February 2011
Previous page | Table of Contents | Next page
This section provides evaluation findings for each evaluation issue and their supporting questions. An evaluation matrix, provided in Annex 1, describes the specific evaluation issues, questions and indicators used to assess the relevance and performance of the CED.
A rating is provided for each evaluation question based on a judgment of the evaluation findings. The rating symbols and their significance are outlined below in Table 2.
Achieved
The intended outcomes or goals have been achieved or met
Progress Made; Attention Needed
Considerable progress has been made to meet the intended outcomes or goals, but attention is still needed
Little Progress; Priority for Attention
Little progress has been made to meet the intended outcomes or goals and attention is needed on a priority basis
N/A
A rating is not applicable
~
Outcomes achievement ratings are based solely on subjective evidence
These ratings are standard across all evaluation reports by Environment Canada and provide a high-level understanding of the program’s relevance and performance. Of note, the “Progress Made; Attention Needed” rating indicates that significant progress has been made but more needs to be done to fully achieve these intended outcomes or goals. The “Little Progress; Priority for Attention” rating indicates that priority should be given to these outcomes or goals because insufficient progress has been made towards achievement.
A Summary of Findings Table is presented in Annex 2 and provides the ratings across all evaluation issues and questions.
1. Is the CED connected with key international climate change needs?
Achieved
The evaluation found that there remains a clear need for the CED in order to continue to meet key international climate change needs. There is evidence that CED objectives are aligned with relevant scientific evidence on the need for CED-type actions to achieve GHG reduction and address climate change.
The CED clearly responds and is connected to international climate change needs.
The section on clean energy from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report indicates that annual total GHG emissions from the global energy sector continue to increase, and that actions are required by governments on energy-related GHG emissions. The report identifies CCS, energy-efficiency technologies and renewable power as key mitigation technologies over the short to medium term, and also identifies the need for investment in R&D for the longer term. The IPCC report also highlights the need for governments to collaborate on an unprecedented scale to accomplish clean energy goals.4
In its report titled Advice on a Long-term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change, the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) identified CCS and renewable electricity as the top technology “wedges”5 to achieve 2050 GHG goals. It indicated that the “must haves” for impact on climate change are energy efficiency improvements in the industrial, transportation and buildings sectors; CCS in the oil and gas sector; and a reduction in the carbon intensity of electricity generation. This advice paper also identified the need for policies to facilitate and accelerate technology deployment.6
In addition, the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2009 indicated that a mix of energy technologies including improved energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage, biofuels, renewable energy and—where acceptable—nuclear energy7 is required to address global climate change effectively.
Collectively this information identifies a clear need for clean energy technologies and policies, and since Canada and the U.S. have aligned targets under the Copenhagen Accord,8 there is value added for the two governments to work together under the CED and develop a coordinated response.
2. Is the CED aligned with federal government priorities?
Achieved
The CED is clearly aligned with federal government priorities. Considering this strong alignment, the overall rating has been assessed as “achieved.”
The CED is clearly aligned with federal government priorities.
In April 2006, the Speech from the Throne noted “[the Government] will take measures to achieve tangible improvements in our environment, including reductions in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.” Subsequently in the October 2007 Speech from the Throne, the Government noted that climate change is a global issue requiring a global solution, and committed to domestic action and pursuing a global consensus. The CAA resulted from these commitments, and funding was dedicated for related measures including those under the International Actions Theme.
The November 2008 Speech from the Throne reiterated the Government’s intention to “continue its realistic, responsible approach to addressing the challenge of climate change,” and noted that it “will meet this goal while also ensuring that Canada’s actions going forward remain comparable to what our partners in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries undertake.”
More recently, in the March 2010 Speech from the Throne, the commitment to reduce emissions via the CED was noted:
Our Government has advocated for an agreement that includes all the world’s major greenhouse gas emitters, for that is the only way to actually reduce global emissions. And it has pursued a balanced approach to emissions reduction that recognizes the importance of greening the economy for tomorrow and protecting jobs today.
The Copenhagen Accord reflects these principles and is fully supported by the Government of Canada. Together with other industrialized countries, Canada will provide funding to help developing economies reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change. Here at home, our Government will continue to take steps to fight climate change by leading the world in clean electricity generation. And recognizing our integrated continental economic links, our Government will work to reduce emissions through the Canada-U.S. Clean Energy Dialogue launched last year with President Obama’s administration.
Therefore, it is clear that the Canadian federal government has set a priority on clean energy options to address climate change, and is committed to the CED.
2. Is the CED aligned with the priorities of participating departments?
Achieved
The CED is clearly aligned with the priorities of participating departments. Considering this strong alignment, the overall rating has been assessed as “achieved.
The CED is clearly aligned with the priorities of all three participating departments.
Environment Canada has a clear mandate for environmental protection and leadership on the climate change file. According to the Department of the Environment Act,9 EC’s mandate, as presented on its website, is to
The work on the CED is aligned with EC’s Strategic Outcome from the 2008–2009 Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) that “Canadians and their environment are protected from the effects of pollution and waste,” under the Clean Air Program in the departmental Program Activity Architecture (PAA).
EC’s RPP for 2010–2011 establishes as a priority to “continue engaging the United States to collaborate on the development of clean energy technologies to reduce greenhouse gases.”11 It also indicates that EC will work with provincial governments and other partners and engage the United States on harmonized clean energy approaches.
NRCan’s mission is to be a champion of sustainable development, a world-class centre of knowledge onnatural resources and a leader in policy and science. The department’s work on the CED is aligned with its strategic outcome that “Canada [be] a world-leader on environmental responsibility in the development and use of natural resources”, falling under the Clean Energy key program activity within the department’s PAA. NRCan’s activities are guided by the Department of Natural Resources Act.
NRCan’s RPP for 2010–2011 notes the department's aim is to position Canada as a leader in clean energy and sustainable resource development, globally. It identifies the priority of advancing the clean energy agenda in Canada through science, technology advancements and program investments. It also indicates that NRCan will pursue international collaboration in order to drive clean energy R&D.
DFAIT’s mandate is to ensure that Canada's foreign policy reflects true Canadian values and advances Canada's national interests; to strengthen rules-based trading arrangements and to expand free and fair market access at bilateral, regional and global levels; and to work with a range of partners to achieve increased economic opportunity and enhanced security for Canada and for Canadians at home and abroad. Work on the CED is aligned with DFAIT’s strategic outcome “Canada’s International Agenda” and with the Diplomacy and Advocacy key program activity. This program activity “engages Canadian stakeholders and partners, and leverages Canada's network of missions abroad to influence foreign governments and international players and deliver diplomacy; raises awareness and understanding of Canada's policies, interests and values as they pertain to the government's international agenda; and delivers international programs on Canada's behalf to address specific international issues and enhance the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad.”
Although DFAIT’s RPP for 2010-11 does not mention the CED specifically, the operational priority “U.S. and the Americas” notes that “the department will continue to work through Canada's network of missions in the United States to further assist Canadian clients in accessing global value chains.” The role of DFAIT is to assist with the effective management of the Canada-U.S. relationship and pursue engagement with the U.S. on a variety of issues, including energy and climate change.
4. Is there a federal role and responsibility for the government of Canada to deliver the CED?
Achieved
There is a legitimate federal role and responsibility for the Government of Canada to deliver on Canada-U.S. engagement for the CED, as the federal government has the responsibility to address environmental issues that span international boundaries. Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as “achieved.” However, provinces also have an important role due to their jurisdiction over the development, conservation and management of electrical energy facilities and of non-renewable natural resources within their borders.
There is clear federal jurisdiction for the CED. In its 2006 overview report on climate change, the Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development (CESD) noted that “the federal government has jurisdiction over environmental issues that cross international and provincial boundaries.”12
There is consensus among key informants that the Government of Canada’s role in the international environmental agenda is to lead negotiations and policy discussion, in addition to advancing and sharing science expertise. This role includes international dialogue and international clean technology partnerships to reduce GHG emissions.
At the same time, provinces13 have a critical role to play since they regulate electric energy utilities (both the CED’s electricity grid initiative and CCS activities are relevant to the operation of these utilities.). However, provinces indicated that federal participation in these areas is also required to engage at the U.S. federal level.
Interviewees identified various initiatives that are complementary to the CED. These initiatives include the following:
5. To what extent have intended outputs been achieved as a result of the CED?
Achieved
6. To what extent have immediate outcomes been achieved as a result of the CED?
Progress made; attention needed
7. To what extent have intermediate outcomes been achieved as a result of the CED?
Progress made; attention needed
8. Have there been any unintended (positive or negative) outcomes that can be attributed to the CED? Were any actions taken as a result of these?
Not applicable
9. Are there any external factors outside the CED that influence its success?
Not applicable
Since this evaluation was conducted early in the program’s implementation, the evaluation cannot confirm that all activities currently underway will lead to all the expected outcomes. There was clear evidence, however, of progress towards achievement. The evaluation found that the majority of expected outputs (e.g., policy and research papers and advice, partnerships and processes, and consultations with domestic stakeholders) are being achieved. The evidence indicates, however, that more could be done in terms of engaging provincial partners for electricity grid initiatives in order to move CED objectives forward. The evaluation also demonstrated that significant progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the CED Action Plan (immediate outcome). However, not all CED focus areas have progressed as planned (e.g., there have been some delays on the Clean Energy RD&D Roadmap relative to original timelines, although outcomes are now expected to exceed original expectations) and the contribution of the DFAIT outreach component to the achievement of the immediate outcome is limited. The evaluation also demonstrated that, while it is still early in the implementation phase, some progress has been made towards achieving the intermediate outcomes through increased collaboration and enhancing Canada’s profile as a provider of climate-friendly technology.
A positive unintended outcome noted by a number of interviewees was that the CED facilitated Canada’s involvement in a significant existing U.S. energy system modelling initiative, which could have important future implications. No significant negative unintended outcomes were identified.
External factors, such as U.S. limitations on private-sector involvement and provincial jurisdiction over energy, have confined the delivery and scope of the CED initiatives.
The evaluation assessed performance by examining progress towards the achievement of three outputs (as described in the logic model in Figure 2):
Progress towards achieving these outputs was assessed using indicators described in the Evaluation Matrix (presented in Annex 1)17 where the data were available and is presented in the following three sections, one for each of the CED focus areas: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Electricity Grid; and Clean Energy Research and Development (R&D).
The CED also includes an outreach component, delivered by DFAIT, which is intended to contribute to the achievement of these three outputs. Contributions by this outreach component are described in the final section: DFAIT Support to Ministerial and Senior-level Engagement.
The CCS Working Group has made progress towards the achievement of all three outputs for the CED’s CCS focus area, as detailed below. However, the evaluation noted that an explicit Terms of Reference document that outlines the expectations for the CCS Working Group does not exist.
The CCS Working Group was formed in the spring of 2009 and is co-chaired by NRCan and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), with representation from the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. This working group is responsible for coordinating the development of reports and other outputs related to clean energy technology. The evaluation found evidence that the CCS Working Group’s plans, reports and papers address all stated expectations.
The CCS Working Group developed a White Paper in advance of the June 2009 CED Roundtable, held in Washington, D.C. The White Paper provides background for framing the CCS discussion, and poses strategic questions for the Roundtable to consider in developing CCS initiatives under the CED. The White Paper also clearly identifies the key barriers and challenges to the advancement of clean energy technology that would need to be addressed to accelerate the development and diffusion of the technology. An output from this Roundtable was a short deck that outlines priorities for action.
The Action Plan recommends a series of activities for collaboration and implementation in each priority area. With respect to CCS, seven recommended projects were put forward:
The Action Plan indicated that U.S.-Canada CCS collaboration would be formalized by the end of 2009 through a CCS Implementation Agreement under the Trilateral Energy Science and Technology Agreement (TESTA). A Declaration of Intent18 under TESTA was subsequently signed by NRCan and the U.S. DOE on April 16, 2010. This declaration states that the involved parties will cooperate by exchanging information and personnel, collaborating on research and development initiatives, and co-hosting bilateral/multilateral meetings, workshops and conferences.
Several of the CCS activities address proposed actions needed to advance the commercialization of identified technologies. Under the “Collaboration on Large-Scale Coal-Fired Power CCS Demonstration” activity area, there are outputs that identify knowledge sharing as a key action needed to advance CCS demonstration projects and future commercial deployment (e.g., report such as Building collaborative learning for Canadian CCS demonstration projects: Summary and Recommendations).
Under the “Next Generation Technologies” activity area, NRCan and the U.S. DOE jointly prepared a plan for enhancing links between Canadian and U.S. CCS researchers. Additionally, an abstract on next-generation CO2 capture and storage technologies was developed and shared at the Bilateral National Conference held in Pittsburgh in May 2010. The abstract discusses next-generation CCS technologies and identifies some actions required to advance these technologies, such as improving CO2 capture efficiency.
Lastly, the “CO2 Injection and Storage Testing” activity area seeks to develop and demonstrate technology solutions required for the design, implementation, monitoring and verification of CO2 geological storage projects, which will be used to advance commercialization of technologies. In July 2010, NRCan announced that it had agreed with the U.S. DOE to provide additional funding for expanded work in the Weyburn-Midale Project’s well integrity program. The final phase of the project is expected to be completed in 2011 and will result in the creation of a best-practices manual to guide all aspects of CO2 geological storage projects in depleted oil fields worldwide.
The evaluation found evidence that the CCS Working Group held high-level bilateral meetings and teleconferences in support of working-group activities and deliverables. There is evidence that between May 2009 and April 2010, nine conference calls were held between CCS Working Group co-leads. Meeting agendas and reports show that co-leads discussed such issues as CCS Working Group membership and strategic priorities, the CED Action Plan, and progress on CCS activity areas.
In addition to the co-leads’ teleconferences, there is evidence that between May 2009 and April 2010 representatives from the U.S. DOE and NRCan held multiple teleconferences to discuss the following activity areas:
The evaluation also found evidence documenting in-person meetings between working-group members. In June 2009, Canada and U.S. working-group members, in addition to representatives of the private sector and academia, met in Washington at the CED Roundtable meeting. In May 2010, working-group members and representatives from industry and research institutes met at the Bilateral National Conference in Pittsburgh. Members of the CCS Working Group also participated in two Weyburn-Midale Project Integration and Sponsors Meetings (PRISM) in 2010.
Program staff emphasized that the CED is leading to improved collaboration between Canada and the U.S. on clean energy technology issues. The CED is the only formal federal government-to-government bilateral mechanism for discussing carbon capture and storage issues. Similarly the CCS Working Group offers opportunities for the U.S. and Canada to collaborate on carbon capture and storage by sharing knowledge and research and by co-hosting meetings and conferences. Moreover, interviewees from provincial organizations commented that the CCS Working Group provides an opportunity to share information and lessons learned with the federal government from other regional initiatives that address CCS at the interprovincial or provincial/state levels.
The evaluation found evidence that domestic stakeholders have been engaged through CED activities. As previously mentioned above, the evaluation found that two meetings have been held with Canadian stakeholder representation: the CED Roundtable held in Washington in June 2009, attended by six private-sector representatives, and the Bilateral National Conference held in Pittsburgh in May 2010, attended by thirteen domestic stakeholders (including representatives from provincial governments, industry and research institutes).
In addition, as of April 2010, the CCS Working Group included representatives from three provincial governments (Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan). There also is evidence that two meetings have been held between the Canadian CCS Working Group co-chair and the Working Group’s private-sector advisor.
The CCS Working Group is in the process of drafting a Public Outreach Strategy.19 This strategy is intended to provide a base of information that will be used to inform and educate interested parties on CCS technologies and their perceived benefits.
As previously noted above, interviewees from provincial organizations underlined that the CCS Working Group meetings are valuable for furthering dialogue on clean energy in Canada and that provincial representation on the CCS Working Group helps inform the federal government of other clean energy initiatives and can identify additional opportunities for federal involvement.
Conversely, the private-sector interviewee emphasized that there is a need for clearer, shared understanding as to how and when the Government of Canada will engage industry, including the type of information that industry is required to share and what outputs industry should expect to receive as a result of its participation.
This interviewee also noted that the CCS private-sector advisor did not co-lead the CCS Working Group as per the proposal outlined by the Minister of Environment in his letter to the U.S. Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. The evaluation found that, subsequent to this letter, the Minister's proposal was not accepted by the U.S. because of the difficulties (e.g., U.S. federal legislative constraints around the confidentiality of information and potential conflicts of interest) associated with engaging the private sector on discussions about the government's energy development and administration responsibilities. As a result of this decision, the advisors were no longer in a position to co-lead any of the proposed CED Working Groups, as initially envisioned by the Minister of the Environment. In January 2010 the Minister of the Environment sent a letter to the CCS Advisor thanking him for his participation and highlighting that the CCS Co-Chair would contact him to discuss how best to bring about concrete results on the Working Group's plans.
The evaluation noted that an explicit Terms of Reference document outlining the expectations for the CCS Advisor does not exist. That being said, the evaluation did find evidence that the CCS Working Group Advisor played an active role in planning and coordinating the Roundtable meeting held in Washington in June 2009. More specifically, the Advisor identified and contacted key individuals from the private sector who should attend the Roundtable discussion held in June 2009 and proposed key issues and topics that were discussed at this meeting.
While the Electricity Grid Working Group has not met regularly, there has been progress towards the achievement of outputs.
The evaluation found evidence of four research papers. The first was a White Paper produced by the Electricity Grid Working Group to inform the CED Roundtable that took place in Washington, D.C., at the end of June 2009. The second, entitled Realizing the Potential of Power Storage and completed in the spring of 2010, mapped out existing storage potential and identified market barriers to making more efficient use of storage. The Working Group also held two conferences, each of which produced papers for dissemination among interested parties.
The conference entitled Increasing Trade in Clean Electricity, held in May 2010 in Chicago, led to a summary report outlining the key findings and next steps for the Working Group to focus on. In addition, several presentations were produced on the following: i) Electricity Trade Between the United States and Canada Today, ii) Potential Clean Energy Trade, iii) Challenges and Barriers to Enhancing Trade in Clean Electricity and Ancillary Services, iv) the Future Role of U.S.-Canada Electricity Trade, and v) Next Steps to Facilitate Clean Electricity Trade.
The conference entitled Building the Power Workforce of Tomorrow, held in Toronto in February 2010, focused on addressing training and recruitment issues and led to a report entitled Clean Energy: Clear Opportunity that outlined best-practice policies and initiatives to address labour shortages with respect to new technologies and infrastructure.
Members of the Electricity Grid Working Group were invited to, and in many cases, participated in these events.
The Electricity Grid Working Group was the least active in terms of holding regular conference calls when compared to the other working groups. There is evidence of two co-lead calls that occurred on May 11 and May 27, 2009. Since the June 2009 Roundtable in Washington, no meeting or calls have taken place. Program staff involved in the Electricity Grid Working Group indicated that there has been weekly communication at the working level between NRCan and the U.S. DOE, allowing CED objectives to be carried out.
As noted above, there have been two conferences to date, each of which was attended by approximately 80 participants from Canada and the U.S., representing both government and the private sector.
NRCan and the U.S. DOE are working with the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator and the University of Waterloo to co-host a smart-grid leadership forum in early 2011.
Interviews with staff indicated that the CED has helped strengthen existing connections and create new mechanisms to collaborate with the U.S., although several interviewees noted an overall lack of engagement of working-group members from NRCan. This may be attributed to turnover in leadership (there have been three different Electricity Grid Working Group Co-Chairs since the inception of the CED). As a result, some Canadian working-group members are seeking a more active role for themselves as well as a more active agenda.
The Electricity Grid Working Group's consultations with domestic stakeholders were achieved through the June 2009 Washington Roundtable meeting. These consultations led to the development of the Working Group Action Plan, which has been the basis of activities undertaken by the Working Group. Consultation also occurred through two conferences organized by the Working Group: the Building the Power Workforce of Tomorrow conference in February 2010 and the Increasing Trade in Clean Electricity conference in May 2010. NRCan program staff reported that, because of provincial responsibility in the electricity sector, the Working Group's role has focused on facilitating and promoting discussion on relevant issues between the federal and provincial governments and with key players in the electricity sector. NRCan program staff for the Electricity Grid Working Group noted that these conferences provided appropriate fora where these discussions could take place. An analysis of the participant lists from these conferences, however, indicated that they were attended disproportionately by industry representatives compared to provincial partners.
While the evaluation demonstrated that the provinces and territories were engaged early in CED implementation, when the Action Plan was being developed, interviewees from most groups involved in electricity grid initiatives (e.g., provincial representatives, advisors, program staff from both NRCan and EC) noted the need for more engagement to move CED objectives forward. There is general acknowledgement that it has been difficult to advance specific federal positions because of provincial responsibility in this area and differing views between governments on certain areas. However, there is interest from the provincial and territorial governments to engage in more meaningful federal-provincial dialogue on electricity in relation to the CED. Electricity grid initiatives may have progressed further with more regular working-group meetings to improve dialogue and facilitate greater understanding with provincial partners of what the next steps might be.
The R&D Working Group has been active in all three main output areas, as detailed below.
The R&D Working Group has been active in terms of producing papers, developing negotiating positions, and providing advice to senior officials. The evaluation found evidence of two research papers. The first was an R&D White Paper that was developed to inform the CED Roundtable discussion that took place in Washington, D.C., at the end of June 2009. The second report was a scientometric study that was completed in order to assess the status of clean energy R&D collaboration in Canada and U.S.
In terms of negotiating positions and advice, the R&D Working Group made notable progress towards its objective of drafting the Clean Energy RD&D Roadmap. This roadmap would outline options for key short- and medium-term investment and policy decisions that would boost North America’s burgeoning clean energy economy and cut emissions from the energy system. The R&D Working Group produced discussion documents exploring how to integrate Canada into the U.S. DOE’s new energy system modelling initiative as the foundational component of the Clean Energy RD&D Roadmap. When complete, this energy modelling initiative will integrate information from all energy sectors in order to model the effects of various policy options on emissions from the U.S. energy system in 2050, in order to inform policy making and R&D program development. Through the CED, Canada now has an opportunity to strengthen its own decision making by drawing on information from its largest energy-trading partner and the world’s largest funder of clean energy technologies. Developing an integrated approach to clean energy could also help set the stage for a continental cap-and-trade regime and provide a basis for an even more meaningful energy dialogue with the U.S. While progress has been delayed relative to the initial schedule, interviewees were unanimous in the view that the eventual outcome is likely to exceed the original expectations (for some, significantly so).
Other avenues which can be used for negotiating positions and providing advice include the following collaborative projects and initiatives:
While not originally an explicit commitment in the Action Plan, the R&D Working Group also decided to provide support through an existing collaboration agreement between Canada’s National Research Council (NRC) and Konarka Technologies to advance Canada-U.S. collaboration on solar technologies. This project aims to develop new clean energy sources, called organic photovoltaics (OPV), to reduce Canada and the United States’ dependency on fossil fuels. Since organic photovoltaics use relatively clean manufacturing processes (compared to silicon-based photovoltaics) and can be produced by low-cost printing methods, this technology holds the promise of providing a truly clean source of energy that could be one solution for reducing emissions. The results achieved under this project will speed up the commercialization of OPV technology for clean energy generation.
The R&D Working Group was active in terms of holding regular meetings and conference calls at the bilateral and international levels; a total of nine teleconferences between Canadian and U.S. members of the R&D Working Group occurred.
As part of advancing a Clean Energy RD&D Collaboration Framework, the R&D Working Group held a total of four workshops, which touched upon the activity areas outlined in the Action Plan. The workshops were as follows:
In addition, the CED was mentioned in the most recent exchange of letters with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding future work and collaborative efforts on ENERGY STAR. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary recognition program that helps individuals and businesses to save money and protect the environment through energy-efficient products and practices. Through the CED, Canada will support the U.S. EPA on the use and promotion of the ENERGY STAR name and symbol in Canada, on the promotion of technical specifications and high efficiency levels for a selected number of products, and on the participation in the development and/or review and update of technical specifications for products.
Domestically, there were a total of 18 teleconferences and/or meetings between Canadian members of the R&D Working Group. An average of approximately 12 participants took part in each. Canadian and U.S. working-group members also met twice, once in Gatineau and once in Washington, D.C. In addition, the R&D Working Group and its private-sector advisor hosted a Canadian roundtable in Toronto on June 10, 2009, which saw a total of 33 participants. The R&D Working Group also met with key stakeholders later that month at the Washington CED Roundtable.
Under the CED funding envelope, DFAIT received funding for a Special Advisor position and Executive Assistant position at the Canadian Embassy in Washington to enhance outreach efforts on clean energy and climate change issues. DFAIT asked that the program-related operational funds for these activities remain with Environment Canada and that necessary amounts be transferred by Interdepartmental Settlement, using a series of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) to identify the terms of the transfer. Most recently, Environment Canada and DFAIT approved an MOU in June 2010 for the Special Advisor to support the Government of Canada in its efforts to develop, promote and deliver on the objectives of the Canada-U.S. Clean Energy Dialogue. Effective from April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, this MOU highlights that by working within the Canadian Embassy in Washington D.C., the Special Advisor will
The MOU highlights that the Special Advisor is expected to liaise closely with the CED Secretariat in order to conduct targeted advocacy efforts to advance Canada’s objectives under the CED and support ministerial and senior-level engagement with U.S. officials. The Canadian Embassy is expected to report on its activities pertaining to the MOU Statement of Work on an as-required basis. Performance reporting to the CED Secretariat is scheduled to occur twice a year at a minimum.
The evaluation confirmed that the Special Advisor is fulfilling his responsibilities in terms of developing advocacy messages and facilitating meetings between the ministers of EC and NRCan and U.S. stakeholders. In February 201020 the Special Advisor organized a visit by Canada’s Environment Minister with the EPA Administrator and the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change. At this meeting, the Minister sought agreement to coordinate with the U.S. the timing of announcements on regulations to limit GHG emissions in the transportation sector.
Similarly, in April 2010, the Special Advisor facilitated the participation of the Minister of NRCan in the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas ministerial meeting. This engagement led to the signing of a Declaration of Intent by the Minister and the U.S. Energy Secretary to cooperate on energy S&T (particularly biofuels and carbon capture and storage research).
In addition to these meetings, the evaluation found evidence for 22 meetings held with individuals from the following organizations:
Furthermore, DFAIT’s program performance report highlights the successful completion of several initiatives, including21
Despite demonstrating an ability to strengthen Canada’s presence in the U.S. clean energy community, program staff from two out of three working groups commented that the Special Advisor does not provide a specific function or service to implement the recommendations identified in the CED Action Plan. The evaluation notes that the Special Advisor’s Work Plan for April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2011, indicates that he will facilitate access to U.S. officials on behalf of the ADMs responsible for each CED working group. The level of progress made on this initiative, however, is not clear.
As described in the logic model (Figure 2 in Section 2.4), the expected immediate outcome for the CED is “Implementation of recommendations in the CED Action Plan.” The CED Action Plan identifies 20 recommended areas of work aimed at advancing bilateral collaboration under the three CED focus areas: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Electricity Grid; and Clean Energy Research and Development (R&D). In order to assess progress towards achieving this expected immediate outcome, the degree to which these recommended projects have been implemented is described by CED focus area in Table 3. Detailed discussion on the outputs for each of these projects22 has been included following this table to provide some context around the status of each recommended initiative. DFAIT’s outreach component was also assessed for its contribution to progress towards achieving this outcome.
The degree of implementation for these projects was assessed based on project information sheets submitted to the CED Secretariat by each working group. These project information sheets described project activities from each of the recommended initiatives described in the CED Action Plan and served as proxies for formal workplans at the project level. However, while project information sheets were provided for all project areas recommended in the CED Action Plan, these information sheets were not all complete and/or did not provide sufficient information to constitute comprehensive work planning for each Action Plan recommendation. In some cases, milestones, timelines and/or explicit budgets were not provided. As well, the original versions of these information sheets were not always available, making it difficult to determine the accuracy of the information provided.23 Therefore, it was generally not possible to rate progress strictly against the “workplans” for each project, and supporting documents provided by the working groups were also used to assess progress.
As described in Table 3, there were 20 specific recommended project areas noted in the CED Action Plan, of which 6 have been completed and 14 are underway.
According to program staff, all CED Action Plan projects (with the exception of the Clean Energy R&D Working Group’s “Clean Energy RD&D Collaboration Framework” project) include activities that are likely to continue after the current CED funding ends. As a result, it was difficult to determine whether or not projects were fully completed if measured solely against current Action Plan recommendations. The status of projects, therefore, was determined based on project information sheets and was validated by program staff.
| CED Projects a | Status | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Completed b | Progress Made c | No Progress Evident d | |
As identified in the CED Action Plan. “Completed” identifies those projects for which all project activities described in the project information sheets have been finished. “Progress Made” identifies those projects for which project activities described in the project information sheets are underway but not yet complete. “No Progress Evident” identifies those projects that were not initiated according to the project information sheets. Work on the trilateral atlas project will continue until mid-2012. In the absence of further funding from the CED or other sources, only staff from NRCan’s Office of Energy Research and Development (OERD) will continue to work on this final phase of the project. The research portion of the Weyburn-Midale project will be completed by March 2011, but other activities will continue until the end of 2011. The Best Practices Manual is expected to be completed by September 2011. Program staff report that project deliverables have been completed according to what was committed to in the Action Plan. The scheduling of the Forum was changed from spring 2010 to early 2011 according to project information sheets, but program staff indicated that the Forum was only notionally planned for spring 2010. The evaluation found that planning is well underway for this project and there is no evidence to suggest that the change in scheduling will affect the intended outcomes. Work on the Clean Energy RD&D Roadmap has been initiated; however, the planned trajectory of the project has shifted because of Canadian participation in the DOE energy system modelling initiative. Although work on the Roadmap is delayed according to timelines set at the beginning of the CED, the outcomes are expected to exceed original expectations. |
|||
| CCS: | |||
| North American Carbon Atlas | √ e | ||
| Next-Generation Technologies | √ | ||
| CO2 Injection and Storage Testing | √ f | ||
| Collaboration on Large-Scale Coal-Fired Power CCS Demonstration | √ | ||
| Strategies for Public Engagement | √ | ||
| Working towards Compatible Rules, Standards, and Practices | √ | ||
| Bilateral National Conference | √ | ||
| Electricity Grid: | |||
| Increasing Opportunities for Trade in Clean Electricity | √ | ||
| Advancing Smart Grid and Clean Power Technologies | √ g | ||
| Realizing the Potential of Power Storage | √ g | ||
| Building the Power Work Force of Tomorrow | √ g | ||
| Keeping the Dialogue Going — the Canada-U.S. Electricity / Smart Grid Forum | √ h | ||
| Clean Energy R&D: | |||
| Clean Energy RD&D Collaboration Framework | √ | ||
| Clean Energy RD&D Roadmap | √ i | ||
| Immediate Collaborative Projects and Initiatives under Clean Energy R&D: | |||
| ENERGY STAR criteria and programs | √ | ||
| Declaration of Intent on Energy Science & Technology (bioenergy and carbon capture and storage) | √ | ||
| Assessment of biomass pyrolysis (formerly Harvest value from Mountain-Pine-Beetle-killed Trees) | √ | ||
| Algal biomass | √ | ||
| Lightweight materials development (for vehicles) | √ | ||
| Demand Response Potential of Buildings | √ | ||
Of note, there is widespread opinion that, through these recommended projects, the CED is providing Canada with enhanced access to U.S. officials and is building networks that will be of lasting value. The following sections provide some context around these CED projects.
The CCS Working Group is making progress on all seven activities of its project areas, but implementation varies. Below is a brief summary of the status of each activity:
Program staff and non-federal CCS Working Group members underlined that collaboration between Canada and the U.S. has led to increased information sharing about CCS technologies and lessons learned. Documentation confirms that all of the CED activities as described in the Action Plan are either completed or will be completed as a result of the contributions provided through the CED.
The Electricity Grid Working Group is making progress on all five project areas outlined in the Action Plan. The following is a summary of progress to date:
The R&D Working Group is progressing on all eight project areas outlined in the Action Plan as follows:
The R&D Working Group also provided support for the development of a new process to greatly increase the efficiency of low-cost organic (carbon-based) solar photovoltaic devices. This R&D work is part of collaboration between the NRC and Konarka Technologies, Inc. and to date has led to world-leading power conversion efficiency for this technology.
Although the MOU between Environment Canada and DFAIT provides an explicit statement of work to guide the Special Advisor’s activities, an authoritative source that outlines the expected outcomes associated with these activities does not exist. However, there is evidence to demonstrate that the Special Advisor has played an important role in facilitating meetings with U.S. officials on behalf of the ministers and relevant ADMs from Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. Fulfilling this role is necessary for maintaining ongoing opportunities to collaborate with U.S. executives and other senior officials such as the Secretary for the Department of Energy and the U.S. Chief Negotiator on Climate Change.
Despite evidence to confirm that the Special Advisor is assisting some Canadian government officials fulfill their CED responsibilities and obligations, the evaluation notes that neither the CED Working Groups nor the Special Advisor has identified opportunities to advance the specific recommendations presented in the Action Plan through enhanced advocacy messaging in Washington. In recognition of this issue, the evaluation noted that in April 2010, deputy ministers expressed a desire to see a broader engagement of the Special Advisor in Washington to aggressively move the CED forward and increase its visibility. The ADM of the International Affairs Branch at EC was requested to lead the development of strategic, proactive workplans and performance agreements for the Co-Chairs and the Special Advisor. Similarly, the Special Advisor was asked to prepare a strategic plan that will engage the U.S. and remove any existing barriers to key CED initiatives.
The evaluation also found evidence to confirm that the Special Advisor liaises regularly with the CED Secretariat and the ADM of the International Affairs Branch at EC. Evidence also demonstrates that updates on progress towards achieving CED objectives were provided as well as general undertakings between Canada and the U.S. on other clean technology and climate change developments outside of the CED.
Moreover, program staff noted that it was initially envisioned that the CED would play a more active role in facilitating discussions about bigger policy issues, for example, on an integrated cap-and-trade system for Canada and the U.S. Program staff highlighted that there would be greater need for an ongoing and consistent Canadian presence in Washington to ensure that Canada’s perspective would be included in discussions about harmonized climate-control policy and, more specifically, if there were ongoing discussions about a cap-and-trade system for Canada and the U.S. However, the focus of the CED necessarily shifted to a focus on clean energy technology cooperation, and global progress towards integrated cap-and-trade systems has slowed in the last two years. As a result, the overall need for services and activities to be completed by the Special Advisor in Washington is believed to have lessened and needs to be reconsidered.
There are two expected intermediate outcomes for the CED (refer to Figure 2 for the CED logic model): “Canada's profile as provider of climate-friendly technologies is enhanced”; and “Increased collaboration between Canada and the U.S. on clean energy research, development and demonstration, and broader engagement with the U.S. on developing compatible policy/regulatory frameworks consistent with Canada’s interests.” Since all the Working Group and DFAIT outreach outputs and immediate outcomes contribute to the achievement of both these intermediate outcomes, overall findings on progress are provided at the CED level and have not been categorized by CED focus area or outreach component. Instead, the overall findings are noted below under each of the two intermediate outcomes.
Canada’s profile as provider of climate-friendly technologies is enhanced
Increased collaboration between Canada and the U.S. on clean energy research, development and demonstration, and broader engagement with the U.S. on developing compatible policy/regulatory frameworks consistent with Canada’s interests
The evaluation noted two unintended outcomes. A significant positive unintended outcome was the discovery of an opportunity for Canada to participate in the U.S. DOE’s new energy system modeling initiative. As noted previously, Canadian participation in this initiative could have important future implications for broad policy and technology development and could also have implications for Canada’s ability to influence the future direction of the CED.
In addition, the CED has provided a well-regarded model for clean energy dialogues (both bilateral and multilateral). The model has been promoted by both the U.S. and Canada and adopted by both countries in relation to discussions involving other governments, including that of Mexico.
The evaluation noted two key external factors that have affected the delivery of CED activities:
(1) Challenges in the U.S. regarding the use of private-sector advisors in government-to-government dialogues have led to a reduction in the role of the private sector.
(2) Provincial governments maintain responsibility over energy production and administration of energy resources, limiting the scope of tangible federal contributions in these areas.
1. Challenges in the U.S. around the participation of private-sector advisors in government-to-government dialogues
The initial Canadian proposal for the CED identified a clear role for CED Advisors. This role included providing strategic advice to support the long-term objectives under the CED; bringing business and policy expertise to the Working Groups as required; contributing to the development of the CED Action Plan; and attending 3–4 meetings per year with relevant Working Group members. To underline this participation, the Minister of the Environment proposed in a letter to the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change that the three joint Working Groups under the CED be co-led by a private-sector advisor in an effort to bring important industry experience and knowledge into the dialogue. However, the U.S. could not support this proposal, due to U.S. federal legislative restrictions regarding the involvement of external participants in government advisory bodies.
The evaluation found that, although the CED intended to have immediate and long-term engagement by the advisors, it has instead evolved into a government-to-government dialogue where the advisors are providing occasional input into CED Working Group activities as opposed to co-leading them. Program staff and an interviewee from the U.S. highlighted that processes and procedures for engaging the private sector on government-led activities and policy-making processes are significantly different in the U.S. compared to Canada, with the former facing more complicated approval processes for formally engaging the private sector as well as limitations on what the private sector can view and comment on before approval by government officials. The differences between Canada and the U.S. in the rules that allow for private-sector engagement have limited the role the private sector can play at the CED working-group level.
Recognizing that there would be a shift in expectations for the advisors, the Canadian Minister of the Environment sent a letter in January 2010 to each advisor thanking them for their participation to date and indicating that the relevant Co-Chair would be contacting them in the near future to confirm the next steps and identify additional opportunities for their engagement.
2. Provincial responsibility over CED focus areas
Although there is a clear role for the federal government to lead the CED, the evaluation found that the potential for tangible federal contributions varied significantly from one initiative to the other. NRCan program staff noted that the federal government is not in a position to contribute greatly to technical and operational issues as opposed to international or inter-provincial policy development or regulatory processes.26 Although this limits the scope of initiatives possible under the CED’s Electricity Grid and Carbon Capture and Storage focus areas,27 it was widely recognized by CED program staff and the stakeholders that were interviewed that the Government of Canada still has an important role to play in terms of organizing Canadian government officials to engage with U.S. officials and other stakeholders to discuss clean technology issues, conduct research and share information.
10. Are there more economic and efficient means of achieving objectives under the CED?
Achieved
11. How could the efficiency of the CED be improved?
Progress made; attention needed
12. To what extent has the CED been implemented, or is on track to being implemented, as planned and on time?
Achieved
13. Is the management and accountability structure for the CED in place and functioning adequately to achieve expected results?
Achieved
14. Are appropriate performance data being collected, captured and safeguarded? If so, is this information used to inform senior management and decision makers?
Achieved
The evaluation found that the CED provides good value for money, with some suggestions for improved efficiency.
The CED has been implemented as planned with all projects being implemented according to the Action Plan. In the first fiscal year, 78.5% of the allocated funds were spent ($743,000 was lapsed), with some reallocation of resources from the Secretariat and private-sector Advisor funds to Working Groups.
The overall management structure, with Secretariat support, is operating efficiently, and performance data have been collected and reported on for the CED, including two Reports to Leaders.
Considering the efficiency of implementation, management structure and performance reporting, along with the view that the CED provides good value for money, the overall rating has been assessed as “achieved.”
Program staff, senior management, partners and stakeholders agree that the CED provides good value for money. All interviewees believe that the CED has the potential to deliver extremely valuable long-term outcomes and that none of the potential alternative approaches would be as efficient and/or economical.
Three alternatives were identified and discussed in the interviews:
Although there is a broad consensus that there are no alternative means to delivering the CED, several opportunities for improving the efficiency of the existing approach were identified.
These opportunities include the following:
As noted in Section 4.3.2, implementation of the 20 recommended initiatives is largely on track as intended. There is evidence that departments have worked quickly within the required timeframe to undertake consultations, develop the Action Plan, establish the Working Groups and Secretariat, implement project areas, and report on progress to leaders. It was noted that having strong commitment and engagement by leaders in the CED facilitated efficient delivery.
Key barriers to implementation that were encountered (e.g., change in the role of the private sector, de-emphasis on policy framework alignment) have been accommodated and the CED has adapted to make progress where possible. It is important to note, however, that the precise and ongoing roles of some key CED participants (e.g., private-sector advisors, DFAIT Special Advisor) were not clearly defined when the CED was announced in February 2009 and have evolved since the approval of early program documents that did identify roles and responsibilities. As a result, the deputy ministers requested (December 2009, April 2010) that clear workplans and strategies be developed to guide the Co-Chairs and facilitate broader engagement of the private-sector advisors and the Special Advisor.
Table 4 shows that in the first year (2009–2010), 78.5% of the budget was spent, with a total lapse of $743,000. NRCan spent 73% of its allocated budget, DFAIT spent 79% of its allocated budget and EC spent 80% of its allocated budget. Under-spending was due to staff starting later than expected (e.g., the DFAIT Special Advisor started in September), more limited advocacy/outreach spending than had been planned, and a less active role for external advisor support (as they were not as involved in CED activities as was envisioned when the CED funding was approved). As well, some activities did not move forward as planned (e.g., travel restrictions resulted in some under-spending for the NRCan-led workshop).
It should be noted that adjustments to the budget were made for 2009–2010, as follows:
Table 4 is located on a separate page.
The CED management structure is well documented and, according to program managers and most working-group members, is functioning well. With a few exceptions (see below), managers, staff and working-group members are well aware of and understand the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the various departments. Although there is general acknowledgment that the mandate of the CED could fit within NRCan, staff members from both EC and NRCan as well as working-group members, advisors and other stakeholders, agree that the CED is functioning effectively within EC.
Allocated funds for the CED Secretariat were approximately 19% of the total CED budget, with an additional 17% to support the private-sector advisors. The evaluation heard conflicting views on the right balance of resources between the Secretariat and the Working Groups, but found no objective evidence to indicate that either was over- or under-staffed. Within the management and accountability structure, the Secretariat is appreciated for supporting ministerial and senior-level engagement but there is less acknowledgement of its oversight and facilitation role for the Working Groups. As noted earlier, there is a need to discuss expectations regarding the role of the Secretariat and what it can do to support working-group planning and reporting processes and the administrative and reporting responsibilities for working-group secretaries. Based on the result of these discussions, there may be opportunities to shift more resources to the Working Groups or to NRCan in order to fulfill certain planning, implementation and reporting requirements. In particular, the resources that were initially intended to support the private-sector advisors, and that were already redirected to the Working Groups, could be shifted permanently.
Similarly, in support of the deputy ministers’ decision in April 2010 to request broader engagement of the Special Advisor in Washington, the evaluators noted that there is a need for further discussion about DFAIT’s outreach function and its expected outcomes. This could include exploring the potential role of the Special Advisor in assisting working groups directly and engaging them in broader dialogue.
The performance measurement system for the CED as a whole is well documented, and the evidence indicates that the data are being collected and disseminated appropriately. It is recognized by staff that the system is needed to brief senior management, ministers, and leaders on progress, and, according to senior managers, it is accomplishing this objective.
As noted earlier, with respect to individual projects, project information sheets were used as proxies to workplans to provide the basis for measuring progress. Although the templates provided include the right headings, the content provided by the Working Groups is inconsistent and does not include all of the appropriate elements (e.g., responsibilities, milestones, timelines).
Although some program staff commented that the level of effort for measurement and reporting is excessive, these requirements are essential for briefing senior officials such as ministers and leaders. Furthermore, there were no practical suggestions to reduce the burden while preserving the essential elements of a performance measurement strategy.
4 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fourth Assessment Report. http://www.ipcc.ch/
5 A “wedge” is a triangular space between the GHG trajectory associated with a non-interventionist scenario to 2050 and the trajectory if Canada reduced GHG emissions to 60% below current levels, which defines the size of the GHG reduction challenge. Each wedge represents a different type of GHG reduction technology or strategy.
6 National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. Advice on a Long-term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change. http://www.nrtee-trnee.com/eng/publications/wedge-advisory-note/ecc-wedge-advisory-note.pdf
7 International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2009. http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/climate_change_excerpt.pdf
8 http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&XML=D5E39C3A-C958-4876-8222-E3541F7B9C8D
9 Available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/E-10/FramesView.html
10 Available at: http://ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=BD3CE17D-1
11 Available at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rpp/2010-2011/inst/doe/doe01-eng.asp
12 2006 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons, p. 38.
13 Territories also have responsibilities over electricity but are not formally involved in the CED.
14 Collaboration may include, but is not limited to, energy conservation and energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies, alternative transportation fuels, fossil energy, and environmental protection and health research related to energy technologies.
15 While the CED is not a significant project-funding mechanism, it does, however, provide a means to identify collaboration and disseminate results.
16 Evaluation issues, questions and indicators are detailed in the Evaluation Matrix provided in Annex 1.
17 The indicators in the Evaluation Matrix in Annex 1 include performance indicators from the CED Performance Measurement Plan (PMP) that refer specifically to meeting expectations outlined in the CED Action Plan. The findings on the achievement of outputs for these indicators are provided in Annex 3, in order to facilitate comparison against the stated indicators in the PMP. These findings have not been included in the main text of the report because they largely duplicate the findings on the achievement of outputs by the CED Working Groups and DFAIT.
18 A Declaration of Intent involves a less onerous approval process compared to a formal agreement.
19 This strategy was in development during the data collection phase of this evaluation and documentation was not provided to the evaluation team.
20 Note that this activity occurred prior to the development of the MOU between DFAIT and EC.
21 Evidence (e.g., meeting minutes, summary reports, briefing decks) to confirm the successful completion of these activities was not submitted. Furthermore, there is no record of the Special Advisor submitting detailed reports on activities pertaining to the statement of work.
22 Some of these project outputs overlap with some of the findings for progress towards achievement of expected outputs for the CED due to the nature of the CED’s expected immediate outcome in the logic model. While these project outputs demonstrate implementation of their respective initiatives, thereby demonstrating progress towards achievement of the expected immediate outcome, they also demonstrate the achievement of the CED’s three expected outputs, as described in the logic model (Figure 2).
23 Data were validated with program staff as appropriate.
24 Among all of the projects that received funding, the Development of a Carbon Atlas Website is the only one that is not related to next-generation technologies.
25 The NRC is committing $5 million in funding to support algal biomass research at the Ketch Harbour Marine Research Station. (Press release references cooperative work between the NRC and DOE under the CED: http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/NRC-Drives-Strategy-to-Commercialize-Mass-Production-of-Biofuel-From-Algae-1271408.htm.)
26 Section 92A(1) of the Constitution Act provides, “In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;
(b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production there from; and
(c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.”
27 The R&D Working Group is less affected.