Clean Electricity Regulations – 8. Acronyms

Clean Electricity Regulations Policy Toolkit

Make Your Submission!

Toolkit Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1  How to use this Toolkit

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 The Electrical Grid

2.2 Abating Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions – CCS and CCUS

3. MOST CONCERNING PROPOSED CHANGES

3.1.  Extending the time that existing unabated gas plants can continue to operate, but not proposing what this longer “End of Prescribed Life” period would be.

3.1.1. The Draft CERs approach to “EoPL” was good; Changing it is bad

3.1.2. Some of the provinces’ complaints about the Draft CERs

3.1.3. Corporations’ and System Operators’ Complaints about the Draft CERs

3.1.4. ECCC is considering extending the EoPL, but they are not telling us by how much

3.1.5. Refuting that the 20-year EoPL doesn’t allow gas plants to make enough profit

3.1.6. The “Retirement Cliff” argument fails when provinces are not willing to build renewables

3.1.7. Great Lakes offshore wind could provide enormous amounts of electricity for Ontario

3.1.8. Alberta has the greatest combined wind and solar potential in Canada

3.1.9. For the world to stay below 1.5oC of warming, Canada and other advanced countries must achieve net-zero electricity by 2035

3.1.10. A preponderance of studies find that net zero electricity in Canada is possible by 2035

3.1.11. According to General Electric, 95% abatement from gas plants using CCS is already possible

3.1.12. Alberta’s “Retirement Cliff” argument is unreasonable given the Alberta government’s prohibition on most wind power

3.1.13. Alberta is not acting in good faith and, therefore, their arguments lack merit

3.1.14. The Courts will almost certainly decide against Alberta

3.1.15.  Suggestions for your submissions about the 20-year EoPL

3.2. Extending the amount of time into the future, and thus the number, of new unabated gas plants that will benefit from less stringent EoPL provisions is bad.

3.2.1.  Again, since GE Vernova says that 95% abatement from gas plants using CCS is already possible, there is no excuse in 2024, let alone 2025 or any time thereafter, for anyone to commission a gas plant that is either not abated using CCS or that cannot be made abated by using CCS by 2035.

3.2.2  Suggestions for your submissions on extending the 1 January 2025 deadline

3.3. Replacing the 30 tCO2e/GWh emissions intensity standard with a “To Be Determined” unit-specific annual emissions limit

3.3.1. The Draft CERs – an emissions intensity limit

3.3.2 Reaction to the Draft CERs

3.3.3. The Public Update – a unit-specific emissions limit

3.3.4. Analysis

3.3.5.  Suggestions for your submissions on the emissions intensity standard

4. OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES

4.1. Offsets: Allowing companies to purchase offset credits to meet a portion of their emissions requirements

4.1.1  Suggestions for your submissions on offsets

4.2. Cogeneration: treat emissions from existing cogeneration units differently than emissions from other units, without explaining what that treatment would be

4.2.1  Suggestions for your submissions on cogeneration units

4.3. Pooling:  Allowing companies to combine the emissions limits of individual existing electricity-generating units into a pooled emissions limit.

4.3.1  Suggestions for your submissions on the pooling of units

4.4. Peaker Plants – Replacing the 450 hr limit on peaker plants with a “To Be Determined” unit-specific annual emissions limit.

4.4.1.  Suggestions for your submissions on a unit-specific emissions limit on peaker plants

4.5. Emergencies – Replacing the requirement for the federal Minister’s retroactive approval with a requirement to notify the Minister

4.5.1.  Suggestions for your submissions on the emergencies exemption

4.6. Minimum Size – Applying the CERs to units whose capacities collectively total 25 MW or more

4.6.1.  Suggestions for your submissions on units of 25 MW or less

5. ITEMS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY THE REGULATIONS

5.1. Sector-Wide Emissions Cap

5.2. Interim targets

6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS – “I’m pressed for time, so please suggest what I might say in my submission!”

6.1.  Suggestions for your submissions about the 20-year EoPL

6.2  Suggestions for your submissions on extending the 1 January 2025 deadline

6.3.  Suggestions for your submissions on the emissions intensity standard

6.4  Suggestions for your submissions on offsets

6.5  Suggestions for your submissions on cogeneration units

6.6  Suggestions for your submissions on the pooling of units

6.7  Suggestions for your submissions on a unit-specific emissions limit on peaker plants

6.8  Suggestions for your submissions on the emergencies exemption

7. GLOSSARY

8. ACRONYMS

8. ACRONYMS

AESO – Alberta Electric System Operator

BESS – Battery Energy Storage System

CEPA – Canadian Environmental Protection Act

CERs – Clean Electricity Regulations

CO2 – carbon dioxide

CO2e – carbon dioxide equivalent

ECCC – Environment and Climate Change Canada

EoPL – End of Prescribed Life

GHG – greenhouse gas

GWh – Gigawatt hour

IESO – Ontario’s Independent Electric System Operator

MW – Megawatt

OBPS – Output-Based Pricing System

RIAS – Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement

t/GWh – tonnes (of carbon dioxide-equivalent – or “CO2e”) GHG emissions) per Gigawatt hour

Citations