When I interviewed former MEI Minister Brad Duguid in March, he said he thought the superministry format was working and that his staff was more than capable of handling both portfolios. In fact, Duguid said the two areas are so interconnected, it only makes sense to bundle them under one minister. Now a rep from Duguid’s office tells me the split is for the best “given how much is going on with both portfolios.”

It’s true, the Green Energy Act has created a more-than-full-time job for Duguid and we all know how badly Ontario’s energy infrastructure (transmission and generation) needs attention. Paul Johnson, president of the Ontario Good Roads Association says the association is happy to see Ontario Premier McGuinty recognizing the importance of infrastructure in Ontario by giving it its own ministry. Now, says Johnson, the new minister can concentrate solely on the “enormous issues” facing Ontario’s infrastructure.

In our current issue (coming out next week), the Canadian Urban Institute’s Brent Gilmour writes about the importance of making energy planning central to the planning process–something that’s not currently done. Hopefully Chiarelli, who is still being briefed on the work Duguid has already done to put a 10-year infrastructure plan in place for Ontario, will take that into consideration.

In the next two issues of the magazine, our Ottawa Correspondent, Guy “Dr. Infrastructure” Félio, will explore the municipal infrastructure situation in Quebec through exclusive interviews with four key players in the Province: the Quebec Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Regions and Land Use (MAMROT), the Union of Municipalities of Quebec (UMQ), the Federation of Quebec Municipalities (FQM), and the Centre for Expertise and Research for Infrastructures in Urban Areas (CERIU).

Four organisations looking at municipal infrastructure from different lenses, and offering their perspectives on major issues such as revenues and financing, regulations, senior government roles and potential solutions.

The area around Lakeshore Boulevard and the Gardiner Expressway as it currently exists.

Many don’t acknowledge it, but the six lanes of the Lakeshore Boulevard are also a barrier to our waterfront (as identified in Brook and Van Nostrand’s Gardiner Expressway Transformation study in 2004-05). We’ve come to accept walking under the Gardiner and across its six lanes of fast moving traffic when walking from places like the Air Canada Centre down to the waterfront. This experience is far from welcoming.

The solution is a 12-lane, six-kilometre, below grade tunnel, consisting of collector and express lanes. At street level, a new low speed, two lane roadway in the character of King Street, with dedicated CO₂-free lanes would effectively move cars, bikes and pedestrians towards the lake along the north/south streets such as Yonge, Bay and Jarvis.

The counter argument to this idea is that it costs too much, and references are made to Boston’s over budget Big Dig project.

We must dismiss these quick conclusions and look to the many completed and successful traffic tunnel projects around the world. For example, the four-lane, 5.6-kilometre Dublin Sea Port Tunnel opened in 2006 and was developed successfully for $955 million.

Proposed changes to the Gardiner/Lakeshore area.

When considering how to fund a project of this size, one must consider that the Gardiner and Lakeshore run through some of Toronto’s most valuable real estate. The collective right of way of the Gardiner and Lakeshore is 60 metres, on average. If the new appropriately scaled surface roadway requires 20 metres, the remaining 40 metres is available for development of new residential, commercial, institutional, cultural and sporting facilities, and parkland.

By conservative estimates, the land value under and around the Gardiner is worth approximately $3 billion. Add up the sale of the land surface rights, development fees and the future tax generation potential of this land, and it would offset a sizable portion of the tunnel’s cost. The other upside is that the orphaned and inaccessible parcels of land adjacent to the Gardiner will also breathe new life, increasing their value and future tax generation potential.

This funding model of selling off public land for new development has already been used successfully to generate capital to cover the costs of new subway and light rail transit tunnels in Copenhagen. Similar models have been used to generate capital in Barcelona, Japan and the United States. Toronto may be the first to use this funding model to bury roadways, but it’s a proven model. Now is the time to move Toronto forward by eliminating past infrastructure scars, and yes, finally reconnecting to our waterfront.

Babak Eslahjou is a partner at Core Architects. The firm has designed more than 40 residential projects in downtown Toronto.

See our previous coverage of this project and potential solutions here.

There is no doubt that infrastructure assets support essential public services that contribute to the protection and the enhancement of Canadians’ health and safety; that protect and enhance the environment; and, provide effective means of moving people and goods. The question has remained, however, how much infrastructure is enough and what are the real contributions to economic growth of public investments in roads, bridges, water and wastewater systems, parks and cultural facilities, and so on.

This study found that, over the next 50 years:

• An increase of 44 per cent for new investment and 179 per cent for maintenance will be needed to maximize the potential economic returns. Current investment trends, if continued, would result in missing the opportunity to add 1.1 per cent of real GDP growth.
• Underinvestment could mean that employees will lose the opportunity of an average 0.5 per cent annual increase in real after-tax income. Employers meanwhile would forgo on average 0.7 per cent of real net profit after taxes.

The solutions to infrastructure underinvestment proposed in the study are not new. However, this rigorous piece of research should once and for all put to rest the debate over the value of public infrastructure investments to the wellbeing of Canadians and the country’s economy. The focus should now be on long-term infrastructure policies that include stable and flexible funding mechanisms, that account for changes in demand from future demographic and economic needs, and that incorporate sound asset management. In short, Canada needs a National Infrastructure Strategy.

Business aside, there are political and social factors to be considered, and whether Canadian jurisdictions develop or ditch nuclear, it needs to be part of a well-laid plan.

In Ontario, that plan has been stalled since 2005, when former Energy Minister Dwight Duncan asked the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) to create an Integrated Power Systems Plan (IPSP). That plan, submitted in 2007, predicted that by 2025, 45 per cent of Ontario’s electricity supply would come from renewable resources (eight per cent from natural gas, 47 per cent from nuclear power). Then Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman tossed the IPSP back, asking that the OPA set more aggressive goals for renewables and conservation.

In the meantime, the Green Energy and Green Economy Act was passed and the OPA’s energy went into creating the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) program.

Now that the OPA is back to working on an IPSP, will it look radically different from what was submitted in 2007? Spokesperson for the OPA, Ben Chin, says there will be changes to the numbers for renewables. “Now that we have an idea of the uptake on renewable resources for the future, we can look at all the FIT applications moving to the connection test and think about what this means for provincial planning.”

As for the rest of the energy pie chart, Chin says, “In view of the fact that our fleet will be retiring in 2030, new nuclear is probably the right thing to do—but only at the right price.”

With Ontario waffling on nuclear after experiencing sticker shock over Areva’s bid last year, some are looking around for alternatives.

While Chin calls natural gas a “transitional resource” for Ontario, others are more excited about the potential of shale gas. Discovered in the last two years, deposits of shale are a possible game changer. Apparently, Canada has decades of supply, mostly in Alberta and British Columbia.

For Alberta, where the Provincial Energy Strategy, released in 2008, relies less on renewables and more on carbon sequestration, efficiency, and conservation, shale gas is an exciting discovery. But even those clinging to a fossil-fuel-heavy mix will have to explore more sustainable energy sources eventually.

When that time comes, it may just be that renewables can pick up the slack. According to two recent studies by Queen’s University, solar power production in southeastern Ontario could potentially yield as much energy as all American nuclear reactors combined. Professor Joshua Pearce concluded that the province could generate five gigawatts of energy with rooftop photovoltaics (enough to power five per cent of Ontario’s energy requirements), while ground-mounted systems could yield 90 gigawatts of energy.

To make use of this energy, Canadian cities would have to overhaul their energy systems. While off-grid projects using district energy, geothermal, and other sources, can get started without changes to the main system, there’s a shortage of transmission infrastructure to carry new power sources to cities.

The OPA is well aware of the shortage—it considered it when preparing for applications under the new FIT program. While the IPSP it submitted in 2007 included no new transmission projects aimed at enabling the 2010 renewable energy target, there was a long-term plan for expanding transmission capacity.

The new IPSP will likely expand on that plan and aim for a few extra percentage points of renewables in the mix, but it won’t call for the major overhaul of our system. Like Alberta’s plan, which pushed behavioural shifts and the development of technologies to allow energy sources to remain the same, most likely Ontario’s plan will allow things to move on as business as usual for as long as possible.

As expected, G20 Leaders reaffirmed the commitment made at last year’s summit to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Leaders reviewed the work that’s been done this past year to develop implementation strategies and timeframes, and committed themselves to continued and full implementation of this effort.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and World Bank are about to publish a joint report analysing the scope of global energy subsidies and offering recommendations for phase out. Among other things, the report found that fossil fuel subsidies lead to underinvestment in infrastructure, and can contribute to energy shortages.

The IEA seems confident that we’re on the verge of a global energy revolution.

It’s during this time of potentially massive industry change that the World Energy Council (WEC) is gearing up for the world energy congress they organise every three years. The international, multi-energy forum is strategically-positioned in the world energy calendar, at less than a year after the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, just two months after the G8 and G20 summits, and only a few months before COP16.

Over 3,500 top world leaders in the field of energy, coming from industry, governments, and international organizations and exhibition will look at energy issues, like those discussed at the G20, from a global perspective. We’ll be there, along with universities and energy industry associations to examine energy production and use in all its forms: oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, and renewable energy.

Some 250 high-level speakers from industry, government and research and academia will talk about key issues facing the energy sector today, divided into four central themes to be discussed during the four-day event.

Day one: accessibility (meeting worldwide energy demand)

Day two: availability (finding the right energy mix for long term stability)

Day three: acceptability (energy solutions for a living planet)

Day four: accountability (policies, regulations and financing)

Given the economic climate and an attendant sense of global urgency, combined with the advent of profound transformations in the world, several organizations have decided to join forces with the WEC. There will be 13 other major international energy-related events held in conjunction with WEC Montréal 2010, including:

• Financial Times Energy Leaders Summit
• A special meeting of the energy ministers from the 70 state and government members from the International Organisation of La Francophonie
• 2010 Canadian Energy and Mines Ministers’ Conference
• Canada-Russia Energy Forum
• American North East and Eastern Canadian provinces Technical Meeting (NICE)
• A meeting of the Aluminium Association of Canada
• An assembly of the Canadian Association of Members of Public Utility Tribunals (CAMPUT)
• The Annual General Meeting of the Electricity Sector Council of Canada
• Meeting of the e8 – High-Level Dialogue on Fostering Investment in Electricity Generation in Central and Eastern Europe
• Task Force of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Cleaner Fossil Energy
• A Seminar of the World Bank on Financing Energy Projects
• Board Meeting of the International Hydropower Association
• Experts Meeting sponsored by the Government of Canada

This event—and coinciding meetings—are the perfect opportunity for people from countries around the world to look at the best practices being set by other leaders and possibly implement those changes themselves. For example, on June 25, India announced its decision to deregulate retail gasoline prices. The government also decided to raise the prices for diesel, kerosene, and liquid petroleum gases, with a further commitment to phase out the diesel subsidy over time. In Mexico the government has started phasing out motor fuel subsidies while conducting a household-level census of fuel consumption that will allow the government to implement a well-targeted support program to compensate low-income households.

These models and others, along with other energy solutions, will no doubt be the subject of discussions in September. Look for our in-depth coverage of the event here and on Twitter.

As expected, the tone being set for the G8 and G20 summits in Huntsville, Ontario, and Toronto is green—but it’s the common light green that we see at most conferences of any size these days. The grid powering the G8 summit will run on wind and hydroelectricity. All waste generated by the main summit venues will be reused or recycled. The transportation, such as cars and buses used to shuttle delegates and journalists between sites, will be green, except for the helicopters which will be used to transport leaders from Toronto to Huntsville, which will be mea culpa’d away with carbon offsets.

All that good work would likely not have subdued protesters, but it’s been made even less relevant by two letters: BP.

Leading up to the summit, dozens of protesters dressed as a human oil slick walked the downtown streets as part of Global Climate Campaign’s annual global day of action (see video here). And more protesters are sure to come—hopefully these will just be non violent demonstrations.

It’s always possible that a light green conference may actually lead to deep green results. We may see some concrete commitments to change at the end of these meetings, especially in the face of the recent oil spill in the Gulf.

In the United States, there have already been rumblings about a possible end to tax breaks, and tougher regulations, for companies that produce and process fossil fuels. And Canada recently tabled a policy that would see coal-fired plants phased out over the next 50 years.

But according to energyboom.com, government subsidies to the production side of fossil fuel industry by the U.S. and Canada and other producing countries are not on the G20 agenda.

That’s strange, especially since after the last year’s summit in Pittsburgh, G20 leaders asked for analyses of the scope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the implementation of this initiative so they would have some information to work with at this year’s summit.

One agenda industry subsidies are on: U.S. President Obama’s. In his Oval Office address earlier this week, he promised an energy policy that moves the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels, and a reduction in government subsidization of the fossil fuel industry.

The Pembina Institute is among those that believe Canada should be on the same page. In a media release, the institute said, “It’s time for Minister Flaherty and Prime Minister Harper to commit to a Canadian plan to end tax breaks to fossil fuel producers.” Pembina recently leaked a memo sent this May to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, that advised the minister to live up to a G20 commitment to phase out tax breaks to the companies that produce coal, oil and gas.

In other “leaked” info, Treehugger posted draft discussions supplied by WWF that shows a commitment to addressing the issue at the summit. The document, called Preamble, Context and Decisions – June 11, 2010,  says: “We reviewed progress made to date in identifying inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption and we agree to continue working to develop voluntary, member-specific approaches for for the rationalization and phase out of such measures.”

All this leaked info and speculating will soon be moot as the meetings are underway and official info will soon be available. I’m hoping for a less disappointing result than what came out of the COP15 conference in Copenhagen. Hopefully, Bertrand is right and we’re moving into a period of action on energy issues, where real commitments to achievable goals will be made. This last week or so, there’s certainly been a “significant” feeling in the air, brought on by the recent end-of-days-style weather events in southern Ontario. Maybe earthquakes and tornadoes mean change is brewing?

Hi there, readers. I have a small favour to ask.

In the next few months, we’ll be making some improvements to the ReNewCanada.net site. Can you spare a few minutes to offer your opinion? What do you think is working? What have we got all wrong?

If you can just take a few minutes to answer these ten questions, we’d appreciate it. Thanks!

Some readers may recall that our staff has, on several occasions, asked the question: It’s the twenty-first century, where are our flying cars? We asked it back in May/June 2008 when we ran our “futureshock” cover and again in March 2009 when we asked on our cover, “is a green age coming?”

It’s 2010 and we may finally have our flying car–or at least a flying vehicle. I was about to delete a release from Samson Motors Inc. about Charlie Johnson’s appointment to the advisory board when I read this sentence: Samson Motors is the developer of the Switchblade Multi-Mode Vehicle, a vehicle capable of driving on roads then converting into a plane, targeted for first flight later this year.

It’s called the “flying motorcycle.” And I love it.

In all seriousness, if this product actually made it to market, what would that mean for personal vehicle owners? Are we looking at a Jetson’s-style future where most everyone jets to work? Doubtful. What, then, is the point of developing this tech?

In an interview with Daily Planet, Samson Motors CEO, Sam Bousfield, said he does want to bring flight to the masses. He said the hardest part is going to be convincing the average person that he or she can be a pilot. To operate the Switchblade, drivers would need both a motorcycle and pilot’s license. Order it, and it shows up at your door as a kit you assemble yourself for US$85,000.

Right now, this is an expensive toy at best. But, we did ask for it, and Samson delivered. Flying cars: how very twenty-first century.