. during extreme weather events).
In the early 1990s, a public survey found that residents of Woking considered sustainable energy to be a very high
4
priority in the community. Since the economic and environmental concerns associated with energy use were so
5
high on citizen agendas , Council developed an Energy Efficiency Policy with a target of increasing energy efficiency
within Council buildings through small-scale energy projects such as building insulation upgrades, transition to
6
energy efficient light bulbs, installation of daylight sensors, etc. Council developed a funding mechanism where
revenues saved as a result of these energy efficiency projects were reinvested in the community, year after year to
further improve overall energy efficiency. From this, Council was able to save money and raise capital for energy
infrastructure development, including its two energy services companies: Thameswey Ltd. and Thameswey Energy
7
Ltd.
Woking has implemented successful small-scale community energy projects since the mid-1990s. However, in
order to achieve on a large-scale what the Council was already successfully doing at a small-scale level, it had to
A Case Study Synthesis Report
82
Distributed energy is thermal
energy (hot water and chilled
water) that is produced at
central plants and distributed
to surrounding buildings via
closed-loop, underground
piping distribution systems
42
known as ‘thermal grids’.
break away from the constraints on capital spending posed by central
8,9
government and set up its own company to manage its energy services.
Therefore in 1999, Council set up an Energy and Environmental Service
10
Company (EESCO) called Thameswey Ltd. – the first of its kind in the UK.
Thameswey is wholly-owned by Council and provides financial, managerial and
11
administrative services for energy and environmental projects. Since it is a
local authority company, Thameswey was still subject to central government
capital controls. Therefore, in 2000 Thameswey set up the first unregulated
public/private joint venture energy services company, called Thameswey Energy
Ltd., in order to escape capital controls and allow for the large-scale implementation of decentralised energy
12,13
projects in Woking, primarily with private finance.
In the UK, Councils were allowed a maximum 20% ownership
in companies, therefore Thameswey Energy brought together the local authority with a Danish partner, Xergi A/S,
14
which owns 80% of the company and provides CHP expertise.
Woking’s Distributed Energy Centres
Over the past 15 years, Thameswey Energy has been designing, financing, building and operating sustainable
energy services both within and outside Woking using distributed energy centres and renewable energy
installations such as photovoltaic and fuel cell generation. Thameswey Energy’s energy centres include efficient
CHP engines to generate electricity and hot water for heating – a method that is over 50% more efficient than
15
conventional electricity and heat generation. As a publically owned company, the profits generated by projects in
Woking are cycled back to Thameswey and Thameswey Energy in order to facilitate further energy and
16
environmental projects within the community.
Woking has a successful network of local generators that power, heat and cool municipal buildings and social
17
housing. The system includes:
1) The first small-scale combined heat and power (CHP) and heat-fired absorption chiller in the UK. Built in
2001, the CHP generation station is located near Woking Town Centre and produces 1.46 MW of power,
3
1.4 MW of heat-fired absorption cooling, and 163m of thermal storage. The energy is distributed over six
18
building complexes via private pipe systems and a private wire network. CHP is fueled by natural gas and
provides efficiencies of 80-90% as compared to coal-fired power stations and national grid systems, which
19
can have efficiency rates of 25-35% at the point of use. This higher efficiency rating is the main driver
20
behind reducing GHG emissions. There are now eleven small-scale CHP sites owned and operated by
Thameswey within the borough.
2) The first local authority housing private wire residential CHP systems. The generation stations are
connected to customers through a series of private electricity wires that are owned and operated by
21
Thameswey Energy. The private wires allow electricity to be sold directly to the end users, avoiding
transmission and distribution losses/charges through the national
22
grid/distribution networks.
Since their inception,
3) Some of the first domestic photovoltaic (PV)/CHP installations in the
Woking’s energy
UK. Of the eleven small-scale CHP in Woking, 7 incorporate PV
companies have enabled
installations. Using these two types of sustainable energy sources
an 800% increase in
together is extremely efficient, as the PV’s generate maximum
generation capacity
43
within the borough.
electricity in the summer while CHP maximizes electricity generation in
the winter. PV capacity in the borough is currently 1890 kilowatts (kW).
83
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
4) The first hydrogen fuel cell CHP system. Woking
Park is home to a fuel cell CHP system that
supported the heating, cooling and power system
for the publicly owned Leisure Lagoon/Pool in the
Park, the adjacent Woking Leisure Centre, as well as
the lighting in Woking Park. The project included the
first commercially operated 200 kW fuel cell CHP
plant in the UK, which generally generates 50% more
electricity than conventional methods with
23
significantly lower GHG emissions levels.
5) Other technologies that increase energy efficiency.
The Council installed a geothermal heat pump for a
sports pavilion, a rainwater harvesting system in
Woking Park that helps reduce water treatment
energy consumption, as well as off-grid PV/wind
powered lighting systems in three locations across
24
the community. Woking also has thermal storage
capabilities with a capacity of about 7 to 8 hours of
storage.
Photo courtesy of: Thameswey Ltd.
Figure 1: CHP plant in Woking Town Centre.
“Southwest
renewable
Thameswey Energy also operates an energy centre with a capacity
of 6 megawatts
(MW)agency”
in Milton Keynes, a
community north of London. It is estimated that the investment in sustainable and renewable infrastructure in
Woking and Milton Keynes combined has been approximately £77 million over the past twenty years.
Challenges and Successes
Higher capital costs associated with CHP systems can be a deterrent to new-build connections. In 1994 when the
drive toward sustainable energy began in Woking, most banks were unwilling to provide loans for sustainable
projects due to their long investment return periods (approximately 30 years). To overcome this challenge, the
Borough is able to borrow funds from the British Treasury who then loan it to Thameswey at a 2% differential fixed
interest rate for up to 50 years. Woking introduced a planning policy that mandated CHP connections for all new
development in proximity of an existing or proposed CHP station or district heating network, unless the developers
25
can demonstrate a better economic alternative for reducing GHG emissions.
Despite the hurdles, the distributed energy system in Woking is a clear demonstration of success. In 2010,
Thameswey Energy saved its 170 business and over 900 domestic customers more than 1,400 tonnes of GHG
26
emissions by supplying them with low carbon energy generation. In 2013, Thameswey Energy was able to
generate more than 15 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy from its CHP facilities. In Woking, there is a shortage of
affordable housing due to the limited amount of land for development and high property prices. As a result, fuel
27
poverty (when a household finds it too expensive to heat their home) is a serious issue in the community.
Woking’s CHP system is able to meet its own electrical demand and export surplus power (a minimum of 30%)
28
over the public wire system to social housing residents at a very low cost. As of 2007, nearly 98% of connected
housing properties were heated for only 10% of income or less (for sheltered housing) or £10 per week or less (for
29
non-sheltered housing).
A Case Study Synthesis Report
84
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and
Adaptation
Following a report on the dangers of climate change prepared by the
Council’s Energy Manager in the early 2000s, the Council’s focus shifted from
improving energy efficiency and fuel poverty, to reducing greenhouse gas
30
(GHG) emissions and combating climate change. In 2002, the Council’s
original Energy Efficiency Policy was replaced by the Climate Change Strategy
for Woking and since then, the Council has introduced a number of
innovative measures to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and
promote sustainable development – not only for Council buildings, but for
31
the Borough as a whole.
Woking Borough Council
took a political lead and
developed its own Climate
Change Strategy in 2002.
Between 1990 and 2012,
Woking reduced its CO2
equivalent emissions by
33%, taking the Borough
well on its way to reach the
goal of reducing GHG
emissions by 80% by 2050.
As part of its Climate Change Strategy, Council is working with businesses and residents to tackle climate change in
ten key areas/themes, including energy. The Strategy covers all of the Borough’s energy uses and their resulting
32
GHG emissions, including power, heat, water, waste disposal and transport. The sustainable and renewable
energy projects present in Woking, along with other energy efficiency measures, have been intentionally
33
developed and/or implemented to reduce GHG emissions. These energy savings have already reduced carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions by 33% in the borough; however the key target is to achieve an 80% reduction in CO2
34
emissions by 2050. In 1990, it was estimated that Woking produced 895,440 tonnes of CO 2 per year; the goal
therefore is to reduce that amount to 179,088 tonnes of CO 2 per year by 2050. Woking is well on its way to
reaching this goal. Between 1990 (when the Council began implementing energy efficiency measures) and 2012,
35
GHG emissions were reduced by 33% in the community.
The outcomes of reduced GHG emissions in Woking stemmed from management decisions for the energy sector
(Table 1). When the Council first sought to reduce GHG emissions and increase energy efficiency as a priority for
the community back in the late 1990s, they developed the UK’s first Energy and Environmental Service Company
(Thameswey) and public/private joint venture Energy Services Company (Thameswey Energy) in order to increase
sustainable distributed generation capacity within the borough. This managerial decision has allowed the borough
36
to increase its generation capacity by 800% since 2000.
Table 1: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for Woking’s Sustainable Energy
Initiatives
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
X
Policy
The way in which the Council manages Woking’s energy system also responds to climate change through
adaptation in the community. The eleven current operating CHP units have decentralized power generation within
85
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
the community which has increased the redundancy in the grid and the reliability of the energy system, as
compared to a single generating station or sourcing from the national grid power supply.
During power outages, the distributed energy system allows for a switch to ‘island generation’ mode which allows
businesses and residents who are connected to the private wires to continue using power with only a short
37
interruption while the system disconnects from the larger grid and restarts. In other words, increasing the
community’s energy self-sufficiency decreases its reliance on the grid, making it more resilient to power
interruptions that are expected to increase as a result of climate change (i.e. increasing extreme weather events).
Table 2: Summary of the Contribution of Woking’s Sustainable Energy Initiatives to Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
The Council developed Thameswey Ltd and Thameswey
Energy Ltd to help increase distributed generation capacity
within the borough and provide the community with an
efficient and reliable source of energy.
Distributed energy generation increases the redundancy on
the grid, making Woking’s energy system much more
reliable, and much more sustainable.


Sustainable and renewable energy projects
implemented throughout the community, along
with energy efficiency initiatives, reduce GHG
emissions.
Between 1990 and 2012, Woking was able to
reduce GHG emissions by 33%.


The energy system can switch to ‘island
generation’ mode during power grid outages,
which allows businesses and residents to continue
using power.
Increasing the community’s energy self-sufficiency
decreases its reliance on the grid, making it more
resilient to power interruptions.
Co-Benefits
Woking’s distributed sustainable energy system increases system efficiency and reduces GHG emissions while
simultaneously increasing the reliability of the system. In addition, higher efficiency and lower cost CHP allows
Thameswey Energy to sell 30% of the energy produced back to the community, providing affordable heat and
38
electricity to social housing residents. Secondly, the decentralized energy sources create power in close
proximity to where it is consumed, thus the community is spared transmission losses associated with transmitting
electricity over long distances. Finally, the 2% differential interest rate on the loan between Thameswey Energy
and the Council provides the Council with £1.8 million a year of revenue, which goes to support local services. With
recent reductions in grants from central government to local Council’s in the UK, this arrangement provides a
much needed financial boost to the community.
Box 1: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to Woking’s Sustainable Energy
Initiatives
Due to its dedication to sustainable and renewable energy, the Borough of Woking has reduced its levels of GHG emissions
while simultaneously increasing the resilience and reliability of its energy system, offering competitive energy prices,
providing affordable energy for social housing residents, increasing system efficiency, all the while creating profits that are
reinvested back into energy efficiency within the community.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
86
Lessons Learned
Woking’s achievements in sustainable energy are a direct result of the political leadership from the Council
39
members, who made energy efficiency and sustainability a priority in the borough. It is through their leadership
and dedication that Woking is now recognized as being one of the most energy efficient local authorities in the UK.
Entering into a private/public partnership allowed the Council to move forward with decentralized energy. In the
case of Woking, the development of Thameswey and Thameswey Energy helped to avoid central government
constraints on capital spending, allowing the distributed generation capacity in the borough to increase by 800%.
By decentralizing its energy system and avoiding costs associated with using the national grid, Woking was able to
fund its power generation facilities and private wire system that deliver low GHG emission electricity at
40
competitive prices. Using the savings from Woking’s energy efficiency projects to raise capital for energy
infrastructure development proved to be successful, as it allowed revenues to be reinvested year after year to
41
further improve energy efficiency in the community.
Creating building policies that encourage developers to connect to the local CHP energy supply is also beneficial. As
a result of higher costs, developers of new buildings are often not interested in connecting to CHP unless they are
required to do so. As a result, Woking introduced a policy that requires all new developments in proximity to an
existing or proposed CHP station or district heating network to connect, unless the building developers can
demonstrate a better economic alternative for reducing GHG emissions.
Further Information
Borough of Woking, UK: www.woking.gov.uk/planning/service/energy
Thameswey Ltd: www.thamesweygroup.co.uk
Thameswey Energy Ltd: www.thamesweyenergy.co.uk
Contact
John P. Thorp
Group Managing Director, Thameswey Energy Ltd
Email: John.Thorp@thamesweygroup.co.uk
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
87
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
References
1
Woking Borough Council. Fact Sheet 1: About Woking and the Borough Council. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/climatechangestrategy/climatechangecasestudy.
pdf.
2
Thorp, J.P. (2011). Delivering Affordable and Sustainable Energy: The results of innovative approaches by Woking
Borough Council, UK. Greenleaf Publishing.
3
Moreland Energy Foundation. Renewable Energy Case Study: Woking, UK. Accessed from
www.mefl.com.au/activity-areas/sustainable-energy-supply/item/368-renewable-energy-case-study-wokinguk.html.
4
Diolettas, S. (2005). Distributed Energy Resources: Prometheus of Renewable Energy. Thesis for the Degree of
Philosophy Doctorate, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña. Accessed from
http://web10420.aiso.net/documents/reporto_sd_prom.pdf.
5
Thorp. J.P. and L. Curran. (2009). Affordable and Sustainable Energy in the Borough of Woking in the United
Kingdom. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 29(2) 159-163.
6
Sustainable Now. (2010). Good practice case on Sustainable Energy Communities. Accessed from
www.localmanagement.eu/download.php/dms/champ/CDP/Case%20studies/Woking%20%20Establishing_an_Energy_Services_Company.pdf.
7
Woking Borough Council. Woking Borough Council. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/sustainablewoking/wbc.
8
Energy Saving Trust. Woking Borough Council’s Joint Venture Project. Accessed from
www.westsomersetonline.gov.uk/getattachment/Environment/Climate-Change/Climate-ChangeStrategy/Climate-Change-Appendix-11.pdf.aspx.
9
Energie-Cités. (2003). Private wire systems for delivering electricity to tenants. International Energy Agency DSM
Implementing Agreement, Municipalities and Energy Efficiency in a Liberalised System. Accessed from
www.energy-cities.eu/db/woking_566_en.pdf.
10
Thorp, J.P. (2011). Delivering Affordable and Sustainable Energy: The results of innovative approaches by Woking
Borough Council, UK. Greenleaf Publishing.
11
Sustainable Now. (2010). Good practice case on Sustainable Energy Communities. Accessed from
www.localmanagement.eu/download.php/dms/champ/CDP/Case%20studies/Woking%20%20Establishing_an_Energy_Services_Company.pdf.
12
Energy Saving Trust. Woking Borough Council’s Joint Venture Project. Accessed from
www.westsomersetonline.gov.uk/getattachment/Environment/Climate-Change/Climate-ChangeStrategy/Climate-Change-Appendix-11.pdf.aspx.
13
Regen SW. Woking Borough Council Energy Services Company. South West Renewable Energy Agency. Accessed
from http://regensw.s3.amazonaws.com/1271676202_325.pdf.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
88
14
Thorp. J.P. and L. Curran. (2009). Affordable and Sustainable Energy in the Borough of Woking in the United
Kingdom. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 29(2) 159-163.
15
Thameswey Energy. (2014). Welcome to Thameswey Energy. Accessed from www.thamesweyenergy.co.uk/.
16
Sustainable Now. (2010). Good practice case on Sustainable Energy Communities. Accessed from
www.localmanagement.eu/download.php/dms/champ/CDP/Case%20studies/Woking%20%20Establishing_an_Energy_Services_Company.pdf.
17
Jones, A. Woking: Local Sustainable Community Energy. Accessed from www.mefl.com.au/onlinelibrary/external-1/78-woking-local-sustainable-community-energy-1/file.html.
18
Woking Borough Council. Woking Borough Council’s Thameswey Joint Venture Project. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/sustainablewoking/jointv.pdf.
19
Woking Borough Council. Local Sustainable Energy Systems. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/sustainablewoking/lses.pdf.
20
Thorp. J.P. and L. Curran. (2009). Affordable and Sustainable Energy in the Borough of Woking in the United
Kingdom. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 29(2) 159-163.
21
Greenpeace. (2006). Decentralising energy – the Woking case study. Accessed from
www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/decentralising-energy-the-woking-case-study.
22
Regen SW. Woking Borough Council Energy Services Company. South West Renewable Energy Agency. Accessed
from http://regensw.s3.amazonaws.com/1271676202_325.pdf.
23
Woking Borough Council. Woking Park Fuel Cell CHP. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/sustainablewoking/fuelcell.
24
Thorp. J.P. and L. Curran. (2009). Affordable and Sustainable Energy in the Borough of Woking in the United
Kingdom. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 29(2) 159-163.
25
Woking Borough Council. (2014). Sustainable Energy in Development. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/planning/service/energy.
26
Thameswey Ltd. (2014). Thameswey Energy Ltd. Accessed from www.thamesweygroup.co.uk/thameswey-groupcompanies/thameswey-energy-ltd/.
27
Woking Borough Council. Fact Sheet 1: About Woking and the Borough Council. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/climatechangestrategy/climatechangecasestudy.
pdf.
28
Regen SW. Woking Borough Council Energy Services Company. South West Renewable Energy Agency. Accessed
from http://regensw.s3.amazonaws.com/1271676202_325.pdf.
29
Woking Borough Council. (2008). Climate Change Strategy. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climatechangestrategy/climatechange.pdf.
89
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
30
Energy Saving Trust. Woking Borough Council’s Joint Venture Project. Accessed from
www.westsomersetonline.gov.uk/getattachment/Environment/Climate-Change/Climate-ChangeStrategy/Climate-Change-Appendix-11.pdf.aspx.
31
Woking Borough Council. Fact Sheet 1: About Woking and the Borough Council. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/climatechangestrategy/climatechangecasestudy.
pdf.
32
Thorp. J.P. and L. Curran. (2009). Affordable and Sustainable Energy in the Borough of Woking in the United
Kingdom. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 29(2) 159-163.
33
C40 Cities. (2011). De-centralizing energy generation in Woking, U.K. slashed the city’s CO2 emissions by 82%.
Accessed from www.c40.org/case_studies/de-centralizing-energy-generation-in-woking-uk-slashed-the-citysco2-emissions-by-82.
34
Thorp. J.P. and L. Curran. (2009). Affordable and Sustainable Energy in the Borough of Woking in the United
Kingdom. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Vol. 29(2) 159-163.
35
Ibid
36
Jones, A. Woking: Local Sustainable Community Energy. Accessed from www.mefl.com.au/onlinelibrary/external-1/78-woking-local-sustainable-community-energy-1/file.html.
37
Greenpeace. (2006). Decentralising energy – the Woking case study. Accessed from
www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/decentralising-energy-the-woking-case-study.
38
Thameswey Energy Ltd. How we generate your energy. Accessed from
www.thamesweyenergy.co.uk/pages/about_us.php?id=13.
39
Thorp, J.P. (2011). Delivering Affordable and Sustainable Energy: The results of innovative approaches by Woking
Borough Council, UK. Greenleaf Publishing.
40
Greenpeace. (2006). Decentralising energy – the Woking case study. Accessed from
www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/decentralising-energy-the-woking-case-study.
41
Woking Borough Council. Woking Borough Council. Accessed from
www.woking.gov.uk/environment/climate/Greeninitiatives/sustainablewoking/wbc.
42
Markham District Energy Inc. District Energy: The Basics. Accessed from
www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/district-energy-101/.
43
Jones, A. Woking: Local Sustainable Community Energy. Accessed from www.mefl.com.au/onlinelibrary/external-1/78-woking-local-sustainable-community-energy-1/file.html.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
90
Harnessing Geothermal Power in Chena Hot Springs, Alaska:
Reducing the Reliance on Diesel Fuel and Increasing Energy
Security
Focus: Geothermal Power Production
Location: Chena Hot Springs Resort, Alaska, USA
Lead: Chena Hot Springs Resort
Other stakeholders: Kaishan Industries, United
Technologies Corporation (former), Chena Power,
Alaska Department of Energy, Alaska Energy Authority
Stage: Complete
Cost: $3.5 million
Ownership: Private
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
Geothermal is a very clean source of energy, and is
considered more reliable when compared to other
1
renewable energy sources such as tidal, wind and solar.
Research has shown that the state of Alaska has more
geothermal resources than any other state in the US, but few
of the resources are being harnessed for power generation. A
prominent exception is Chena Hot Springs Resort, which
became the first location in Alaska to install a geothermal
power plant in 2006.
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
taking advantage of opportunities.
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
extreme weather events).
Chena Hot Springs Resort is located in the Monument Creek
Valley in the upper region of the Chena River, approximately
2
96 km northeast of Fairbanks, Alaska. The Resort is a
privately owned facility and is home to one of the thirty hot
3
springs in Alaska. Since 1907, the Resort has been used extensively for recreational bathing, and the area has
4
grown to include a small community of private residences (including employees and guests). The Chena Hot
Springs community is considered ‘semi-remote’, as it is served by a paved road from Fairbanks and is located 53
km from the nearest electric grid. As a result, Chena deals with many of the same infrastructure challenges facing
numerous remote communities, such as: maintaining power generation facilities, phone and internet services,
5
sewage and municipal waste disposal, road maintenance, and emergency medical and fire equipment.
Electricity in the Alaskan interior comes at a very high price compared to other US states, and even other areas of
6
Alaska, and frequently reaches $1 per kilowatt (kW). As with many remote communities, Chena Hot Springs
Resort was dependent on diesel generators to supply power to the community, with an average load of between
7
180 kW and 380 kW. This was a very expensive way to provide power. For example, over $365,000 was spent on
fuel at Chena Hot Springs Resort in 2005 alone (with an average price of $2.46 per gallon delivered). Since the
largest operational expense at Chena is for power generation, high diesel costs motivated the consideration of
91
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
8
alternative energy sources at the Resort. The early leadership demonstrated by
management at Chena Hot Springs Resort, initially to offset the cost of diesel
generated power, led directly to the Geothermal Power Demonstration Project at
the Resort.
In 2004, the owners of Chena Hot Springs Resort decided to advance geothermal
generation based on their understanding of the technology. While they were aware
of the economics of the Project, the primary motivator for utilizing geothermal
technologies was the personal appeal of using renewable power and reducing the
carbon footprint of the facility. With the nearest electrical grid over 50 km away and
diesel generators burning through $1,000 a day, the owners of Chena Hot Springs
9
Resort saw an opportunity to innovatively lead from the bottom-up .
In 2007, the project
generated 3 million
kWh of clean
geothermal power
and displaced
224,000 gallons of
diesel for an
estimated savings of
27
$550,000.
The owners, through support from the U.S. Department of Energy, were presented with an opportunity to work
with United Technologies Corporation (UTC) to demonstrate UTC’s existing Air-Air PureCycle® technology on the
geothermal resource at Chena Hot Springs Resort. The Department of Energy subsequently awarded funding to
UTC who completed the design of the power plants, assembled them, tested them, and installed them at Chena
10
Hot Springs Resort. One of the more important aspects of the Project is that Chena’s geothermal plant generates
power from a well that is 216m deep with a maximum temperature of 74°C, making it the lowest temperature
11
geothermal resource to be used for commercial power production in the world. The geothermal resource at
Chena is considered to be a low-temperature resource, which requires the use of specialized generators to
economically produce power, and UTC was able to provide the necessary technology to harness the power from
this low-temperature resource.
In 2006, UTC installed two 200 kW Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) geothermal power plants at Chena Hot Springs
Resort. The specific objective of the Chena Geothermal Power Project was to demonstrate the low cost of the
power generation equipment ($1,300 per kilowatt hour (kWh) installed) and the feasibility of producing electricity
12
at a cost of less than $0.05 per kWh from a low-temperature geothermal resource with 98% availability. Chena
Power, a subsidiary of Chena Hot Springs Resort, was created in order to operate and maintain the geothermal
13
power plants at the Resort.
Box 1. How the Geothermal Technology Works
UTC’s PureCycle® is designed to produce 200 kW
of electric power from waste hot gas sources
28
between 260°C and 538°C. Since the geothermal
water at Chena Hot Springs never reaches the
boiling point of water, a traditional steam driven
turbine could not be used. Instead, a binary
(secondary) fluid that has a lower boiling point
than water is passed through a heat exchanger
with 74°C water from the geothermal wells. Heat
from the geothermal water causes the binary fluid
Photo courtesy of: Chena Hot Springs Resort
to turn into vapour which drives the turbine.
Moderate-temperature is the most common geothermal resource; therefore most geothermal
29
power plants will use binary cycle plant in the future.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
92
The technology developed by UTC can work with any type of heat source with a minimum of 38°C
temperature differential between the heat source and sink. Oil and gas is one example. Since oil and
gas wells are quite deep and are warmed by the earth’s internal temperature, ‘waste’ water that is
extracted with the oil and gas is hot enough to generate power directly, without impacting oil and
30
gas production.
Chena’s geothermal power plant facilities provide sufficient power for the entire resort (44 buildings, some over
2
1,858 m ) and have reduced the cost of power from $0.30 per kWh to approximately $0.05 per kWh. This
2
reduction in the price of power allowed new developments to move forward at Chena. For example, a 465 m
year-round geothermally-heated greenhouse was built in 2006 to supplement existing agricultural greenhouse
14
production at Chena. One of the goals at Chena Hot Springs Resort is to become a self-sustaining community, and
15
an important part of that vision is to increase their independence in food production. Greenhouses at the Resort
produce locally grown hydroponic lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, fodder and small fruits for the
16
restaurant, employees and livestock. Chena Hot Springs Resort has an overall goal of providing all food consumed
on site from their greenhouses. The greenhouses feature the largest LED array in the world.
In addition to growing food, Chena Hot Springs Resort is currently experimenting with a range of technologies to
further increase the energy security of the resort, and to demonstrate how local resilience can be increased.
Current experiments reported by the Resort include the mass production of hydrogen using an electrolytic cell,
reindeer herding, and the use of onsite animal waste for compost. Chena Hot Springs Resort provides regular
educational tours to showcase their demonstration projects. Fifty-thousand tourists and 15,000 students visit the
facility each year. Chena Hot Springs Resort also hosted the United States Department of Agriculture Committee
on Controlled Environment Technology and Use NCERA/NCR-101 Annual Meeting in 2014.
The total capital cost of the power generation project was $3.5M which was offset by a $246,288 grant from the
Alaska Energy Authority. The majority of costs incurred were associated with the drilling of geothermal wells, but
did not include any exploration costs (which were partially covered under the Department of Energy grant). In
order to save money during the Project, numerous recycled components were used (including 1,280 m of pipeline
and a 1.5 MWh UPS system). The Project offset 143,914 gallons of diesel in 2013 for a total savings of $529,604
17
(average 2013 cost of diesel provided is $3.68/gallon).
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
The Chena Hot Springs Geothermal Power Project demonstrates opportunities for both GHG mitigation and
adaptation to climate change (Table 1).
The Geothermal Power Project advances climate change mitigation at Chena Hot Springs Resort by introducing a
new technology that is able to harness the low-temperature geothermal source thus displacing the GHG-intensive
diesel fuel. Chena’s geothermal power plant has been operating with 95% availability since the first unit was
18
installed in 2006 and has pushed diesel generation to a supplemental backup generation source for the site. The
installation of the geothermal modules has resulted in a 50% reduction in gallons of fuel purchased at Chena Hot
19
Springs Resort, thereby reducing the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. For example, 1,007,398 gallons
93
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
20
of diesel were offset between 2006 and 2013 (avoiding approximately 10,226 tonnes of CO2). It was reducing the
reliance on diesel fuel that drove the Chena Geothermal Project.
Table 1: Summary of the Contribution of the Chena Hot Springs Geothermal Power Project to Climate Change Adaptation
and Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
The introduction of geothermal power technology has
pushed diesel generation to a supplemental backup
generation source at Chena Hot Springs Resort, reducing the
amount of GHG emissions.
The Geothermal Power Project increases energy and food
security at Chena Hot Springs Resort.




UTC’s geothermal technology is able to harness the
low-temperature geothermal source at Chena Hot
Springs Resort in order to provide the community with
sufficient power.
The geothermal power source is much more costeffective and reliable than other renewable energy
sources.
Chena Hot Springs Resort has reduced the amount of
fuel purchased by 50%, which reduces the amount of
GHG’s released and reduces costs.

UTC’s geothermal technology provides a reliable
source of energy to the community, reducing the
dependence on diesel fuel. This has significance due to
the potential impacts to fuel transport in the north as a
result of climate change.
The decision to build a year-round greenhouse at
Chena Hot Springs Resort to produce locally-grown
produce has increased food security within the
community, reducing the susceptibility of food
transportation to the impacts of climate change.
A significant challenge facing remote northern locations, such as Alaska, is food security. While 6,070,284ha (15
million acres) of soil in Alaska is suitable for farming Alaska currently imports approximately 98% of its food, which
21
is often shipped through long supply chains, arriving by air, barge or truck. Agricultural production to date at
Chena Hot Springs Resort has demonstrated that Alaska can take a more active role in supplying its own food even
with current seasonal limits on the growing season. It can increase local food security by reducing Alaska’s reliance
on food imports thus reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and cost associated with importing food, and
providing economic diversification in remote areas.
Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed twice as fast as the rest of the US, seeing an increase of ~2°C. A
continuance of this warming suggests that climate change will improve local growing conditions and enable
Alaskans to take advantage of new opportunities if the skills and interest in agriculture are present. Degrading
permafrost has the potential to damage or decrease reliability of single arteriole roads that lead to and from
22
remote communities, thus threatening the supply of food imported from more southerly locations. As well, since
both production and transportation of imported food is energy-intensive, Alaskans are susceptible to the price of
imported-food fuel costs. Introducing locally grown produce at Chena Hot Springs Resort and using clean and
renewable geothermal energy to power the local greenhouses, the community has improved its adaptive capacity
by changing its relationship to agriculture thus fostering local resilience.
Chena Hot Springs Resort is also contributing to the adaptive capacity of Alaska by openly sharing the work that
they do. Facility tours for professionals, students, and the public contributes the human capital of the state and
shows a path forward for adapting to climate change while at the same time reducing the GHG contribution of the
local area by taking a diesel generator offline. Diesel generation in remote communities is a significant contributor
to greenhouse gas emissions in remote northern areas.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
94
None of the contributions to regional adaptation or mitigation made at the Chena Hot Springs Resort would have
been possible without the managerial direction provided by its owners. The leadership provided by the Resort was
integral in obtaining partners, installing the geothermal generators despite the marginal economics associated
with the energy source, and then leveraging the benefits provided by the generators to build adaptive capacity
through the innovative means described above. This leadership constitutes the nexus between adaptation and
mitigation observed in this case study (Table 2).
Table 2: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for the Chena Hot Springs Geothermal
Power Project
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
X
Policy
Co-Benefits
Introducing geothermal energy production at Chena Hot Springs Resort demonstrates clear synergies between
climate change mitigation and adaptation responses, as the technology reduces the use of diesel fuel for power
generation thereby reducing GHG emissions, while simultaneously increasing energy and food security within the
semi-remote northern location. One of the most important co-benefits of the geothermal power plants is the costsavings involved from reducing the use of diesel fuel. For example, without the cost-effective geothermal power
production, it would be much too costly to maintain the greenhouses at Chena and to continue producing locally
23
grown fresh produce year-round.
Box 2. Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to the Chena Hot Springs Geothermal
Power Project
Introducing renewable energy production in a remote northern community not only reduces the dependence on diesel fuel
for energy use (mitigation), but also improves self-sufficiency in terms of energy and food production, reducing the
dependence on imported resources that are susceptible to the impacts of climate change (adaptation). There are also
significant cost savings when switching from diesel fuel to geothermal.
Lessons Learned
Leadership is integral to an effective response to climate change. The owners of Chena Hot Springs Resort are early
adopters of a low-temperature geothermal resource that they have leveraged to innovate in a number of sectors,
including technology research and development and food production. Implementing the range of projects
reported by the resort demonstrates that the owners of the Hot Springs are not risk averse, and notably, have
become global leaders in a number of fields from a remote area with limited resources on hand.
95
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Private sector innovation is important to effectively manage climate change. As a private sector entity, the Hot
Springs Resort has been able to respond to opportunities in a dynamic and flexible manner. Going forward, as the
landscape responds to the effects of changing temperature and precipitation regimes, such flexibility will likely
become very important. Private sector leadership should be fostered to the extent possible in order to ensure
emerging opportunities can be exploited.
The fact that the geothermal technology implemented at Chena Hot Springs Resort was successful provides
confidence that it can be used as a measure to adapt to climate change in other remote or semi-remote
communities. Combined with the reduction in GHG emissions and the associated cost savings, it presents a strong
business case for the technology. Although the initial installation costs of geothermal power may be higher than
conventional heating and cooling systems, the costs can be recovered within a shorter period through energy
savings, particularly in those semi-remote areas that rely on diesel fuel. The technology used at Chena Hot Springs
Resort can also be adapted to work in locations with no geothermal resources, operating off of other industrial
24
waste heat sources.
Geothermal energy is a
largely untapped resource
in Canada due to various
reasons including up-front
drilling risks and limited
government interest and
support. However recent
research outlines the vast
amounts of lowtemperature geothermal
energy potential in
25
Canada. Geothermal
energy at these levels,
combined with the
technology displayed at
Chena Hot Springs Resort,
clearly present
opportunities to produce
tens of thousands of
26
megawatts of electricity.
Figure 1: Geothermal potential in Canada at a depth of 250m. Some of the best locations for
31
geothermal in Canada are in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan (2009).
Further Information
Chena Hot Springs Resort: www.chenahotsprings.com
Chena Power: www.chenapower.com
Contact
Bernie Karl
Owner, Chena Hot Springs Resort
A Case Study Synthesis Report
96
Email: bernie.karl@gmail.com
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
Bogo, J. (2008). Geothermal Power in Alaska Holds Hidden Model for Clean Energy. Popular Mechanics Article.
Accessed from www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4245896.
2
Benoit, D., G. Holdmann and D. Blackwell. (2007). Low Cost Exploration, Testing, and Development of the Chena
Geothermal Resource. GRC Transactions. Vol. 31, 2007. Accessed from http://pubs.geothermallibrary.org/lib/grc/1025209.pdf.
3
Alaska Energy Wiki. (2012). Chena Hot Springs Resort (Geothermal). Access from www.energyalaska.wikidot.com/chena-hot-springs-resort-geothermal.
4
Chena Power. (2007). 400kW Geothermal Power Plant at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. Final Project Report
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. Accessed from
www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/AEEE/Geothermal/Documents/PDF/FinRepChenaGeoPlant09
.pdf.
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
Alaska Energy Wiki. (2012). Chena Hot Springs Resort (Geothermal). Access from www.energyalaska.wikidot.com/chena-hot-springs-resort-geothermal.
8
Chena Power. (2007). 400kW Geothermal Power Plant at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. Final Project Report
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. Accessed from
www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/AEEE/Geothermal/Documents/PDF/FinRepChenaGeoPlant09
.pdf.
9
Bogo, J. (2008). Geothermal Power in Alaska Holds Hidden Model for Clean Energy. Popular Mechanics Article.
Accessed from www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4245896.
10
Holdmann, G. (2008). The Chena Hot Springs 400kW Geothermal Power Plant: Experience Gained During the
First Year of Operations. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions. Volume 31, 515-519.
11
Chena Hot Springs Resort. Fact Sheet on: The Chena Geothermal Power Plant. Accessed from
www.chsr.squarespace.com/storage/documents/Powerfactsheet.pdf.
12
Holdmann, G. (2008). The Chena Hot Springs 400kW Geothermal Power Plant: Experience Gained During the
First Year of Operations. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions. Volume 31, 515-519.
97
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
13
Chena Power. (2012). About us. Accessed from www.chenapower.com/about-us/.
14
Chena Power. (2007). 400kW Geothermal Power Plant at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. Final Project Report
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. Accessed from
www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/AEEE/Geothermal/Documents/PDF/FinRepChenaGeoPlant09
.pdf.
15
Chena Hot Springs Resort. Chena Fresh. Accessed from www.chenahotsprings.com/chena-fresh/.
16
Chena Hot Springs Resort. ChenaFresh: America’s northernmost commercial year-round greenhouse at Chena
Hot Springs Resort. Accessed from
www.chenahotsprings.com/storage/Chena%20Fresh%20Fact%20Sheet%20v3.pdf.
17
Bogo, J. (2008). Geothermal Power in Alaska Holds Hidden Model for Clean Energy. Popular Mechanics Article.
Accessed from www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4245896.
18
Chena Power. (2007). 400kW Geothermal Power Plant at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. Final Project Report
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. Accessed from
www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/AEEE/Geothermal/Documents/PDF/FinRepChenaGeoPlant09
.pdf.
19
Alaska Energy Wiki. (2012). Chena Hot Springs Resort (Geothermal). Access from www.energyalaska.wikidot.com/chena-hot-springs-resort-geothermal.
20
Karl, B. Chena Power Reservoir Management at Chena Hot Springs. Presentation. Accessed from
www.uaf.edu/files/acep/Rural%20Energy%20Conference_Bernie.pdf.
21
Meter, K. And M. Phillips Goldenberg. (2014). Building Food Security in Alaska. Commissioned by the Alaska
Department of Health and Social Services, with collaboration from the Alaska Food Policy Council. Accessed
from www.akfoodpolicycouncil.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/14-09-17_building-food-security-in-ak_execsummary-recommendations.pdf.
22
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2009). Backgrounder: Alaska. Accessed from
www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/us-global-climate-changereport-alaska.pdf.
23
Bogo, J. (2008). Geothermal Power in Alaska Holds Hidden Model for Clean Energy. Popular Mechanics Article.
Accessed from www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4245896.
24
Chena Power. (2007). 400kW Geothermal Power Plant at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. Final Project Report
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. Accessed from
www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/AEEE/Geothermal/Documents/PDF/FinRepChenaGeoPlant09
.pdf.
25
Grasby, S.E., J. Majorowicz and M. Ko. (2009). Geothermal Maps of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Open
File 6167. Natural Resources Canada. 35p.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
98
26
Bogo, J. (2008). Geothermal Power in Alaska Holds Hidden Model for Clean Energy. Popular Mechanics Article.
Accessed from www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/4245896.
27
Chena Power. (2007). 400kW Geothermal Power Plant at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. Final Project Report
Prepared for Alaska Energy Authority. Accessed from
www.akenergyauthority.org/Content/Programs/AEEE/Geothermal/Documents/PDF/FinRepChenaGeoPlant09
.pdf.
28
Ibid
29
Chena Hot Springs Resort. (2014). Geothermal Power. Accessed from www.chenahotsprings.com/geothermalpower/.
30
Ibid
31
Grasby, S.E., J. Majorowicz and M. Ko. (2009). Geothermal Maps of Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Open
File 6167. Natural Resources Canada. 35p.
99
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
New York City’s Green Infrastructure Plan: Managing
Stormwater, Decreasing Energy Demand, and Increasing
Resilience
Focus: New York City Green Infrastructure Plan
Jurisdiction: New York, New York, United States
Lead: New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
Implementation cost: $5.3 billion by 2030 (both green
infrastructure and grey infrastructure costs)
Ownership: Public
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
New York City (NYC) is the most populous city in the United
1
States with approximately 8.4 million residents. As a highly
urbanized area, nearly three-quarters of the city’s surface is
impervious, comprised of rooftops, streets, sidewalks, and
other hardscaped areas. As a result, a significant amount of
stormwater runoff is generated during rain events that
2
eventually make its way to the sewer system.
Mitigation: actions that reduce the magnitude or
rate of human-induced emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs).
In NYC, approximately 70% of the sewer system is
Adaptation: preparing for adverse effects of climate
‘combined’, meaning that it handles both sanitary
change by preventing or minimizing impacts or
taking advantage of opportunities.
wastewater from homes and businesses as well as
3
stormwater runoff. The combined flow is conveyed through
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
a system of pipes until it reaches one of the city’s 14
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
4
wastewater treatment plants. Some rain events can cause
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
the combined sewer systems to fill to capacity. In order to
extreme weather events).
avoid street and property flooding and protect the
wastewater treatment plants, the untreated combined flow is discharged into local waterways. This is called a
5
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO).
6
Under normal operating conditions, an average of 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater is produced every day in NYC.
7
Just one inch of rain across the city can result in approximately 5.26 billion gallons of additional stormwater ,
placing tremendous stress on the sewer system. In some parts of the city, it takes only one-tenth of an inch of rain
8
to overwhelm the combined sewer system. In its most recent report, the NYC
Panel on Climate Change states that NYC can expect to see an increase in annual
On average, 29.8 billion gallons
mean precipitation of between 4 and 11% by 2050, and 5 and 13% by 2080
of untreated water is released
9
(relative to the 1980 base period). NYC must prepare for these increases in
annually into NYC waterways
49
as a result of CSO’s.
precipitation and adapt its already vulnerable stormwater infrastructure to
10
safeguard against overflows and subsequent risks.
Garrison, N. and K. Hobbs.
New Synthesis
York, New Report
York: A
A (2011).
Case Study
case study of how green
infrastructure
is
helping
manage urban stormwater
challenges. In Rooftops to
100
As of 2000, the U.S. Clean Water Act requires municipalities to
comply with a policy developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency that states that municipalities must reduce
or eliminate CSO-related pollution problems. In 2005, the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation issued a
Consent Order for NYC to reduce the number of CSOs in order
11
to improve the water quality of local waterways. The 2005
Order included a series of large underground tanks and tunnels
to store combined flow until after the rain event when the
wastewater treatment plants could then treat the flow. The
NYC Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) began
investigating other ways to manage stormwater in the city and
in 2010, released the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan.
The Green Infrastructure Plan has 5 key
components:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Build cost-effective grey infrastructure;
Optimize the existing wastewater system;
Control runoff from 10% of impervious
surfaces through green infrastructure;
Institutionalize adaptive management,
model impacts, measure CSO’s, and
monitor water quality; and
50
Engage and enlist stakeholders.
The Plan aims to reduce stormwater runoff by optimizing cost-effective “grey” infrastructure (e.g. increasing in-line
storage, raising weirs in regulators, sewer cleaning) and building “green” infrastructure” (e.g. bioswales, blue roofs,
12
green roofs). Studies have shown that green infrastructure is more cost-effective and a less energy intensive
strategy to manage stormwater than traditional grey infrastructure (e.g. tanks and tunnels), and can result in
immediate environmental, economic and social benefits.
The NYC Green Infrastructure Plan builds upon NYC’s existing municipal plans that already reference green
infrastructure, such as PlaNYC 2030 (2007) and the Sustainable Stormwater Management Plan (2008). These plans
involved green infrastructure pilot programs and concluded that green infrastructure was feasible in many areas of
13
the city and could be more cost-effective than certain large infrastructure projects. As a result, the Green
Infrastructure Plan was developed in order to show that green infrastructure was a viable and cost effective
14
solution for CSO mitigation.
Box 1: Green Infrastructure
Green infrastructure includes green roofs, blue roofs, permeable pavement, bioinfiltration
such as rain gardens and constructed wetlands, bioswales and stormwater greenstreets, as
well as rain barrels and reuse systems. Green infrastructure promotes the natural movement
of water by collecting and managing stormwater runoff from streets, sidewalks, parking lots
and rooftops and directing it towards engineered systems that feature soils, stones and
vegetation. This process prevents or slows stormwater runoff from entering the combined
51
sewer system in NYC.
Photo courtesy of: DEP
Beyond stormwater management, green infrastructure provides additional benefits, making it
even more attractive for municipalities. For example, green infrastructure can improve water
101
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
and air quality, reduce the urban heat island effect, reduce energy bills and greenhouse gas
emissions, increase property values, provide additional space for recreation, and improve the
52
visual quality of neighbourhoods. As part of the Green Infrastructure Plan, an analysis was
undertaken which estimates that every fully vegetated acre of green infrastructure would
provide total annual benefits of $8,522 in reduced energy demand, $166 in reduced CO 2
53
emissions, $1,044 in improved air quality, and $4,725 in increased property value in NYC.
The Green Infrastructure Plan consists of 5 key components, one of which is to capture the first inch of rainfall on
10% of the impervious areas in combined sewer watersheds through detention and infiltration techniques by
15
2030. By doing so, it is estimated that CSOs will be reduced by approximately 1.5 billion gallons per year. In order
to implement the Plan, the DEP initiated the Green Infrastructure Program. This 20-year program is being led by
the Mayor’s Office and DEP, in collaboration with many other city departments and agencies. The DEP estimates
that the Green Infrastructure Program to capture stormwater on 10% of the impervious areas in the combined
sewer watersheds will cost approximately $2.4B in public and private funding for green infrastructure projects, as
16
well as $2.9B in upgrades to grey infrastructure.
17
The strategies used to meet the 10% goal will vary depending on the type of land use. The DEP found that there
are significant opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure in 52% of the city that is serviced by combined
sewer systems (much more than is needed to meet the 10% capture goal). The remaining 48% of combined sewer
area consists of existing development where stormwater retrofits would be doable, but more difficult and
18
expensive to implement.
Green Infrastructure and Energy
19
Green infrastructure can reduce energy costs associated with reduced water pumping and treatment. In the
United States, the energy used for the treatment and transport of water accounts for approximately 4% of annual
20
energy consumption. Infiltration features such as rain gardens and bioswales help to reduce the amount of water
21
reaching sewer systems, thereby reducing the amount of electricity required to pump and treat water. By
avoiding the construction of tanks and tunnels, which require the use of energy to pump water back to the
treatment plant, green infrastructure can eliminate energy use all together. Other green infrastructure strategies
such as wetlands, whether natural or artificial, can treat stormwater passively and eliminate the need to use
energy to move and treat water. Water harvesting and reuse practices (i.e. rain barrels and cisterns) can also help
22
to capture rainfall that would have otherwise entered the sewer system.
23
Green infrastructure can also contribute to reduced heating and cooling in buildings. Green roofs and increased
vegetation in the public right of way, such as trees, have been proven to make individual buildings more energy
efficient by increasing insulation properties and reducing the energy needed to keep indoor areas warm during the
winter months. The shading and insulation provided by green infrastructure can also help to reduce the local
ambient air temperature at a community scale (urban heat island effect), thus reducing the energy needed to keep
24,25
indoor areas cool during the summer.
Prior to the development of the Green Infrastructure Plan, NYC had already recognized the capacity of natural
systems to protect water quality, mitigate flooding, and provide habitat and green space in the densely-developed
cityscape. For example, the Staten Island Bluebelt Program was designed to allow rainwater to drain naturally over
26
14,000 acres of wetlands which has saved over $80M in conventional sewer costs.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
102
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
NYC’s Green Infrastructure Plan utilizes technology (Table 1) to spawn energy savings that enhance GHG
mitigation. By replacing the proposed expansion of tanks and tunnels with the development of green
infrastructure, the energy that would have been needed to pump and treat wastewater is not consumed. Green
infrastructure helps to naturally capture and infiltrate stormwater that would have otherwise reached the sewer
27
system. The bulk of NYC’s electricity is generated using natural gas , which means that reducing electricity leads to
a direct reduction in natural gas consumption and fewer GHG emissions (the average emission rate in the U.S. from
28
natural gas-fired generation is 1,135 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity).
Additionally, green infrastructure reduces energy consumption from buildings, as green roofs and urban
29
vegetation, such as street trees, can increase the insulation properties of structures. Approximately 75% of NYC’s
30
GHG emissions come from the energy used in buildings. With less energy consumed in the winter to heat
buildings and in the summer to cool buildings, energy efficiency is increased and as a result, GHG emissions are
reduced. Furthermore, the construction of green infrastructure reduces the carbon footprint of the city, as it
requires less transportation and fewer materials than traditional grey infrastructure during the construction
31
phase.
Table 1: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
X
The Green Infrastructure Plan advances climate change adaptation through the use of policy, as the Green
Infrastructure Plan commits NYC to implement green infrastructure technologies in order to capture one inch of
rain on 10% of the impervious areas within combined sewer areas of the city (Table 1). The climate adaptation
benefits of green infrastructure are generally related to its ability to moderate the expected increases in extreme
32
precipitation or temperature. Green infrastructure helps to manage stormwater runoff and reduce the number
of CSOs, contribute to water conservation and flood prevention, and reduce ambient temperatures and the urban
33
heat island effect. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, green infrastructure can also improve
human health and air quality, decrease energy demand, reduce capital cost savings, increase carbon storage,
increase habitats for wildlife, create open space for recreational purposes, and increase land values by up to 30%;
34
all of which play a part in adaptation.
Although building additional holding tanks for stormwater is an accepted climate change adaptation strategy, the
35
stormwater will eventually need to be pumped back to a treating facility, which requires energy. Green
infrastructure, on the other hand, reduces the overall amount of stormwater entering sewers through natural
36
infiltration and retention, thereby reducing flood-related impacts while also reducing energy costs. Since there is
a high degree of uncertainty around how climate change will impact the United States in the future, including NYC,
one of the benefits of the Plan is that it follows an adaptive management approach that accommodates an
103
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
iterative, flexible decision-making process. Green infrastructure, for example, can be replaced and/or expanded at
37
a reduced cost to grey infrastructure, and is therefore more flexible over time.
Table 2: Summary of the Contribution of the Green Infrastructure Plan to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
The projects implemented as a result of the Green
Infrastructure Plan are able to capture and store
stormwater runoff, thus reducing the amount of water
entering sewer systems. This helps to save energy and
reduce GHG emissions.
The Green Infrastructure Plan enhances water retention and
infiltration capacity within the city, thereby reducing the
amount of urban flooding, while also decreasing the urban
heat island effect.




Decreases the need for wastewater treatment, thereby
reducing energy costs and GHG emissions associated
with energy generation.
Green roofs and street trees help to reduce energy
consumption from city buildings, thereby reducing
GHG emissions associated with energy generation.
Increases the vegetation present in urban areas,
thereby reducing carbon emissions and pollution
through plant respiration.

Reduces the risk of flooding in the event of heavy
rainfall through stormwater infiltration and retention.
Reduces the urban heat island effect and ambient air
temperatures within the city, reducing impacts to
human health.
Co-Benefits
In 2013, the DEP performed an extensive literature review in order to further investigate the co-benefits
associated with green infrastructure. The initial findings suggest that more extensive research and site-specific
work is required in order to quantify the co-benefits of the Green Infrastructure Plan and draw conclusions. The
DEP’s upcoming research and development program is going to help address data gaps in the literature review and
38
monitoring. Although the DEP is in the early stages of identifying and measuring benefits associated with the
Green Infrastructure Plan, the following list represent some of the potential environmental, social and economic
co-benefits:
 Urban heat island effect mitigation;
 Better building insulation, resulting in reduced energy consumption and energy bills;
 Improved air quality and public health;
 More urban habitats for pollinators and wildlife;
 Improved visual quality of neighbourhoods and increased property values;
 Increased space for recreational purposes;
 Decreased number of CSOs and improved water quality;
 Increased water conservation and reduced wastewater treatment needs;
 Reduced costs associated with water treatment and pumping; and
 GHG reductions from carbon sequestration and reduced energy needs.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
104
Additionally, the development of green infrastructure creates opportunity for workforce development and
39
improved quality of life. Green infrastructure can help decrease the amount of contaminants entering regional
water bodies (including pathogens, suspended solids, nutrients and toxins), as water travelling through green
40
infrastructure is naturally filtered. As well, by increasing the infiltration and retention within an urban area, green
41
infrastructure can help minimize the extent of flood damage to public and private property. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimates that 25% of the $1B in annual damages caused by flooding in
42
the U.S. is linked to stormwater. Green infrastructure can substantially reduce the overall amount of water
43
entering local sewer systems and reduce flooding-related impacts.
The DEP estimates that after the 20-year period, residents of NYC will have received between $139M and $418M
in additional benefits through reduced energy bills, increased property values, improved health and reduced
44
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Box 2: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to the NYC Green Infrastructure Plan
In addition to saving energy and reducing GHG emissions, the Green Infrastructure Plan brings benefits to NYC in the way of
healthier water bodies, cost savings from reduced wastewater treatment and pumping, improving local air quality and public
health, increasing the amount of green space for recreation and wildlife, and helping to mitigate the impacts of extreme
precipitation events (flooding) and increasing local air temperatures (urban heat island effect).
None of these additional benefits would accrue from an all-grey-infrastructure strategy consisting of tanks, tunnels
45
and expansions, since they are only utilized during extreme precipitation events. Additionally, green
infrastructure projects can be constructed and maintained at a much lower cost than grey infrastructure projects,
resulting in a strong business case for green infrastructure. For example, the overall cost of the Green
Infrastructure Plan will be approximately $5.3B, $1.5B less than the $6.8B it would require for an all-grey46
infrastructure strategy.
Lessons Learned
The main goal of the Green Infrastructure Plan is to reduce the occurrence of CSOs and improve local water
quality, as stated in the Consent Order issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Yet the DEP also described the many benefits that green infrastructure provides to New Yorkers, including
environmental, social and economic benefits. These co-benefits are inherent in green infrastructure
implementation and by describing the benefits the DEP was able to gather wider support for the Green
Infrastructure Plan. The NYC Green Infrastructure Plan also provides an example of how urban greening and
stormwater management projects are often aligned with climate change adaptation and mitigation goals, and
synergies can be achieved even though they may not be an explicit goal of a project.
When compared to grey infrastructure, green infrastructure shows clear advantages in terms of cost-savings,
including reductions in capital costs, operation expenses, land acquisition costs, repair and maintenance costs, and
47
infrastructure replacement costs. These cost savings, along with the long list of co-benefits, create an appealing
business case for incorporating green infrastructure into urban areas. Even if the co-benefits provided by green
infrastructure were ignored, the direct savings from avoided grey infrastructure installation costs and the avoided
48
costs of treating CSOs make a strong case for green infrastructure.
105
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Further Information
NYC Department of Environmental Protection: www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/home/home.shtml
NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/nyc_green_infrastructure_plan.shtml
Contact
Alan Cohn
Director, Climate Program, Bureau of Environmental Planning and Analysis, NYC Department of Environmental
Protection
Email: alanc@dep.nyc.gov
Margot Walker
Director, Capital Planning and Partnerships, Office of Green Infrastructure, NYC Department of Environmental
Protection
Email: margotw@dep.nyc.gov
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
2
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2014). Stormwater. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/index.shtml.
3
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2013). The State of the Sewers 2013. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/reports/state-of-the-sewers-2013.pdf.
4
New York City Department of Environmental Protection. (2009). New York City’s Wastewater Treatment System.
Accessed from www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/wwsystem.pdf.
5
New York State of Environmental Conservation. (2008). Wastewater Infrastructure Needs of New York State.
New York. Accessed from www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/infrastructurerpt.pdf.
6
Garrison, N. and K. Hobbs. (2011). New York, New York: A case study of how green infrastructure is helping
manage urban stormwater challenges. In Rooftops to Rivers II: Green strategies for controlling stormwater
A Case Study Synthesis Report
106
and combined sewer overflows. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Accessed from
www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf.
7
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2012). The State of the Sewers 2012. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/reports/state-of-the-sewers.pdf.
8
Garrison, N. and K. Hobbs. (2011). New York, New York: A case study of how green infrastructure is helping
manage urban stormwater challenges. In Rooftops to Rivers II: Green strategies for controlling stormwater
and combined sewer overflows. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Accessed from
www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf.
9
NASA. (2015). NASA Science Leads New York City Climate Change 2015 Report. News Article. Accessed from
www.nasa.gov/press/goddard/2015/february/nasa-science-leads-new-york-city-climate-change-2015report/#.VOZH8y5kCBE.
10
11
12
13
14
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (2015). New York City CSO. Accessed from
www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/77733.html.
C40 Cities. (2012). Case Study: The NYC Green Infrastructure Plan. Accessed from
www.c40.org/case_studies/the-nyc-green-infrastructure-plan.
Ibid
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
15
Ibid
16
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf.
17
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
18
Ibid
19
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest.
(2012). Banking on Green: A look at how Green Infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide
107
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
economic benefits community-wide. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
20
Goldstein, R. and W. Smith. (2002). Water & Sustainability (Volume 4): U.S. Electricity Consumption for Water
Supply & Treatment - The Next Half Century. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA: 2000. 1006787. Accessed from
www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/EPRI-Volume-4.pdf.
21
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest.
(2012). Banking on Green: A look at how Green Infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide
economic benefits community-wide. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
22
Ibid
23
Gaffin, S., C. Rosenzweig, L. Parshall, D. Beattie, R. Berghage, G. O’Keefe and D. Braman. (2006). Energy Balance
Modelling Applied to a Comparison of White and Green Roof Cooling Efficiency. Accessed from
www.buildingreen.net/assets/cms/File/GaffinetalPaperDC-0009.pdf.
24
Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, L. Parshall, S. Gaffin, B. Lynn, R. Goldberg, J. Cox and S. Hodges. (2006). Mitigating
New York City’s Heat Island with Urban Forestry. Accessed from
www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060130/103341.pdf.
25
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest.
(2012). Banking on Green: A look at how Green Infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide
economic benefits community-wide. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
26
Rosenzweig, C., Major, D.C., Demong, K., Stanton, C., Horton, R., and Stults, M. (2007). Managing climate
change risks in New York City’s water system: assessment and adaptation planning. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 12: 1391-1409.
27
New York City. (2013). Chapter 6: Utilities; in A Stronger More Resilient New York. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/sirr/downloads/pdf/final_report/Ch_6_Utilities_FINAL_singles.pdf.
28
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Natural Gas. Accessed from
www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html.
29
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest.
(2012). Banking on Green: A look at how Green Infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide
economic benefits community-wide. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
108
30
New York City. (2015). Energy and Buildings: Energy Efficiency. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/planyc/html/sustainability/energy-efficiency.shtml.
31
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
32
Foster, J., Lowe, A., and Winkelman, S. (2011). The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation.
The Center for Clean Air Policy. Accessed from http://ccap.org/assets/The-Value-of-Green-Infrastructure-forUrban-Climate-Adaptation_CCAP-Feb-2011.pdf.
33
Ibid
34
Ibid
35
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
36
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest.
(2012). Banking on Green: A look at how Green Infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide
economic benefits community-wide. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
37
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
38
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2014). NYC Green Infrastructure: 2013 Annual Report.
Accessed from www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/gi_annual_report_2014.pdf.
39
Ibid
40
New York State of Environmental Conservation. (2008). Wastewater Infrastructure Needs of New York State.
New York. Accessed from www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/infrastructurerpt.pdf.
41
Odefey, J., Detwiler, S., Rousseau, K., Trice, A., Blackwell, R., O’Hara, K., Buckley, M., Souhlas, T., Brown, S., and
Raviprakash, P. (2012). Banking on Green: A look at How Green Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money
and Provide Economic Benefits Community-Wide. A Joint Report by American Rivers, the Water Environment
Federation, the American Society of Landscape Architects and ECONorthwest. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
109
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
42
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest.
(2012). Banking on Green: A look at how Green Infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide
economic benefits community-wide. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
43
Ibid
44
Garrison, N. and K. Hobbs. (2011). New York, New York: A case study of how green infrastructure is helping
manage urban stormwater challenges. In Rooftops to Rivers II: Green strategies for controlling stormwater
and combined sewer overflows. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Accessed from
www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf.
45
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
46
Ibid
47
American Rivers, Water Environment Federation, American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest.
(2012). Banking on Green: A look at how Green Infrastructure can save municipalities money and provide
economic benefits community-wide. Accessed from
www.asla.org/uploadedFiles/CMS/Government_Affairs/Federal_Government_Affairs/Banking%20on%20Gre
en%20HighRes.pdf.
48
Ibid
49
Garrison, N. and K. Hobbs. (2011). New York, New York: A case study of how green infrastructure is helping
manage urban stormwater challenges. In Rooftops to Rivers II: Green strategies for controlling stormwater
and combined sewer overflows. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Accessed from
www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftopsii/files/rooftopstoriversII.pdf.
50
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf.
51
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2014). NYC Green Infrastructure Program. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/stormwater/using_green_infra_to_manage_stormwater.shtml.
52
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways – Executive Summary. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
53
New York Department of Environmental Protection. (2010). NYC Green Infrastructure Plan: A Sustainable
Strategy for Clean Waterways. Accessed from
www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/green_infrastructure/NYCGreenInfrastructurePlan_LowRes.pdf.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
110
The Washington, D.C. Smart Grid Project: Modernizing the
Grid to Increase Energy Efficiency and Grid Resilience
Focus: Washington, D.C. Smart Grid Project
Jurisdiction: Washington, D.C., United States
Lead: Pepco Holdings Inc.
Other stakeholders: Pepco, consumers, smart meter
manufacturers, other service providers
Stage: Ongoing
Cost: $92,753,369 (Federal share: $44,580,549)
Ownership: Public
Does it increase resilience or capacity? Resilience
Pepco Holdings Inc. (PHI) is one of the largest energy delivery
companies in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US, serving
roughly 2 million customers across Delaware, the District of
Columbia (D.C.), Maryland and New Jersey. Pepco, a
subsidiary of PHI, is well recognized as a leader in smart grid
technology. Smart grids modernize the electrical grid, using
existing wires, transformers and substations along with new
electricity infrastructure such as meters, monitors, wires and
1
switches. Smart grids also utilize innovative two-way
information communication systems within the grid and
provide valuable energy cost and usage information to
customers, system performance information to operators,
and can facilitate the deployment of renewable energy
2
alternatives.
Climate Change Mitigation: actions that reduce the
magnitude or rate of human-induced emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Climate Change Adaptation: preparing for adverse
effects of climate change by preventing or
minimizing impacts or taking advantage of
opportunities.
One of Pepco’s initiatives, the Smart Grid Project in
Resilience: project, programs and policies that
Washington, D.C., was initiated during the 2008-2009
increase the resilience of sectors to absorb shocks
associated with the impacts of climate change (i.e.
recession when the United States Federal government was
extreme weather events).
seeking ways to infuse money back into the economy. The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included many
provisions to help stimulate the economy, one of which was investments in smart grid technology. Poised to follow
its strategic plan, ‘Blueprint for the Future’ and with support from its subsidiaries, PHI found further impetus from
Federal coffers and secured a $168M Smart Grid Investment Grant, of which $45M was allocated to D.C., and
launched the smart grid project in the Washington, D.C. area.
The main features of the Smart Grid Project in Washington, D.C. include:
1) Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI). This includes 284,000 smart meters installed in residential and
commercial locations throughout Pepco’s D.C. service territory as of December 31, 2014. Pepco uses
these smart meters to collect, measure, and analyze energy usage data in order to identify outages and to
provide customers with detailed energy usage information. AMI is the technology that supports demand
111
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
2)
3)
4)
5)
response, load control, time-based rate programs, critical peak
3
rebates, and reduces the overall cost of meter operations.
Advanced Metering
Infrastructure (AMI) is
Distribution automation system. The system includes substation smart
designed to provide
devices, automated distribution circuit reclosers/switches, and
Pepco and its customers
network and substation transformer monitors, all of which work
detailed electricity usage
together to help detect and isolate faults more accurately, reduce the
information that, when
number of power outages, and ultimately improve reliability and
combined with demand
4
operational efficiency.
response programs, helps
Communications infrastructure. This includes all of the components of
customers reduce
the wireless AMI mesh network, which has the ability to route traffic
electricity usage and peak
38
through the AMI meters. Pepco has designed the system to route
demand.
distribution automation traffic through battery-backed wireless
communication devices to ensure it remains energized during power
5
outages.
Advanced electricity service options. This includes a web portal for Pepco customers to access data on
their energy consumption collected from their smart meters. The web portal also allows customers to
control programmable communication thermostat (PCTs) that were offered as part of the smart grid
6
project.
Direct load control devices. Over 27,000 load control devices deployed in D.C. allow Pepco to cycle off
and on air conditioners during peak demand periods in the summer months, which also helps customers
7
manage their electricity costs.
Implementation of the smart grid technology in Washington has improved electrical service reliability and power
quality, improved customer service, reduced costs from equipment failures, reduced GHG emissions, reduced
meter reading costs, reduced operating and maintenance costs, and reduced truck fleet fuel usage. Over the past
two years, PHI’s reliability performance has been the highest in their reporting history with over 6,000 customer
8,9
outages prevented in 2013, and over 2,900 customer outages prevented in 2014. The elimination of manual
10
meter reading has also saved Pepco $2M in 2012 and 2013 combined.
Box 1: Hurricane Sandy
Hurricane Sandy brought devastation to the east coast of North
America in 2012, going down as one of the most costly hurricanes
in United States history. More than 8.5 million households and
businesses were without power, which in Pepco, with over
278,700 activated smart meters, was able to restore power to all
39
impacted customers within 48 hours of the storm hitting. No
Power signals from the meters allowed Pepco to promptly
pinpoint where there were existing outages and advanced
40
switches automatically re-routed power around the trouble areas. By identifying outages
automatically or by remote operators, Pepco is able to reduce the time it takes to restore power to
minutes, hours or days, rather than the weeks it could take repair crews to restore circuits
41
manually. To put this into perspective, Pepco has avoided 26,000 customer outages and 3.2
million outage minutes (roughly 2 hours per affected customer) since the Smart Grid Project began
42
in 2012.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
112
Reducing Energy Demand
Pepco expects that a large portion of the energy reductions associated from the smart grid will come from the
Energy Management Tools available to customers. The tools are a range of AMI-sourced information that are
available to help customers understand their energy use and to raise awareness of ways to save energy. They
include:
 Customer education on ways to save energy and the benefits of doing so.
 Communications reminding customers to save energy and the benefits of doing so in terms of the
environment and cost savings.
 Daily energy use charts and historical energy use charts on customer energy bills.
 Online tools including energy use analysis, bill-to-date information, hourly energy usage charts and
historical data, and calculators to help customers identify ways to save energy.
 Paper energy use reports that provide data similar to the online tools for those customers who are not
11
online-tool users.
Additionally, those customers with central air conditioners or heat pumps are eligible to participate in Pepco’s
Direct Load Control program called “Energy Wise Rewards”, which began on March 30, 2012. This is a peakdemand management program that offers customers a web-programmable thermostat or an outdoor switch that
allows Pepco to reduce electricity use by cycling air conditioners/heat pumps off and on for short periods of time.
The thermostat can save customers up to 10% on heating and cooling costs, and participants noticed little, if any,
temperature change in their homes. In 2014 there were 23,746 active participants in the Energy Wise Rewards
12
program, and it is estimated that there was a reduction of approximately 19.6 MW of electricity.
Prior to launching the AMI project, Pepco developed a detailed Customer Education Plan which included
information on the objectives and messages for each phase of the customer education process. The goals of the
plan included informing customers about the installation of smart meters, benefits of smart meters, and how to
use the information provided by smart meters to better understand energy use. Pepco has undergone quantitative
and qualitative research in order to track a wide range of metrics to measure the effectiveness of the Customer
13
Education Plan.
Contribution to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation
Climate change responses, either through reduction of GHG’s or adaptation, were not the primary driver of this
energy initiative. Instead, Pepco was driven to provide customers with more information on their energy use for
efficiency gains, provide customers with more control and insight into energy usage, create the right platform for
customers to make the right energy choices that reduce the system load, and increase the integration of
distributed generation (e.g. rooftop solar). Thus, the Smart Grid Project advances GHG mitigation primarily through
changing customer behaviour (Table 1).
As mentioned above, the AMI technology is able to generate more detailed usage data which informs the
14
customers of consumption patterns. With access to information about their energy consumption in real-time,
customers can manage their energy use and make smarter energy choices that reduce their peak load and their
15,16
overall electricity consumption; ultimately reducing the demand on the grid and associated GHG emissions.
The
AMI system also has the ability to implement time-of-use pricing and peak demand programs that encourage and
17
reward customers for reducing their electricity use during periods of peak demand.
113
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
Smart grids also help utility companies facilitate the integration of renewable energy into the electricity system
18,19
due to its AMI technology.
Renewable energy such as solar and wind is ‘intermittent’, meaning that energy is
only produced when the sun is shining or when the wind is blowing. Traditionally, system operators would need to
meet demand without knowing if/when enough renewable energy would be available during that time, which
could potentially lead to grey outs. Smart grid technology provides system operators with continuous, real-time
information on how the renewable energy systems are operating and provide full control over electricity flow at all
20
endpoints on the system. By doing this, the utility company can balance the intermittent nature of renewable in a
more efficient way. As well, traditional electricity networks were designed to bring power generated from central
generation stations to consumers; smart grids accommodate two-way electricity flow to and from consumers that
21
have renewable generation capacity. Net metering and net billing also become easier to implement because
22
smart meters can record energy flow in each direction. The integration of small-scale renewable electricity
sources located close to customers can provide benefits such as reduced energy losses and GHG emissions, and
23
enables more individuals/communities to produce power. Once established, distributed renewable energy
24
sources can help balance supply and demand, and improve power quality and reliability.
Additionally, Pepco’s ability to remotely communicate with smart meters allows the utility to identify individual
outages helping to reduce the unnecessary dispatch of repair crews (i.e. truck rollouts), which also contributes to
25
the reduction in GHG emissions. For example, Pepco estimates that 19 tonnes of CO2 emissions were avoided in
2013 due to the decrease in truck and vehicle dispatches to manually fix power outages (equivalent to taking 3.7
26
passenger cars off the roads each year).
Table 1: Adaptation/Mitigation Contribution Matrix for Washington, D.C.’s Smart Grid Project
Contribution to Mitigation
Contribution to
Adaptation
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
Policy
Technological
Behavioural
Managerial
X
Policy
In the United States, severe weather is the number one cause of power outages and costs the economy billions of
27
dollars each year. With the number of extreme weather events expected to increase in frequency and intensity
28
under a changed climate, the number of power outages is also expected to rise. It has been suggested that
completely hardening a power system to withstand extreme weather events would be nearly impossible, therefore
29
power engineers are now looking towards more holistic approaches focused on ‘grid resiliency’. This includes
upgrading power poles to harder materials, trimming trees near
power lines, upgrading aging infrastructure, as well as more
“Unlike grid hardening, resiliency
technological approaches such as using smart grids so operators
measures aren’t intended to prevent
can quickly reconfigure the system when parts of the grid lose
damage from extreme weather; rather,
30
they minimize the impact of any damage
power.
Washington, D.C. receives much of its energy from the North
American grid, thus fixing line breaks is integral to building
resilience. The smart meters installed throughout the Washington,
D.C. have increased the resiliency of the system to handle stresses
A Case Study Synthesis Report
by enabling electric facilities to continue
operating and promoting a rapid return
to normal operations after damage and
43
outages occur.”
114
from extreme weather events as they help identify areas of the city with the greatest need during emergency
31
situations. Pepco has the ability to “ping” meters to help determine whether a customer has electric service,
contributing to more efficient power outage restoration and reduced truck rolls. Thus, the Smart Grid Project
advances climate change adaptation by changing the way electricity is managed during power outages and
emergency situations (Table 1).
Although considered outside of the Smart Grid Project, Pepco and D.C. have agreed to a 50/50 cost share a $1B
undergrounding project that will bury up to 60 high voltage power lines that have historically been the most
32
impacted by severe weather and overhead related outages. This will work to harden the system and help the grid
become more resilient to extreme storm events.
Table 2: Summary of the Contribution of Washington, D.C.’s Smart Grid Project to Climate Change Adaptation and
Mitigation
MITIGATION
ADAPTATION
Smart grids allow customers to access information about
their energy consumption in real-time (which can encourage
behaviour change), while increasing the ability of renewable
resources to enter the grid, while simultaneously increasing
the overall efficiency of the electrical grid.
Smart grids and their associated smart meters allow for
more visibility into the system and its level of function to
pinpoint the issues thus helping expedite power restoration.



Customers are active participants in deciding how
and when to use their energy, allowing them to
make smarter energy choices in order to save
energy and money, and ultimately reduce GHG
emissions.
Smart grids provide for a better integration of
renewable energy sources into the grid.
Remote meter readings reduce the number of
truck rollouts.


Smart meters increase the resiliency of the system
to handle stresses from extreme weather events.
In emergency situations, smart meters can help
utilities focus resources on the areas of the city
most affected by extreme weather.
Co-Benefits
By modernizing the grid through advanced metering infrastructure (smart meters), communication infrastructure,
advanced electricity service options, direct load control devices, as well as a distribution automation system,
utilities are now able to resolve outages and restore the grid much faster than before (increased
resiliency/adaptation) while providing customers with information on their energy use for efficiency gains
(reducing energy demand/mitigation). In addition to the direct adaptation and mitigation benefits, there are
several co-benefits provided by the development of smart grids:
1) Reduced costs. Streamlined operations improve the efficiency of electricity delivery and reduce utility
costs associated with equipment failure, meter reading, as well as operation and maintenance costs.
Smart grids help to eliminate unnecessary truck rolls (which can be expensive due to vehicle maintenance,
fuel, employee wages, etc.).
2) Renewable integration. Net metering and net billing become easier to implement because AMI smart
33
meters can separately record flows of energy in each direction. Integrating small scale renewable
34
generators supports the grid by increasing redundancy and diversifying the energy sources used.
115
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
3) Local economy. With faster recovery times from power outages, local businesses will be able to reconnect
to power much faster than before, potentially leading to cost-savings from spoiled inventory or lost sales.
4) Employee benefits. The Pepco D.C. Smart Grid Project created 206 full time equivalent jobs since
35
inception. Smart grids also improve employee safety as less truck rollouts reduce the number of times
36
employees are subjected to hazardous conditions.
5) Human safety. By quickly and efficiently identifying problems on the grid and redirecting power around
them, Pepco is able to reduce the length of power outages and quickly restore power to homes. This is
especially beneficial to vulnerable populations (e.g. the elderly, children, etc.) during periods of extreme
heat or cold.
6) Improved customer service. Smart grids allow for proactive outage notification and faster outage
response and restoration. This results in higher customer satisfaction and improved relations with the
37
regulator, community, etc.
7) Tamper Detection. Smart grids are able to better detect unaccounted for energy usage, including
detection of electricity theft.
Box 2: Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Relation to Washington, D.C.’s Smart Grid Project
The Smart Grid Project provides Pepco with more visibility into the electricity grid and its operations in order to increase the
reliability and resiliency of the grid, while simultaneously providing customers with the tools necessary to increase their
energy efficiency and reduce their energy demand, thereby reducing GHG emissions. This synergy between climate change
adaptation and mitigation is coupled with many other co-benefits to the local utility company and its employees, customers,
local businesses and the community at large.
Lessons Learned
Educating customers on the benefits of smart grids is an important aspect of the project and can involve a
significant amount of effort. Customers often do not have the same level of knowledge about kilowatt hours as
they would about miles per gallon; therefore a variety of communication tactics are needed to increase the
awareness and understanding of smart grid technologies throughout the general public. Within its Customer
Education Plan, Pepco used a blend of traditional door-to-door mail and online outreach tactics to reach different
customer groups. With more information at hand, customers are more likely to change the way they consume and
manage energy within their households.
Many of the objectives of smart grid technology also provide climate change response benefits within the energy
sector (i.e. grid resilience, reducing energy demand and peak demand, reducing GHG emissions, allowing for
renewables to enter the grid, providing the opportunity for distributed generation, being able to better manage
the grid). Furthermore, there is a strong business case for smart grids as they result in cost savings in a number of
ways.
Further Information
Pepco: www.pepco.com
Pepco Holdings, Inc: www.pepcoholdings.com/smart-grid-program
A Case Study Synthesis Report
116
Contact
Ghirmay Berhe
Engineer, Pepco Holdings, Inc.
Email: gberhe@pepco.com
Allan G. Douglas
Director, Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and Adaptation Resources (OCCIAR)
Email: adouglas@mirarco.org
References
1
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2014). Smart From Sunrise to Sunset: A Primer on Ontario’s Evolving
Electricity Grid. Accessed from www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports%20%20Background,%20Discussion,%20Roundtable/2014%20Smart%20Grid%20Primer.pdf.
2
Stewart, R. (2011). Smart Grid Progress and Plans. Presentation to the Washington Council of Governments.
Pepco Holdings, Inc. Accessed from www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/bV1fV1xb20111117083545.pdf.
3
U.S. Department of Energy. (2013). Pepco – District of Columbia: Smart Grid Project. 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, Smart Grid Investment Grant, Project Description.
4
Ibid
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
Ibid
8
Pepco Holdings, Inc. (2014). 2013 Annual Report to Stockholders. Accessed from www.phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjI2NjczfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1.
9
U.S. Department of Energy. (2013). Pepco – District of Columbia: Smart Grid Project. 2009 American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, Smart Grid Investment Grant, Project Description.
10
Ibid
11
Pepco. Personal communication. February 9, 2015.
12
Ibid
13
Ibid
14
Pepco. (2014). Smart Grid 101. Accessed from www.pepco.com/education-and-safety/smart-grid-101/.
117
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
15
National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010). Understanding the Benefits of the Smart Grid. Accessed from
www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/research/energy%20efficiency/smart%20grid/whitepapers/06-182010_Understanding-Smart-Grid-Benefits.pdf.
16
Pepco. (2014). Smart Grid 101. Accessed from www.pepco.com/education-and-safety/smart-grid-101/.
17
Ibid
18
International Renewable Energy Agency. (2013). Smart Grids and Renewables: A Guide for Effective Deployment.
IRENA. Accessed from www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/smart_grids.pdf.
19
Pepco Holdings Inc. (2014). Smart Grid Program. Accessed from www.pepcoholdings.com/smart-grid-program/.
20
International Renewable Energy Agency. (2013). Smart Grids and Renewables: A Guide for Effective Deployment.
IRENA. Accessed from www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/smart_grids.pdf.
21
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2014). Smart From Sunrise to Sunset: A Primer on Ontario’s Evolving
Electricity Grid. Accessed from www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports%20%20Background,%20Discussion,%20Roundtable/2014%20Smart%20Grid%20Primer.pdf.
22
Stewart, R. (2011). Smart Grid Progress and Plans. Presentation to the Washington Council of Governments.
Pepco Holdings, Inc. Accessed from www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/bV1fV1xb20111117083545.pdf.
23
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2014). Smart From Sunrise to Sunset: A Primer on Ontario’s Evolving
Electricity Grid. Accessed from www.eco.on.ca/uploads/Reports%20%20Background,%20Discussion,%20Roundtable/2014%20Smart%20Grid%20Primer.pdf.
24
Ibid
25
Pepco Holdings Inc. (2014). Smart Grid Program. Accessed from www.pepcoholdings.com/smart-grid-program/.
26
Pepco. (2014). Advanced Metering Infrastructure Annual Report. Potomac Electric Power Company, Formal Case
No. 1087, Order No. 16930, June 2, 2014.
27
Pepco Holdings, Inc. Fact Sheet: Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability. Accessed from
www.pepco.com/uploadedFiles/wwwpepcocom/ClimateChangeFactSheet.pdf.
28
Ibid
29
Abi-Samra, N.C. (2013). One Year Later: Superstorm Sandy Underscores Need for a Resilient Grid. Accessed from
www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/one-year-later-superstorm-sandy-underscores-need-for-aresilient-grid.
30
Ibid
31
Reeves, D. (2014). Faster Restoration with Smart Grid. Accessed from www.silverspringnet.com/article/fasterrestoration-with-smart-grid/#.VIYRu2cZOno.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
118
32
Pepco Holdings, Inc. (2014). 2013 Annual Report to Stockholders. Accessed from www.phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjI2NjczfENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1.
33
Stewart, R. (2011). Smart Grid Progress and Plans. Presentation to the Washington Council of Governments.
Pepco Holdings, Inc. Accessed from www.mwcog.org/uploads/committeedocuments/bV1fV1xb20111117083545.pdf.
34
Sunderhauf, S. J. Roman, J. Cadoret and D. Pirtle. (2009). Solar Panels and the Smart Grid in the Pepco region.
Accessed from www.solardecathlon.gov/past/pdfs/09_workshops/09_panels_grid.pdf.
35
Pepco Holdings Inc. (2014). Smart Grid Program. Accessed from www.pepcoholdings.com/smart-grid-program/.
36
National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2010). Understanding the Benefits of the Smart Grid. Accessed from
www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/research/energy%20efficiency/smart%20grid/whitepapers/06-182010_Understanding-Smart-Grid-Benefits.pdf.
37
Ibid
38
U.S. Department of Energy. (2013). Pepco – District of Columbia: Smart Grid Project. 2009 American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act, Smart Grid Investment Grant, Project Description.
39
Silver Spring Networks. (2013). Whitepaper: How the Smart Grid Makes Restoration Faster and Easier for
Utilities. Accessed from www.silverspringnet.com/outage/pdfs/SilverSpring-Whitepaper-Outage.pdf.
40
Ibid
41
Abi-Samra, N.C. (2013). One Year Later: Superstorm Sandy Underscores Need for a Resilient Grid. Accessed from
www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/one-year-later-superstorm-sandy-underscores-need-for-aresilient-grid.
42
Boyce, K.C. (2014). How the Smart Grid Underpins Community Resilience. Accessed from
www.whatissmartgrid.org/featured-article/how-the-smart-grid-underpins-community-resilience.
43
Abi-Samra, N.C. (2013). One Year Later: Superstorm Sandy Underscores Need for a Resilient Grid. Accessed from
www.spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/one-year-later-superstorm-sandy-underscores-need-for-aresilient-grid.
119
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector
This page intentionally left blank.
A Case Study Synthesis Report
120
THE ONTARIO CENTRE FOR CLIMATE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION RESOURCES (OCCIAR)
935 RAMSEY LAKE ROAD
SUDBURY, ONTARIO
CANADA
P3C 2C6
WWW.CLIMATEONTARIO.CA
121
Linking Mitigation and Adaptation Goals in the Energy Sector