DISCUSSION PAPER
December 2009
Public Investment
in Low-Carbon
Technologies and
Infrastructure
Operating Assumptions and Principles
Paper Objective and Contents
Sustainable Prosperity is an organization dedicated to making markets work for the
environment. One of our primary interests is in exploring the role that carbon pricing can play
in promoting the development and deployment of low carbon technologies in Canada. More
specifically, we want to build the knowledge
base for how carbon policy can be used to
promote Canada’s economic and
Using carbon pricing revenue for other fiscal
purposes, aside from investment in low
environmental interests.
We believe that Canada can begin to make the
necessary transition to a low carbon economy,
using carbon pricing as a primary policy
vehicle. To do so in a manner that maximizes
the environmental and economic benefits to
Canada, however, it will need to make a public
investment in low carbon technologies –
above and beyond what it is already doing.
The fiscal space to allow for that investment
can come from auctioning allowances under
Canada’s proposed national cap-and-trade
system.1
The objective of this paper is to lay out a
framework for evaluating public investments
in a transition to a low-carbon economy and
low-carbon energy system. In particular, the
paper focuses on identifying and describing
operating assumptions and principles needed
to inform decisions about how to effectively
allocate public resources in facilitating this
transition.
The paper is divided into three sections:
1. The Low-Carbon Investment Context in
Canada: highlights key factors that define
the context of public investments in lowcarbon technologies and infrastructure in
Canada.
1
carbon technologies or infrastructure, is a
rational economic choice.
Proposals vary as to what should be done with
revenues from carbon pricing. Offsetting these
revenues with personal income or corporate tax
cuts is a viable option. In addition, ‘doing nothing’
and using revenues to improve the overall fiscal
position of the government and pay down public
debt is also a viable option – particularly given
current projections of persistent federal deficits.
There are also risks associated with investing in
emerging technologies. Some of these
technologies may not be viable or may be
developed more successfully in other
jurisdictions. Therefore, there are real,
substantive reasons why governments should
consider directing carbon pricing revenues to
other areas. Most carbon pricing policies,
however, such as those currently being debated
in the U.S. Congress for an American national
cap-and-trade system, propose recycling some, if
not all, of revenue raised into additional, targeted
investments in clean energy technologies and
more energy-efficient capital stock. More
fundamentally, of course, the existence of carbon
pricing creates – at least in theory – the
necessary incentive for private investment in
these technologies and infrastructure.
But for reasons explored in this document,
some degree of public investment in low
carbon technologies or infrastructure is in
Sustainable Prosperity’s estimation
necessary.
See The Low Carbon Investment Gap, Sustainable Prosperity Discussion Document, December 2009.
2
2. Operating Assumptions: describes a series of key operating assumptions related to the
investment challenge associated with moving towards a low-carbon energy system, both
globally and in Canada.
3. Principles: describes a set of potential guiding principles that policymakers should use
when making public investment options in low-carbon technologies.
The Context for Low-Carbon Investment in Canada
Despite early leadership and international engagement on climate change issues, domestic
public policy to date has failed to both mitigate Canadian GHG emissions and to support the
emergence of robust, world-leading Canadian industries built on clean energy technologies.
Compared to other countries, Canada is increasingly falling behind in attracting the necessary
clean energy and low-carbon investment.
The following are key contextual factors that Canadian policy-makers should consider when
evaluating new public investments in low-carbon technologies.
1. Canada’s GHG emissions continue to rise. According to the latest data from
Environment Canada, Canada’s GHG emissions in 2007 were 26% above 1990 levels,
and 33.8% above Canada’s Kyoto target. Over the same period, GHG emissions in the
UK declined 17.3% and emissions in Germany declined 21.3%. Canada’s domestic
policies, both on the federal and provincial level, have so far failed to meaningfully
mitigate domestic GHG emissions, or introduce substantial policy incentives for
widespread development and adoption of low-carbon technologies.
2. Canada is not seen as a global leader in the commercialization of low-carbon
technologies2. A recent research report by the clean-tech research organization Clean
Edge identified 21 global cities with vibrant clean energy technology clusters; none of
the cities identified were Canadian. A recent report by the UK organization, E3G,
benchmarked the low-carbon competitiveness of selected countries, and placed
Canada well behind the world leaders of Germany, the UK, France, Japan, and South
Korea.3 According to the an index published by Ernst & Young measuring the
attractiveness of selected countries for investment in renewable power generation and
technologies, Canada ranks 9th overall – again well behind the world leaders of the US,
China, Germany, the UK, Spain, and various others.4
2
The Conference Board of Canada has published several reports on this subject, including How Canada Performs 2008: A Report
Card on Canada, September 2008; and Canada’s Pathway towards Global Innovation Success, October 2008.
3
E3G, Policy Brief: Low Carbon Competitiveness, 2009
4
Ernst and Young, Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Indices, May 2009
3
3. The level of public investment in low-carbon technologies in Canada is also low. The
level of public investment in low-carbon technologies in Canada is also comparatively
low. Many countries used recent economic stimulus packages to advance the
transition to a low-carbon economy. According to HSBC analysis, approximately USD
$430 billion in stimulus spending has been committed to climate change investment
themes globally. The United States has committed approximately USD $112 billion of
stimulus spending towards investment in green infrastructure and clean energy
technologies (12% of the total US stimulus package). China invested over $220 billion in
fiscal stimulus towards environmental investments, 38% of their total package. In
comparison, Canada invested under $3 billion of its stimulus spending towards lowcarbon investments, approximately 8% of its total.5
Figure 1
Source: HSBC A Climate for Recovery, 2009
5
HSBC, A Climate for Recovery, February 2009
4
Figure 2
Source: HSBC A Climate for Recovery, 2009
Table 1 Green Economic Stimulus Spending by Technology and Country
Canada
$
%
UK
$
%
Germany
Australia
$
$
%
%
China
$
US
%
Renewables
CCS/Other
1.08
43.2%
Building EE
0.24
9.6%
Low Carbon
Vehicles
Rail
0.39
15.6%
Grid
0.79
31.6%
Totals
2.5
6.55
6.8%
30.74
31.8%
10.39
75.1%
1.38
66.3%
0.69
5.0%
1.5
0.9%
4.76
4.9%
0.41
19.7%
2.75
19.9%
98.65
58.0%
9.92
10.3%
70
41.1%
11.92
12.3%
Source: HSBC A Climate for Recovery, 2009
*% = percent of total green stimulus spending
5
33.9%
13.9%
13.83
2.48
100%
%
32.78
0.29
2.08
2.48
$
170.1
96.67
4. Private investment in low-carbon technologies in Canada is moderate, but recent
trends show a growing lag. According to data published by Deutsche Bank, private
investment in clean energy technologies is below that occurring in other international
jurisdictions. In Canada, between 2000 and 2008, private investment in clean energy
technologies was just over $8 billion. This compares to figures of $17 billion in the UK,
$37 billion in Germany, and $52 billion in the United States. These numbers predate
the various stimulus and regulatory measures around climate change, particularly in
the United States, that are promoting new private investment flows into low carbon
technology sectors such as renewable energy or battery technology. More recent
analysis seem to confirm that public investment in the U.S. is translating into private
activity, and that Canada is falling behind. The CleanTech Group has released numbers
showing that year-to-date venture investment in clean tech (admittedly a broader
category than low carbon technology) totaled more than US$ 3billion in the U.S.,
compared to just US$ 77million in Canada over the same time period.
Figure 3
Source: Global Climate Change Policy Tracker, Deutsche Bank, 2009.
5. Canada has unique opportunities and strengths in key clean energy technologies.
Canada is not without assets in the development of low carbon technologies and
infrastructure. Canadian firms and researchers are world leading in areas such as
hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels and bioenergy. Canada is also widely recognized
internationally as having a strong post-secondary educational system and a vibrant and
productive community of researchers and scientists. Canadian policymakers should
6
take these strengths into account and focus new investments in areas of key strategic
opportunity. 6 Finally, Canada’s innovation and research and development record on
clean and low-carbon technologies is considered globally significant, and the Toronto
Stock Exchange is a leader in listing clean technology companies. Similarly, the
existence of Sustainable Development Technology Canada has proven quite beneficial
to the funding of post-R&D and pre-commercial technologies. But the absence of
supporting or complementary institutions or policies has muted the overall impact of
the SDTC “clean effect”.
Operating Assumptions
The objective of this paper is to define principles for policy-makers faced with decisions about
how to invest public funds with a view to most effectively and efficiently facilitating the
transition to a low-carbon economy. The overall analytical framework presented here builds, in
particular, on the following operating assumptions:
1. A public investment in low carbon technology and infrastructure is needed.
Our starting assumption, obviously, is on the need for a public investment in low carbon
technology. That assumption is itself built on the belief that a defining characteristic of the
global economy in the 21st century will be its “carbon competitiveness”, and that Canada’s
sustainable prosperity is predicated on competing in this world.
The need for a public investment is based on a need and on an opportunity. The need is a
function of the necessary transformation of energy (oil, gas, electricity) and energyintensive (transportation, buildings) systems in our economy to allow Canada to meet its
national climate change mitigation goals, and to prepare our economy for a higher energy
cost world as well. The opportunity is based on the economic and environmental case for
the rapid development and deployment of these low-carbon technologies and
infrastructure.
The economic case is built on: (i) the growth in demand for low carbon technology and the
economic benefits – in the form of employment and investment – attendant with meeting
that demand; (ii) the need for innovation-driven productivity gains in Canada as the engine
of future growth7, to which innovation in energy production and use can play a significant
role; (iii) the fact that the cost of mitigation rises over time, and that investment in
6
For example, the National Advisory Panel on Sustainable Energy Science and Technology (2006) identified the following priorities
in research and development: bioenergy, gasification, carbon capture and storage, electricity transmission, distribution and
storage, and fuel cells.
7
The case for this is explained in a Special Report by TD Economics - A New Normal: Canada’s Potential Growth During Recovery
and Beyond. November 10, 2009. A section in that report on carbon pricing concludes that “one may well conjecture that carbon
pricing will have a positive longer-run impact on innovation and the efficiency of production with respect to energy inputs” (p. 11).
7
emission-reducing activities today helps avoid those costs;8 and (iv) the need for
diversification of export sectors for Canada, if only to hedge against possible future carbon
trade barriers.
The environmental case is straightforward: cumulative emissions (i.e. the actual “stock” of
GHGs in the atmosphere) matter as much as much as emissions “flow”, and earlier
mitigation – through the development and deployment of low carbon technology and
infrastructure – translates into a lower emissions profile for Canada. On the point of
diversification raised above, a wide range of technology and infrastructure choices are
required for Canada to match its emissions profile, which is quite diverse (i.e. our growth
in emissions may come from the oil and gas sector, but manufacturing, other industry, and
services still account for the lion’s share of Canada’s emissions).
2. Massive public and private investment is needed to build a low-carbon energy
system, both in Canada and globally.9
A corollary assumption flowing from this one is that the scale of the investment requires
resources substantially beyond those of governments and other public sources. The
implication is then that public policy and public investment should have as an objective to
create the basic conditions through which private investment into low carbon technology
and infrastructure can be made. These conditions include, but are not limited to, direct
public investment in technology development, demonstration, and deployment and in
infrastructure.
3. Carbon pricing is key, but additional government policy, including direct public
investment in low-carbon technologies and infrastructure, is called for, particularly in
the short term.
Carbon pricing policy, either as a carbon tax or as a cap-and-trade system, is not likely in its
early stages to yield a carbon price high enough to “move the needle” in terms of
individual or corporate behavior. Furthermore, there are and will continue to be sectors of
the economy that are relatively insensitive to the impacts of carbon pricing, and for which
complementary policies (i.e. regulations, etc.) will be required. And finally, promoting the
short-term uptake in emission reduction technologies and infrastructure translates into
avoided higher mitigation costs in the future, and conversely reduces the cost of future,
more stringent, reduction targets. In other words, we want every part of our economy –
from the oil and gas sector to the services industry – to have access to technology and
infrastructure that make it cheaper to reduce GHG emissions.
This points to a larger truth: just as it is important for every part of the Canadian economy
to have access to low carbon technology and infrastructure, the degree to which reducing
8
The International Energy Agency, in the World Energy Outlook 2009, estimates that every year without a global price on carbon
adds US$500 billion to the global cost of climate mitigation.
9
IEA estimates global investment required between now and 2050 at US$45 trillion, equal to 1.1% of average annual GDP over the
period.
8
emissions actually benefits the Canadian economy will be a function of how much those
technologies and infrastructure are based on “made-in-Canada” solutions. A company
faced with the need to reduce its emissions will either choose an offshore solution, or a
Canadian one. Right now, that choice will largely default to an offshore one because of the
relative lack of Canadian options. Ensuring, through a public investment, that the
solutions will be Canadian translates into direct economic benefits in the long-term for
Canada.
4. Carbon pricing revenues in Canada could be substantial. The amount of fiscal
revenue raised from carbon pricing in Canada could be large.
A major constraint to making a public investment in low carbon technology and
infrastructure would seem to be Canada’s current fiscal and political situation. Although
our current federal deficit is, in relative terms, no great aberration; it does nonetheless
limit fiscal options. The conventional political interest is against increasing that deficit, but
rather in reducing it. Add to that that new taxes are political dead letters, and one can
conclude that we simply cannot afford to make such an investment.
But there is a solution – one that many other countries and jurisdictions are starting to
employ – to create the fiscal space required to invest in a low carbon transition (and also
to address other fiscal needs, including deficit reduction)10. That solution lies in auctioning
the allowances created and allocated by government under a cap-and-trade system. The
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has estimated that $18 billion
in annual revenue could be raised from a national cap-and-trade system in 2020. Some
portion of that could be dedicated to low carbon technology and infrastructure.
5. Government needs to ensure that an effective and objective information and
decision-making framework is in place to allocate these public resources, and that
this framework is defined by its transparency and accountability.
Making effective and efficient public investments in this area is complex. It requires
weighing diverse criteria against each other, from GHG reduction potential to
macroeconomic impacts to localized economic impacts to secondary social and
environmental benefits. A solid understanding of the issues involved, the risk factors
associated with these types of public expenditures, and the evaluation criteria that best
illuminate critical tradeoffs will be crucial to making smart public policy and investment
decisions, and successfully building a low-carbon energy system.
At the end of the day, it will be incumbent on government to demonstrate the public rate
of return on these investments. For the public to be confident that these substantial
investments are being made on the basis of the best information and decision-making
processes, a degree of transparency and accountability needs to be ensured. This will
10
Both the Waxman-Markey and proposed Kerry-Boxer legislation in the U.S. Congress, for example, stipulate the allocation of
auction revenue resources to clean technology and deficit reduction.
9
require an institutional framework involving the provision of independent advice, and
independent decision-making in investment decisions.11
11
Sustainable Prosperity will be examining the institutional component of this issue in future research.
10
Principles
Analyzing investments of public resources in new energy technologies and new infrastructure
requires assessing the comparative costs and benefits of various policy options and investment
choices against each other. It also involves comparing different kinds of costs and benefits. For
example, decisions about investment in new public transportation infrastructure must take into
account not both GHG reductions and travel-times for the users of the system. New incentives
for renewable electricity generation must take into account both environmental concerns and
local or regional economic impacts, such as jobs created and industries developed.
A wide range of principles are relevant to public decision-making in this context. The following
is a list of such principles, presented here for the purposes of discussion. Not all will be
applicable in every circumstance. However, they point to important issues which policy-makers
should be aware of in considering policy options in this area.
Principles for Public Low-Carbon Investments:
1. Pricing carbon should be seen as the foundation for long-term investment in low-carbon
technologies.
Introducing a significant, comprehensive, and economy-wide price signal would provide the
best foundation for long-term investment in low carbon technologies. For public
investment, it provides a source of revenue, and for private investment (both corporate
and individual) it provides a long-term forward price signal.
Another way to think about this is to take the earlier point – about the economic benefits
to Canada of having home-made solutions to climate change – and turn it around. Carbon
pricing, and the impact it will have on the economics of energy production and use, will
provide the “demand pull” for those technologies and infrastructure in the marketplace,
while investment in low carbon technologies and infrastructure ensures the “supply push”
that is required to establish the virtuous cycle that we are looking for.
2. A “Systems Approach” is Required
Given the complexity and interconnectedness of the issues involved, a broad and multilayered “systems” approach to public investment is required.
At a first level, public investment must be rooted in a larger policy framework that is
predicated on the pursuit of a low carbon economy. As discussed earlier, the elaboration
of this framework must be clear about its ultimate driver (i.e. emission reductions) while
allowing room for other objectives to be pursued through the various tools at
government’s disposal. Another way to think of this is to consider the relationship
between the cap-and-trade system, which is designed to deliver cost-effective emission
reductions, and the public investment, which may have a variety of other objectives. In the
11
same way, the use of tax policy, direct procurement, or regulations by the government can
– all while being part of an overall framework – work to deliver on other objectives.
At a second level, just where the public investment should go – in terms of the innovation
chain – can be a difficult decision, given the variety of needs that exist, and the variety of
objectives to be served. One way a systems approach can assist in that decision is to
consider public investment as a series of overlapping short-, medium-, and long-term
objectives. That would allow the policy to (i) maximize the economic benefits of the
investment (and so serve an important political need) and (ii) track what is happening in
the economy in relation to a carbon price that is increasing over time. In the short-term,
then, public investment could be dedicated to those projects that create employment
(through manufacturing of mature technologies or infrastructure). In the medium-term,
investment would be channeled to undertakings that increase the uptake of technologies
and so drive productivity improvements in the Canadian economy. And in the long-term,
investment would go into basic research-and-development for continuous innovation. Of
course, the exact allocation here is artificially drawn to make a point. Investment in all
three potential areas could (and should) be made across these various timelines.
At a third level, public investment policy should be part of a larger approach to how
government engages with and facilitates scientific and engineering knowledge. Knowing
where and when to use public resources will need to be based on the best intelligence
available on the energy system. Similarly, because the energy system – and all its
component parts – intersects with other “systems” (both human and natural) in our
society, it will be important to make decisions in light of the direct and indirect impacts
those decisions will have.
And finally, the energy system is complex and the technologies involved in energy
production, distribution and consumption are deeply interconnected. A successful
transition to a low-carbon system will require taking a systems approach that recognizes
these interconnections and capitalizes on potential synergies. Investments in electricity
generation and distribution infrastructure should take into account potential new
technologies, such the widespread adoption of electric vehicles or the potential for highly
distributed electricity generation as private homes install wind and solar systems.
Sequencing of investments must be considered. Trade-offs may exist between dedicating
public resources to encouraging the adoption of current technologies versus the
development of new ones. For example, subsidies for purchases of hybrid cars today could
be viewed as ill-considered if full plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles become widely available
and affordable in several years. Policymakers will need to adopt a systemic perspective
when planning the public investments (and seeking to catalyze the private ones) necessary
to complete a transition to a low-carbon energy system.
3. Public Investment Policy Should be Technology-Neutral:
The standard tenet in public policy related to technology and R&D is that governments
should avoid ‘picking winners’. The implication is that governments should focus public
investments on mechanisms that are not technology or industry specific, but rather focus
on the desired outcome or objective of the policy. Markets incorporate information from a
12
large number of disparate sources and actors in the economy and allocate resources
accordingly, and so are better predictors of the likely success or failure of particular
technologies than governments. .
As a result, it is generally advocated that when public officials make direct investments in
new technologies, they do so through flexible mechanisms that benefit a wide range of
technologies.12 Moreover, choices made within these mechanisms should be based on
outcome-based metrics, such as jobs created, or tons reduced per $ invested, etc.
4. Focus on Market Failures and Public Goods:
Public investment and expenditures should be focused on areas where there are clear
market failures. As an example, it is widely recognized that the full social returns to R&D
are greater than the private returns. R&D in one firm tends to benefit surrounding firms,
communities, and society at large by generating new knowledge, developing professional
skills, and educating workers. As a result, there is a market-failure rationale for public
support of R&D.
Similarly, many publicly-provided goods and services, such as education, transportation,
and public infrastructure would be underprovided if left to the private sector. These also
constitute areas of market failure, and should be the focus of public investment. Policy
makers, however, should be wary of making investments in areas without clearly defined
market failures, as this may put them in direct competition with private sector investors.
A close corollary of the two previous examples is the fact that energy efficiency is thought
to be, for the most part, an unrealized opportunity because of non-economic policy failure,
meaning that its continuing prevalence is not a function of its basic economics but rather of
a host of regulatory and financial barriers. Public investment to promote energy efficiency,
as an example, might go to providing loan guarantees for private pools of capital pursuing
energy efficiency opportunities.
Public investment, as a matter of principle, should therefore be based on a sophisticated
understanding of the exact nature of the policy and market failures standing between
progress in each of these (technology R&D, infrastructure, and energy efficiency), so as to
maximize the impact of the investment made.
5. Maximize the Leverage of Private Funds:
As mentioned earlier, the scale of investment necessary to transform the Canadian and
global energy system far exceeds the capacity of public sector funds alone. In order to
facilitate this transition, private sector investment will need to be leveraged as well. The
first and most important driver of this investment is a concrete, stable, long-term
regulatory framework for GHG emissions.
12
An example of a policy motivated by this principle is Renewable Portfolio Standards, which potentially apply to all modes of
renewable power generation, as opposed to subsidies specific to a particular type of renewable (e.g. wind power).
13
However, recent evidence shows that private investment will in the short-term also
respond favourably to the policy certainty provided by a public investment commitment,
such as that demonstrated in various stimulus programs around the world. As a result,
governments and policy-makers should focus public investments in areas where they
maximize the amount of additional private sector funding that is leveraged. This may
include taking into account particular pools of capital, particular industry and economic
conditions, and tailoring policies to best mobilize involvement and participation of key
private sector stakeholders and investors.
6. Build on Existing Program & Policy Infrastructure, but New Institutions May be Required:
Public investment in low-carbon technologies and infrastructure may be able to achieve
efficiencies by using existing policy and program infrastructure rather than creating new
spending mechanisms.
One can point to five existing mechanisms or policy tools (either general or specific)
government already has in place:
 Direct Procurement: Direct government expenditures and procurement of low-carbon
technologies or low carbon infrastructure and assets. Options of this type range from
public procurement of low-carbon infrastructure (new public transit assets, more
energy-efficient public buildings) and guaranteed market share and procurement of
clean electricity, to a commitment by public agencies and departments to procure new
low-carbon technologies.
 Tax Expenditures: Fiscal resources can also be used to mobilize investment through
tax credits and rebates. In this case, rather than directly spending money, the
government offsets incoming revenue by reducing tax revenue in specific ways.
Examples include tax credits and subsidies for R&D, accelerated capital cost allowances
for clean technologies, and tax credits for home energy retrofits.
 Financing Support: Governments can also provide support for new investment in
infrastructure and capital through extending the government’s ability to preferentially
borrow and finance new projects. This can be done through direct loans and loan
programs, loan guarantees, government sponsored venture capital funds, and other
mechanisms. Similarly, additional technology funding support may be provided
through Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or through other independent
government funding programs.
 R&D Funding: Direct government funding mechanisms for R&D, through research
grants, scholarship and research chair funding programs, and dedicated transfers to
educational institutions. In Canada, this type of funding is typically associated with the
three national granting councils, NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR.
 Regulation: The federal government already has a number of regulatory tools at its
disposal to influence investment in low carbon technology and infrastructure, from the
14
Canadian Environmental Protection Act’s provisions for emissions trading to building
codes and standards.
A table provided in annex gives a more fulsome description of the first four of these
government “tools”.
As we mentioned earlier, however, it may be that a new institutional framework is required to
deliver the public investment, and to ensure the transparency and accountability of its
decision-making and allocations.
15

References

DB Climate Change Advisors. Global Climate Change Policy Tracker: An Investor’s
Assessment, Deutsche Bank Group, 2009.

DB Climate Change Advisors. Global Investing in Climate Change 2009: Necessity and
Opportunity in Turbulent Times, Deutsche Bank Group, 2008.

Fischer, Carolyn. The Role of Technology Policies in Climate Mitigation, Resources For
the Future, 2009.

HSBC, A Climate for Recovery, 2009

International Energy Agency. Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 – Scenarios and
Strategies to 2050. 2008.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Achieving 2050: A Carbon
Pricing Policy for Canada. 2009.

Pembina and David Suzuki Foundation. Climate Leadership, Economic Prosperity: Final
Report on an Economic Study of Greenhouse Gas Targets and Policies for Canada, 2009.

Pernick, Ron and Clint Wilder. Clean Tech Job Trends 2009, Clean Edge, 2009.

Podesta, John D. et al. The Clean-Energy Investment Agenda: A Comprehensive
Approach to Building the Low-Carbon Economy, Center for American Progress, 2009.

Sustainable Prosperity. Principles for Pricing Carbon, 2009.

The Report of the National Advisory Panel on Sustainable Energy Science and
Technology. Powerful Connections: Priorities and Directions in Energy Science and
Technology in Canada, Natural Resources Canada, 2006.
16
Annex: Tables
Table 1. Policy Options Matrix for Public Low-Carbon Investments
Direct Procurement
‘Low-Carbon’
Infrastructure &
Assets
Clean Electricity
Generation and NonPolluting Fuels
Technology
Development and
R&D

Public Building Retrofits



LEED Gold or higher
standards in new public
buildings
Renewable Energy
Standards (RES’s)

Renewable Portfolio
Standards (RPS’s)
Government
commitments to procure
new clean energy
technologies.

New public transit
infrastructure

Feed-in-tariffs

Tax Credits for Home
Retrofits


SR&ED Tax Credits

Accelerated Capital Cost
Allowances
Production Tax Credits
for renewable
generation, biofuel
production, etc.

‘Cash-for-Clunkers’
rebates
Financing Support

Loan Guarantees for
Low-Carbon
Infrastructure Projects

Public finance support
for new renewable
projects.

Public Fund of Funds for
VC focused on clean
energy technologies.
R&D Funding

R&D funding for energy
efficient building
technologies,
transportation systems
and technologies,
community energy
systems, smart grids,
etc.

R&D funding for
renewable electricity
generation technologies,
biofuels and bioenergy,
hydrogen fuel cells, etc.

R&D funding for novel
technologies in all areas,
ranging from CCS, air
capture of GHGs, etc. to
social science research
on behavioural change
and energy
conservation.
Tax Expenditures
17