CCEM 103 Question 1

[Carly Johansson]

Do you think calculating and publicizing the ‘energy spend’ for your community would generate public and political support for building beyond the building code or exploring the implementation of renewable energy?

[Carly Johansson]

I really do agree with the statement. By showing how much your community is spending, you can illustrate the implications of the status quo (energy is expensive and almost none of that money stays locally), and start to create buy-in for revising the building code or exploring the implementation of renewable energy (both of which are time consuming and/or expensive undertakings). Such information can also be used by leaders to argue action is necessary (i.e. we can develop solutions that either save money and/or keep some of that money in the local economy). In short – by publishing community energy expenditures you can set the stage for change.

[Carly Johansson]

I agree with the statement though I am concerned that there are always vocal nay-sayers in most communities and I have doubts about the ability to have accurate (reproducible) data for a community energy spend. It is a good metric to get the general public thinking about the concept and issues in the community regarding energy.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

I think it would. In Nanaimo, I recall initial hesitancy about moving forward with energy generation from our No.1 Reservoir. However, once the public heard about the project, we received allot of support from the community. In the end, the work was completed by local contractors, with technical supervision from external consultants. This helped train and improve the skill level of our local workforce for future projects. We are now being approached by the regional health authority about a project to replace an existing diesel boiler a hybrid biomass / natural gas plant for the Nanaimo Regional General Hospital. Some of the questions being asked is how this project will affect the local economy and create new business opportunity in selling, transporting wood chips for the proposed system. There is still allot of discussion still to occur and some concerns over the emissions need to be worked through to raise confidence to proceed.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

Here in Ft. Simpson & many of the other small, rural, remote diesel-powered NWT communities, I think that sharing such “energy spending” numbers would catch people’s attention that could cause them to ask a few other questions, but I am not sure just how much ACTION it would really illicit.

In 2007-08, the Arctic Energy Alliance created Community Energy Profiles for all the communities in the NWT, as I’ve mentioned in our CCEM 101/102 Forum discussions. We had & still have the calculations of how much the “energy spend” was for each community (% of each fuel type, $, & GHG’s) & therefore, estimates per person in each community were also possible for the population at the time.

I think this question raises some very good “food for thought” for me/us to explore ways to engage people in the NWT more effectively with data such as what we already have in these Community Energy Profiles, although the data is now 8 years old. Perhaps if the AEA was to spearhead some discussions around their “energy spend” with communities & compile details/feedback from them pertaining to moving ahead on local actions, improving Building Code, & looking into Renewable Energy options, … maybe we could re-vitalize the existing Energy Profile data along with the community engagement around it to help facilitate such discussions/actions.

We may likely be having the Community Energy Profile data updated for a small handful of the communities this year (Linda Todd from our Yk office is leading on this) & that would present a more current opportunity to inject these important costing details into conversations at the community level.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 5 months ago by Jen Grebeldinger.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

I have found everyone’s comments to be quite useful and would agree with Geoff about the challenges with the “nay-sayers” & difficulty in acquiring accurate, useful data & wondering about ways to achieve momentum or some kind of balance btwn. such challenges & the benefits of the though-provoking details that can help inspire discuss, analysis, and decision-making, & implementation strategies.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

I share Geoff concern about naysayers and how they can stunt any enthusiasm quite quickly. But that can be prevented by gaining support from key stakholders, such as having a keen and respected Councillor on side. As well, having worked through any doubts with key staff in Building Inspections can help raise confidence at least to take the conversation to the next level within the decision-making process.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

Yes, I think that kind of data would generate some political support. People in this community are pretty interested in energy issues. However, I am skeptical that it would be enough to reach those who have access to funding. Access to information is part of the solution though, and it’s another layer of the onion that needs to be exposed to realize the transformation we are looking for regarding energy production, and use.

[Jen Grebeldinger]

I appreciate Rob’s point of having conversations with staff. I think staff has a far better background in these kinds of issues, by virtue of their education. This will encourage me to seek out opportunities to start this level of dialouge.

[Author]

Posts