CAFES had an invigorating day attending the Ottawa Energy Symposium on Tuesday, June 10th, organized by the Ottawa Board of Trade and supported by us as a community sponsor.
This dynamic event explored the future of energy in Ottawa by hearing from industry leaders, government officials and innovators as they discussed what local customers need, the latest developments in energy infrastructure, and how new solar and storage technologies are helping to power up our city for tomorrow. We also learned how local organizations are adapting to the evolving energy landscape and what that means for Ottawa’s business community.
We listened to several fantastic panels, which covered topics on how AI, real estate, and electrification are reshaping demand; how infrastructure investment unlocks economic potential; how distributed energy is reshaping Ottawa’s grid; and how tools are driving Ottawa’s low-carbon transition.
The event speakers included:
It was wonderful to connect with others, learn from experts, and to be part of such engaging discussions on the National Capital Region’s sustainable energy future.
This event was sponsored by Hydro Ottawa, Brookfield Renewable, Ottawa Climate Action Fund (OCAF), Envirocentre and KMPG, and CAFES Ottawa was a community partner.
On June 3rd, Angela Keller-Herzog of CAFES delivered an impactful presentation at the Finance and Corporate Services Committee on Capital Asset Management Plans and the Long Range Financial Plan for Water (Rate).
CAFES pointed out that public infrastructure is extremely vulnerable to hazards from climate change and the financial impact of extreme rainfall and extreme heat will be high - citing the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario (FAO) report that states that climate will cause a 16% increase in infrastructure costs. As a solution, pro-active adaptation can significantly lower infrastructure and climate-related costs in the future.
CAFES expressed concern that in the City's Asset Management Plan (AMP), the 2025 budget forecast allocated $155 million less for climate adaptation than 2024, which fails to align with the best practice recommendations of the FAO. The AMP stating that the costs associated with pro-active climate adaptation and resiliency strategies will be incorporated into subsequent iterations of the AMPs, guided by Council-approved policy, essentially represents tactical policy delay and climate denial. This is at odds with the provincial legislation that requires mitigation and adaptation, and Ottawa's own Climate Change Master Plan.
Furthermore, the 2022 Climate Change Vulnerability and Risk Assessment report was vague and missing a list of critical infrastructure; we need more transparency. Comparing the last Long Range Financial Plan for Water (rate) with the current, there's discontinuity. While the AMP tells us that the water infrastructure budget is fair in that it is rising steadily - transit, housing and climate remain in crisis.
Ultimately, it is excellent that the capital AMPs included consideration of climate change impact risks, vulnerabilities and costs. However, while this information is included at a asset management planning level, Ottawa is not making its critical vulnerable infrastructure investments to protect us from extreme weather climate change impacts. Year-on-year, Ottawa's adaptation infrastructure spending has declined despite accelerating evidence of climate instability. The Canadian Climate Institute calculates that every dollar invested in key adaptation measures can yield up to $15 in avoided costs and economic benefits.
Our recommendations included:
In response to one of Councillor Menard's questions, Angela expressed appreciation that a Greenspace and Forests AMP had been undertaken, and that while this report contained information about the value assigned to vehicles of the Forestry Department and the urban count of trees from the tree inventory, it also demonstrates that our forested areas, greenspaces and parks are not truly valued in terms of their contributions to the health and vitality of our city. While there is demonstrated capacity for valuing grey infrastructure, the same is not being put forward for our greenspaces and natural assets - alluding to the need to rebalance our priorities, as mentioned in our third recommendation.
