Explicit references to long-term planning in both SG and climate change excerpts were typically
made in regards to the LTEP. In addition to the LTEP I used latent content analysis as a means to identify evidence of long-term considerations or planning processes. As shown in Table 9, open codes relevant to these themes were identified in both SG and climate change excerpts. As previously mentioned, both SG and climate change were mentioned in the LTEP, however, they were not discussed in the same context or in a concurrent manner. While in the LTEP the SG was presented as the technology necessary to enable
applications of SG such as EVs, climate change was discussed in the context of renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions. The following excerpts from the Long Term Energy Plan (2013) demonstrate
the nature of discussion pertaining to SG and climate change within this long-term planning document. These smart grid solutions will also help LDCs integrate new promising technologies into
Ontario’s electricity system that could help operators use grid assets more efficiently, including storage and electric vehicles. (OME, 2013, Long Term Energy Plan, p. 81). When clean energy from the wind is available, it reduces our need to rely on fossil fuel sources of electricity that contribute to smog, pollution and climate change. (OME, 2013, Long Term Energy Plan, p. 38).
In addition to the LTEP, evidence of long-term thinking within SG discourse was evident upon examination of SG objectives and the expected long-term impacts of SG deployment. For example, the OME directed the OEB to ensure that SG deployment facilitates both economic development and environmental benefits (open codes: “SG objective- economic development,” and “SG objective- environmental benefits”). The following excerpts demonstrate the manner in which the OME conceptualizes economic development and environmental benefits as SG objectives.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Encourage economic growth and job creation within the province of Ontario. Actively encourage the development and adoption of smart grid products, services, and innovative solutions from Ontario-based sources. (OME, Directive to the OEB, November 23, 2010).
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS: Promote the integration of clean technologies,
conservation, and more efficient use of existing technologies. (OME, Directive to the OEB, November 23, 2010).
With regards to evidence pertaining to planning processes, latent analysis also drew attention to the planning-related SG deployment objectives mandated by the OME. Specifically, the policy-mandates objectives of coordination and interoperability refer to the processes of planning for SG deployment (see Table 9, open codes: “SG Objective Coordination,” “SG-Objective Interoperability”). The following excerpts highlight what is meant by coordination and interoperability in the context of SG planning.
CO-ORDINATION: The smart grid implementation efforts should be coordinated by, among other means, establishing regionally coordinated Smart Grid Plans (“Regional Smart Grid Plans”), including coordinating smart grid activities amongst appropriate groupings of distributors, requiring distributors to share information and results of pilot projects, and engaging in common procurements to achieve economies of scale and scope. (OME Directive to the OEB, November 23, 2010).
INTEROPERABILITY: Adopt recognized industry standards that support the exchange of meaningful and actionable information between and among smart grid systems and enable common protocols for operation. Where no standards exist, support the development of new recognized standards through coordinated means. (OME Directive to the OEB, November 23, 2010).
Essentially these two excerpts draw attention to the fact that electricity stakeholders are required to make SG plans on a regional basis to ensure that SG is implemented in a relatively consistent and efficient manner across the province. Furthermore, the concept of interoperability is required to ensure that the deployment of SG in Ontario is consistent with practices and standards across North America.Notably, the concept of climate change was not explicitly referenced in any of the SG excerpts pertaining to consideration of long-term planning, long-term impacts of SG deployment or SG planning processes.
As previously mentioned, climate change was referenced within the LTEP in the context of
renewable energy development. In addition to the LTEP, electricity stakeholders used the term “long- term” in the context of long-term climatic trends (open code: “understand long-term climatic impacts”).
considered the impacts of climate change to the extent that they will affect operations (open codes include: “water availability,” “water temperature,” “alter rainfall frequency and duration,” “energy production impacts,” “changes in cloud cover” and “extreme weather”). In the climate change excerpts it is actions taken by stakeholders to address these climate change impacts and manage risks that provide evidence of long-term thinking and consideration of climate change in planning. Specifically, latent content analysis drew attention to a number of activities taken by electricity stakeholders between 2004 and 2013 to address climate change-related risk to corporate operations, energy supply, and electricity distribution (open codes include: “adapting operations,” “climate change committee,” “supply
management,” “production forecasting,” “outage plans” “manage weather related risk,” “enhance system
resilience,” and “vulnerability assessment”).
It is worth noting that within the climate change excerpts latent content analysis provided
evidence that electricity stakeholders considered the impact that climate change legislation may have on operations (open code: “climate change committee” and “impact of climate change regulation”). For example, the OPA noted that not only are they following the development of climate change regulation, they have also developed a climate change committee to track policy developments pertaining to climate change (see following excerpts).
As these policies [climate change] evolve, the OPA is examining options and solutions to incorporate mechanisms to deal with changes to climate change regulation and their impacts on the OPA’s procurement processes and contracts. (OPA, 2010 Annual Report, p. 15).
To oversee the management of climate change issues, the OPA has established a climate change committee composed of representatives from each functional business unit. The committee tracks emerging issues and provides strategic input to the OPA’s senior executive team on climate-related topics. (OPA, 2009 Annual Report, p. 35).
With regards to the risk of supply shortages, the following excerpt highlights risk management
The extent to which OPG can operate its hydroelectric generation facilities depends upon the availability of water. Significant variances in weather, including impacts of climate change, could affect water flows. OPG manages this risk by using production forecasting models that incorporate unit efficiency characteristics, water availability conditions, and outage plans. (OPG, 2013 Annual Report, p. 56).
In addition, as discussed in Section 5.21 and 5.25, latent content analysis also provided evidence that some LDCs recognized weather related risk and implemented plans to strengthen infrastructure to address this risk (for example the aforementioned THESL vulnerability assessment initiative). The following excerpt from the THESL environmental performance report provides the overall objectives of this initiative.
The goals of this program are threefold: (1) to manage weather related risks to the THESL system and operations; (2) to enhance system resilience to adapt to climate change and withstand extreme weather events; and (3) improve restoration practices when extreme weather events affect the system. (THESL, Environmental Performance Report, 2013, p. 9).
As shown in the above excerpt the THESL not only made reference to adapting infrastructure to climate change to make it more resilient but also to improving their restoration practices following system damage resulting from extreme weather. Notably, despite the fact that SG technology is relevant for this initiative, it was not referenced in this discussion.
Overall, although evidence of long-term thinking and planning was identified in both the SG and climate change excerpts, there was no evidence of explicit overlap between the two discourses and no evidence that SG and climate change were considered concurrently.