HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-30Clarbgton
Electronic Council Communications Information
Package
Date: May 30, 2025
Time: 12:00 PM
Location: ECCIP is an information package and not a meeting.
Description: An ECCIP is an electronic package containing correspondence received by Staff for
Council's information. This is not a meeting of Council or Committee.
Alternate Format: If this information is required in an alternate format, please contact the
Accessibility Coordinator, at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Members of Council: In accordance with the Procedural By-law, please advise the Municipal Clerk
at clerks@clarington.net, if you would like to include one of these items on the next regular agenda
of the appropriate Standing Committee, along with the proposed resolution for disposition of the
matter. Items will be added to the agenda if the Municipal Clerk is advised by Wednesday at noon
the week prior to the appropriate meeting, otherwise the item will be included on the agenda for the
next regularly scheduled meeting of the applicable Committee.
Members of the Public: can speak to an ECCIP item as a delegation. If you would like to be a
delegation at a meeting, please visit the Clarington website.
May 30, 2025
Electronic Council Communications Information Package (ECCIP)
Pages
1. Region of Durham Correspondence
1.1 Sole Source Procurement for the preparation of the GO Lakeshore East 3
Extension Transit Station Charge Background Study - May 28, 2025
1.2 Energy from Waste —Waste Management Advisory Committee 2025 — 15
2026 Workplan (2025-WR-3)- May 28, 2025
1.3 MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement — Government -to -Government 24
Collaboration between the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation
(MSIFN) and the Region of Durham (2025-COW-18) - May 28, 2025
1.4 Courtice Transit -Oriented Community District Energy System — 33
Recommended Business Model and Governance Framework to Enable
Implementation (2025-COW-19) - May 28, 2025
1.5 Region of Durham Response to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing the 105
Economy Act, 2025 (2025-CG-7) - May 29, 2025
2. Durham Municipalities Correspondence
3. Other Municipalities Correspondence
4. Provincial / Federal Government and their Agency Correspondence
4.1 Jennifer Keyes, Director, Development and Hazard Policy Branch, 119
Ministry of Natural Resources - Reintroduction of the Geologic Carbon
Storage Act - May 27, 2025
5. Miscellaneous Correspondence
Page 2
May 28, 2025
June Gallagher
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON, L1 C 3A6
The Regional
This Letter Has Been Forwarded
To The Eight Area Clerks
Sent Via Email
Municipality of
Dear J. Gallagher:
Durham
Corporate Services
RE: Sole Source Procurement for the preparation of the GO
Department —
Lakeshore East Extension Transit Station Charge
Legislative Services
Division
Background Study (2025-COW-20), Our File: T05
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on May 28,
Level 1
2025, adopted the following recommendations of the Committee of
PO Box 623
the Whole:
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
"A) That a sole source contract for the preparation of the Transit
905-668-7711
Station Charge Background Study be awarded to a consultant
1-800-372-1102
team led by N. Barry Lyon Consultants (NBLC), including
durham.ca
Watson & Associates Economists Limited, with an upset limit
Alexander Harras
of $175,000, to be funded from the anticipated Transit Station
M.P.A.
Charge (TSC), with interim financing to be sourced at the
Director of
discretion of the Commissioner of Finance;
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
B) That authorization be provided to proceed with the Transit
Station Charge Background Study as soon as possible as per
the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023;
C) That the Region advise the Province that it will contribute all
the funds it collects from the Transit Station Charge over 30
years following approval of the TSC by-law after deducing
financing and any other related costs, toward the cost of the
four new GO Train Stations;
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at
clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page 3
D) That the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to execute the necessary
agreements and contracts to implement the above -noted actions; and
E) That a copy of Report #2025-COW-20 of the Commissioners of Finance and
Community Growth and Economic Development be forwarded to the area
municipalities for their information."
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-COW-20 for your information.
Alexander Harras, M.P.A.
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/tf
c: N. Taylor, Commissioner of Finance
L. Lovery, Director, Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development
Page 4
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Commissioner of Finance and Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development
Report: #2025-COW-20
Date: May 14, 2025
Subject:
Sole Source Procurement for the preparation of the GO Lakeshore East Extension
Transit Station Charae Backaround Studv
Recommendation:
That the Committee of the Whole recommends to Regional Council:
A) That a sole source contract for the preparation of the Transit Station Charge
Background Study be awarded to a consultant team led by N. Barry Lyon
Consultants (NBLC), including Watson & Associates Economists Limited, with an
upset limit of $175,000, to be funded from the anticipated Transit Station Charge
(TSC), with interim financing to be sourced at the discretion of the Commissioner of
Finance;
B) That authorization be provided to proceed with the Transit Station Charge
Background Study as soon as possible as per the GO Transit Station Funding Act,
2023;
C) That the Region advise the Province that it will contribute all the funds it collects
from the Transit Station Charge over 30 years following approval of the TSC by-law
after deducing financing and any other related costs, toward the cost of the four new
GO Train Stations;
D) That the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to execute the necessary
agreements and contracts to implement the above -noted actions; and
Page 5
Report #2025-COW-20
Page 2of7
E) That a copy of Report #2025-COW-20 be forwarded to the area municipalities for
their information.
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Council authorization to award a sole source
contract to N. Barry Lyon Consulting (NBLC) and Watson & Associates to undertake
the TSC Background Study under the Transit Station Funding Act (the Act).
1.2 This report complements the resolution passed unanimously at the Regional Council
meeting held on March 26, 2025, requesting the province to expedite the release of
the regulations to the Act.
2. Background
2.1 The GO Lakeshore East Extension to Bowmanville has been a long-standing priority
for Durham Region, the City of Oshawa, the Municipality of Clarington, and the
province. It proposes a 20-kilometre extension of rail service from its current
terminus in Oshawa, along the CP Rail line, with four new GO Train stations, two in
the City of Oshawa and two the Municipality of Clarington.
2.2 In 2018, the Province announced that while it would continue to pay for the cost of
extending rail infrastructure, but that it would no longer pay for the design and
construction of new GO stations. As there is no scenario in Durham Region whereby
a single developer will come forward to pay for/build these new GO Train stations,
the Region must take the initiative to ensure four new stations are operational on the
opening day of service.
2.3 On December 4, 2023, the Transit Station Funding Act (Bill 131) received Royal
Assent, which enables municipalities to support the delivery of new GO Stations by
paying for the costs of station design and construction upfront, and collecting a
transit station charge levied on new development surrounding the proposed GO
Stations. To implement a TSC, the Act requires the completion of a "Background
Study", and a by-law to establish the amount of the charge, which must also be
approved by the Minister of Infrastructure.
2.4 The requirements for the prescribed Background Study will be detailed in the
impending regulations to the Act. The Province has not indicated an anticipated date
of release at this time. While awaiting the release of the regulations for the Act, N.
Report #2025-COW-20
Page 3of7
Barry Lyons Consulting (NBLC) was engaged in April 2024 to conduct a preliminary
Economic Study to identify land value capture potential using current and future
market projections, and assess the financial feasibility of a TSC as a funding tool for
the proposed stations. Watson & Associates was retained as a subconsultant to
NBLC to undertake financial testing using growth forecasts and identify projected
transit station charge revenues.
3. Previous Reports and Decisions
3.1 On March 26, 2025, Regional Council unanimously endorsed a motion requesting
the Province to expedite the release of the regulations to enable the Region to
proceed with a TSC by-law (Attachment 1).
3.2 On September 25, 2024, Regional Council received a confidential briefing on the
Durham Station Implementation Strategy and the interim findings of the GO
Lakeshore East Transit Station Charge Economic Study.
3.3 In April 2024, Committee of the Whole and Council considered
Report #2024-COW-14 which recommended the Region's response to the Ontario
Regulatory Registry posting related to the "Proposal to create regulation to support
implementation of the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023".
3.4 In April 2024, Committee of the Whole and Council considered
Report #2024-COW-13 which recommended the sole source procurement for the
Economic Study to undertake the analysis necessary to prepare the Region for the
future prescribed Bill 131 Background Study.
4. Importance of Being in a State of Readiness
4.1 Regional staff continue to advance efforts towards implementing a TSC under the
Act, including assessing the financial feasibility of a TSC as a funding tool for four
new stations through a preliminary TSC Economic Study. However, the Province
has yet to release the necessary regulations under the Act that allow the Region to
proceed with the Background Study, public consultation process, and other
requirements necessary to adopt a TSC by-law.
4.2 During this interim period, there have been several residential and mixed -use
development applications brought forward to the City of Oshawa and the
Municipality of Clarington proposing significant new units adjacent to the planned
GO Station sites. To ensure the viability and effectiveness of the Region's station
funding program, it is essential that commitments from the developers of these
Page 7
Report #2025-COW-20
Page 4 of 7
projects are obtained in the absence of a TSC by-law. It is critical that the province
expedite the release of the regulations under the Act, and that the Region remain in
a state of readiness to proceed with next steps upon their release.
4.3 While the regulations are necessary to complete the Background Study, staff, in
consultation with NBLC and Watson & Associates, have identified early portions of
the work, including the economic components and analyses, that can be completed
during the interim period, considering the active development applications.
Proceeding with these early components will ensure that the Region is prepared to
advance other requirements of the Background Study upon the release of the
regulations, as well as the public consultation process and the TSC by-law.
5. Financial Implications
5.1 The Region's Purchasing By-law #16-2020, Sec. 7.2 Limited Tendering (sole/single
source purchases) permits the acquisition of goods and services through limited
tendering under specific circumstances outlined in Appendix C of the By-law.
Section 1.1 of Appendix "C" permits sole source purchases where the goods or
services can be supplied only by a particular supplier, to ensure compatibility with
existing goods, or to maintain specialized goods that must be maintained by the
manufacturer of those goods or its representative.
5.2 NBLC was initially engaged in 2019 to review and recommend a rail alignment that
would generate the best outcomes from a development perspective and in 2021 to
assist the Region in creating a modified, market -driven Station Implementation
Strategy. NBLC has continued to work with the Region, providing the foundational
research and analysis for the strategy that was used as the basis for the Economic
Study to examine the efficacy of a TSC for the GO Lakeshore East Extension.
Through their research and analysis not just within Durham Region but across other
municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, NBLC and Watson &
Associates have gained extensive knowledge, relationships, and strategic insights
to enable this work to proceed and would be difficult to replace through an
alternative source. Continuing the project with the same consultants will give the
project the best chance for positive outcomes as well as meeting project timelines.
5.3 Staff recommend that a sole -source contract be awarded to NBLC including Watson
& Associates, with an upset limit of $175,000 to undertake the Background Study, in
order to ensure the Region's preparedness to advance the TSC program and
minimize risks to the TSC program and development activity timelines.
Report #2025-COW-20 Page 5 of 7
5.4 Potentially, the Region will be required to undertake long term debt to cover the
upfront contribution to the costs of the new GO Train stations, which will trigger
associated financing costs. Debt is likely required due to the unpredictable timing of
revenues from the TSC over the 30-year period, and the contribution amount from
the Region will be the net revenue after accounting for financing and other
administrative costs associated with the debt.
5.5 It is recommended that the Commissioner of Finance be authorized to use interim
financing to cover the $175,000 necessary for the TSC Background Study. As the
project proceeds, the interim financing could be restructured to become part of the
long-term debt to upfront the cost of the four new GO stations with recovery through
the new TSC. However, in the unlikely event the project does not advance, the
Region would be unable to recover the interim financing.
6. Relationship to Strategic Plan
6.1 The GO Lakeshore East Extension to Bowmanville will improve mobility and travel
options, supports transit -oriented development and in particular, housing, and aligns
with/addresses the following Strategic Direction(s) and Pathway(s) in the Region's
2025-2035 Strategic Plan-
a) Connected and Vibrant Communities
• C1. Align Regional infrastructure and asset management with projected
growth, climate impacts, and community needs.
• C2. Enable a full range of housing options, including housing that is
affordable and close to transit.
• C3. Improve public transit system connectivity, reliability, and
competitiveness.
• C4. Improve road safety, including the expansion and connection of
active transportation networks to enhance the range of safe mobility
options.
• C6. Continue to revitalize and transform downtowns into hubs of
economic, social, and cultural connection.
• C7. Create accessible, lively, and culturally welcoming public spaces,
including opportunities to access nature.
b) Environmental Sustainability and Climate Action
• E2. Collaborate with partners on the low -carbon transition to reduce
community greenhouse gas emissions across Durham Region.
Report #2025-COW-20
c) Strong Relationships
Page 6of7
• S1. Enhance inclusive opportunities for community engagement and
meaningful collaboration.
• S2. Build and strengthen respectful relationships with First Nations, Inuit,
Metis, and urban Indigenous communities.
• S3. Collaborate across local area municipalities, with agencies, non-
profits, and community partners to deliver co-ordinated and efficient
services.
• S4. Advocate to the federal and provincial government and agencies to
advance regional priorities.
• S5. Ensure accountable and transparent decision -making to serve
community needs, while responsibly managing available resources.
6.2 This report aligns with/addresses the following Foundation(s) in the Region's 2025-
2035 Strategic Plan:
a) People: Making the Region of Durham a great place to work, attracting, and
retaining talent.
b) Processes: Continuously improving processes to ensure we are responsive to
community needs.
7. Conclusion and Next Steps
7.1 The preliminary TSC Economic Study found that land value capture is a viable
approach to financing transit stations. However, there are active developments
seeking to proceed in the interim period, prior to the enactment of the TSC by-law.
7.2 To ensure the success of the station funding program through the TSC, it is critical
that the Region remain in a state of readiness to proceed with the Background
Study and TSC by-law immediately following the release of the regulations to the
Act. As such, it is critical that the Region to embark on the early stages of the
Background Study as soon as possible. Regional staff will continue to collaborate
with area municipalities, the province, Metrolinx, and other stakeholders in the
development of the preliminary components of the Background Study.
7.3 Upon the release of the regulations to the Act, Regional staff will undertake the
necessary public consultation and draft a by-law for Regional Council's
consideration to implement the TSC.
Page 10
Report #2025-COW-20
Page 7 of 7
7.4 This report was prepared in consultation with staff from Legal Services and the
CAO's Office.
8. Attachments
Attachment #1: Resolution adopted at the Regional Municipality of Durham
Council meeting held on March 26, 2025, requesting the
Province of Ontario to Expedite Release of the Regulations for
the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP, PLE
Commissioner of Community Growth and
Economic Development
Original signed by
Nancy Taylor, BBA, CPA, CA
Commissioner of Finance
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original signed by
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 11
Attachment 1
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department —
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
SENT VIA EMAIL
March 26, 2025
The Honourable Doug Ford
Premier of Ontario
Legislative Building, Queen's Park
Toronto, ON M7A 1A1
Dear Premier Ford,
RE: Request to the Province of Ontario to release the regulations
to enable the Region of Durham to proceed with a
background study on Transit Station Charge(s) to support
the funding and delivery of four new GO stations and Transit -
Oriented Communities along the GO Lakeshore East
Extension to Bowmanville, Our File: D21
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on March 26,
2025, passed the following resolution:
"WHEREAS residents, workers, and businesses in the Region of
Durham rely on regional transportation to connect with one another,
commute to and from work, and reach new customers;
AND WHEREAS current economic uncertainty reinforces the need to
invest in our communities, invest in public infrastructure, build more
homes, and strengthen the connections between residents, workers
and businesses in the region;
AND WHEREAS the Region of Durham identifies the GO Lakeshore
East Extension as a priority project that can drive economic
development, transform and connect our communities and help
achieve a more sustainable future;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario committed to build and fund
the GO Lakeshore East Extension in the 2022 provincial budget;
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097.
Page 12
AND WHEREAS the Region of Durham and the Province of
Ontario have worked collaboratively together on an innovative
approach to transit -oriented community development;
AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario introduced and passed
the GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023, to enable more GO
stations, spur more housing and mixed -use communities around
transit, and help make it more convenient to travel across the
Greater Toronto Area and surrounding regions;
AND WHEREAS the Region of Durham estimates that the GO
Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 will enable up to 16,000 new
homes across four new transit -oriented communities in the next 30
years, providing much needed housing options in the Region of
Durham;
AND WHEREAS the Region of Durham wishes to expeditiously
pass a transit station charge by-law under the GO Transit Station
Funding Act, 2023 to support the funding of the four new GO
stations along the GO Lakeshore East Extension;
AND WHEREAS there are current development applications in the
City of Oshawa and Municipality of Clarington that are within the
area of future GO stations where a transit station charge would
apply.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: THAT the Council of the
Regional Municipality of Durham hereby requests that the
Province of Ontario expedite the release of regulations under the
GO Transit Station Funding Act, 2023 to enable the Region of
Durham to proceed with a background study and pass a Transit
Station Charge By-law to support the funding of four new GO
stations and Transit -Oriented Communities along the GO
Lakeshore East Extension to Bowmanville.
AND THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to the Honourable
Doug Ford, Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Transportation, the
Minister of Infrastructure, all local Durham MPPs, and all Durham
local area municipalities."
A Y cwi-a4-
Alexander Harras,
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/sr
Page 13
C. Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria, Minister of Transportation
Hon. Kinga Surma, Minister of Infrastructure
Hon. P. Bethlenfalvy, Minister of Finance, MPP, Pickering/Ajax
R. Cerjanec, MPP, Ajax
L. Coe, MPP, Whitby
Hon. T. McCarthy, Minister of Environment, Conservation and
Parks, MPP, Durham
J. French, MPP, Oshawa
L. Scott, MPP, Haliburton/Kawartha Lakes/Brock
Hon. D. Piccini, Minister of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills
Development , MPP, Northumberland/Peterborough South
Town of Ajax
Township of Brock
Municipality of Clarington
City of Oshawa
City of Pickering
Township of Scugog
Township of Uxbridge
Town of Whitby
Page 14
SENT VIA EMAIL
DURHAM
REGION
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department —
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
May 28, 2025
June Gallagher
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville ON L1 C 3A6
Dear J. Gallagher:
RE: Energy from Waste —Waste Management Advisory
Committee 2025 — 2026 Workplan (2025-WR-3), Our File:
C14
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on May 28, 2025,
adopted the following recommendations of the Works Committee:
"A) That the Energy from Waste -Waste Management Advisory
Committee's 2025 — 2026 Workplan, as outlined in Attachment
#1 to Report #2025-WR-3 of the Commissioner of Works, be
approved; and
B) That a copy of Report #2025-WR-3 be forwarded to the
Municipality of Clarington for information."
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-WR-3 for your
information.
ACexander Harras
Alexander Harras,
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/sc
c: R. Jagannathan, Commissioner of Works
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097.
Page 15
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3540.
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Works Committee
From: Commissioner of Works
Report: #2025-WR-3
Date: May 7, 2025
Subject:
Energy from Waste -Waste Management Advisory Committee 2025 - 2026 Workplan
Recommendations:
That the Works Committee recommends to Regional Council:
A) That the Energy from Waste -Waste Management Advisory Committee's 2025 —
2026 Workplan, as outlined in Attachment #1, be approved; and
B) That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Municipality of Clarington for
information.
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 The Energy from Waste -Waste Management Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC)
has developed a proposed 2025 — 2026 EFW-WMAC Workplan (Attachment #1)
to guide EFW-WMAC activities for the remainder of 2025 and 2026. Details of
the proposed Workplan are provided herein for approval by Works Committee
and Regional Council.
2. Background
2.1 The EFW-WMAC was established pursuant to a stipulation within the Host
Community Agreement between the Regional Municipality of Durham (Region)
Page 16
Report #2025-WR-3
Page 2 of 5
and the Municipality of Clarington (Clarington), and in accordance with Regional
Council directives.
2.2 The Terms of Reference for this committee was approved by both the Region
and Clarington Councils and includes the following mandate:
a. The EFW-WMAC will serve in an advisory capacity to the Region's Works
Committee on issues or concerns related to waste diversion, waste
management, environmental performance or monitoring of the EFW
facility, including the construction and operational phases.
b. The EFW-WMAC will be comprised of volunteers from Durham Region
appointed by Regional Council and Clarington Council in accordance with
the Terms of Reference.
3. Previous Reports and Decisions
3.1 Report #2025-WR-1 recommended that five applicants selected by the Region's
Works Committee be appointed for a two-year term on the EFW-WMAC. The
remaining four EFW-WMAC members were appointed by Clarington. Report
#2025-WR-1 was approved by Regional Council on February 26, 2025.
4. 2025 — 2026 Workplan
4.1 The purpose of the attached 2025-2026 EFW-WMAC Workplan (Workplan) is to
focus on tasks that will facilitate the implementation of waste to energy and waste
diversion initiatives and to provide input on innovative approaches to waste
reduction.
4.2 The key elements of the Workplan align with the guiding principles endorsed by
Regional Council for the development of the Long-term Waste Management Plan
2022-2040. The key elements of the EFW-WMAC Workplan are:
a. Emphasize rethink, reduce, and reuse principles as the first steps in
reducing waste generation.
b. Deliver cost effective waste management services to a rapidly growing
and diverse population.
C. Apply innovative approaches to the Region's waste streams to manage
them as resources in a Circular Economy.
Page 17
Report #2025-WR-3
Page 3of5
4.3 The proposed Workplan identifies key tasks to be addressed during the current
term, including:
• Supporting the implementation of Waste Management Division
plans and programs including the Long-term Waste Management
Plan, Extended Producer Responsibility programs and expanding
organics diversion programs.
• Reviewing and assessing opportunities for the Region to optimize
and increase diversion opportunities within Durham Region.
• Increasing understanding of key technologies employed by the
Region for landfill methane mitigation, and increasing knowledge on
the Durham York Energy Centre, its associated technologies and
environmental performance.
4.4 The EFW-WMAC will also assume a supportive role in participating in community
outreach programs aimed at enhancing awareness of waste reduction and
energy from waste initiatives in Durham Region.
4.5 The EFW-WMAC will also broaden its knowledge of waste management and
waste diversion technologies by reviewing presentations and engaging in
discussion on Regional Waste Management strategies.
5. Relationship to Strategic Plan
5.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following Strategic Direction(s) and
Pathway(s) in Durham Region's 2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. Environmental Sustainability and Climate Action
• E1. Reduce corporate greenhouse gas emissions to meet
established targets.
• E2. Collaborate with partners on the low -carbon transition to reduce
community greenhouse gas emissions across Durham Region.
• E4. Lead the transition to sustainable living through waste
management, diversion, and the circular economy.
Page 18
Report #2025-WR-3
Page 4 of 5
• E5. Respect the natural environment, including greenspaces,
waterways, and agricultural lands.
b. Strong Relationships
• S1. Enhance inclusive opportunities for community engagement
and meaningful collaboration.
5.2 This report aligns with/addresses the following Foundation(s) in Durham Region's
2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. Processes: Continuously improving processes to ensure we are
responsive to community needs.
b. Technology: Keeping pace with technological change to ensure efficient
and effective service delivery.
6. Conclusion
6.1 The EFW-WMAC Workplan includes tasks to support waste diversion and
community education in Durham Region. These tasks are complementary to
Durham Region's approved objectives of the Long-term Waste Management
Plan and will support its implementation.
6.2 For additional information, contact: Andrew Evans, Director Waste Management
Services, at 905-668-4113 extension 4102.
Page 19
Report #2025-WR-3
7. Attachments
Attachment #1: 2025 — 2026 EFW-WMAC Workplan
Respectfully submitted,
Original signed by:
Ramesh Jagannathan, MBA, M.Eng., P.Eng., PTOE
Commissioner of Works
Recommended for Presentation to Committee
Original signed by:
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 5 of 5
Page 20
Attachment #1 to Report #2025-WR-3
Energy from Waste -Waste Management
Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC)
Workplan (2025-2026)
1. Purpose
1.1. The Regional Municipality of Durham's (Region) Energy from Waste -Waste Management
Advisory Committee (EFW-WMAC) requires preparation of a Workplan for the current term
(2025-2026).
1.2. The purpose of the EFW-WMAC Workplan is to focus on tasks that will assist with waste
diversion, Circular Economy initiatives and advise on innovative approaches for waste
reduction.
2. Vision
2.1. Reduce the amount of waste created in Durham Region and manage the generated waste as
a resource. Build an innovative waste -to -energy (WtE) and waste diversion system, balancing
financial needs and environmental sustainability.
3. Waste Diversion Background
3.1. The Region and our communities provide services to over 225,000 households, 203,000
single-family households, and 22,000 multi -family households according to January 2024
records. Durham Region is one of the fastest growing regions in Canada. By 2041, Durham
Region's population is expected to almost double, increasing to approximately 1.2 million
people. This also means there will be a need for increased waste management services by
2041.
3.2. In July 2024, the Region launched an Enhanced Green Bin Program, which allows for the
addition of materials, including diapers and pet waste.
3.3. Regional Council has also approved the investigation of the potential to establish a multi -
resident organics program, which is scheduled for launch starting in June 2025.
3.4. Management of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions from legacy closed landfills through
innovative approaches is also part of the Region's Waste Management and WtE Programs.
An important prior decision by Regional Council is that no new landfills will be created. This
prior decision was one of the reasons for establishing the Durham York Energy Centre
(DYEC).
Page 21
Attachment #1 to Report #2025-WR-3
EFW-WMAC Workplan (2025-2026) Page 2 of 3
3.5. Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is implemented via the Resource Recovery and
Circular Economy Act (RRCEA), 2016 (the Act). The Act, and its regulations are in force to
ensure Producers of products become more responsible for managing recycling and minimize
product packaging. The Region's operations transitioned to EPR on July 1, 2024. Transition
within the remainder of Ontario is ongoing through the end of 2025. Starting in 2026, Circular
Materials, as the operator of the program, may make additional changes to how materials are
collected and managed within the Province.
3.6. The Hazardous and Special Products (HSP) regulations were released in February 2021 and
have been in effect since October 1, 2021. At that time, most materials managed in the
existing program were transitioned to the new producer responsibility.
4. Workplan Elements
• Emphasize rethink, reduce, and reuse principles as the first steps in reducing waste
generation.
• Deliver cost effective waste management services to a rapidly growing and diverse
population.
• Apply innovative approaches to the Region's waste streams to manage them as
resources in a Circular Economy.
5. EFW-WMAC Workplan 2025-2026
Workplan Overview
5.1. Given the EFW-WMAC committee resources and two-year time horizon for the Workplan,
tasks are defined below:
Workplan Tasks
5.2. Plan and Program Implementation
a) Waste Management Plan Implementation
i) Support the implementation of the first five-year action plan, provide input,
ideas and track progress for the term, and assist in development of future
action plans.
b) Extended Producer Responsibility
i) Provide input on programs, promotion and education
Page 22
EFW-WMAC Workplan (2025-2026)
Page 3 of 3
c) Increased Organics Diversion
i) Assist with communication to raise awareness and educate community about
organics diversion.
5.3. Diversion Program Assessment
a) Review and assess opportunities for the Region to optimize and increase diversion
opportunities within Durham Region including:
i) Additional waste/hazardous waste recycling efforts that may have value for the
Region such as small propane bottles, batteries, spent printer cartridges and
brainstorm other reuse/reduce options.
ii) Assess optimization of existing waste diversion programs in key growth areas
and assist in optimization of existing transfer stations.
iii) Research diversion opportunities for other potential programs such as mattress
recycling or others.
iv) Research opportunities for renewed communication strategies
5.4. Technology and Facility Review
a) Landfill Management: Assist and advise on the implementation of landfill remediation
technologies and strategies (mining, biocover systems, small flares).
b) DYEC: EFW-WMAC to increase knowledge of DYEC, energy from waste and
associated technologies, environmental performance.
6. EFW-WMAC Supporting Activities
6.1. The Committee also participates in community outreach programs that support waste
reduction and energy from waste awareness and appreciation in Durham Region. Examples
are in -person events, education, and outreach, combining EFW-WMAC community activities
at the same time as other Regional events.
6.2. Expanding knowledge of waste management and waste diversion technologies and
principles by reviewing presentations and engaging in discussion on Regional Waste
Management Strategies.
7. Community Outreach and Stewardship (potential actions)
7.1. Presentation to community on some aspects of recycling, WtE, waste diversion (example:
the source of microplastics and their effect on the environment, composting, organics
diversion, with a requirement to notify Works staff beforehand).
Page 23
Sent Via Email
May 28, 2025
Carole Saab
Chief Executive Officer
Federation of Canadian Municipalities
24 Clarence St.
Ottawa, ON K1 N 5P3
Dear C. Saab:
The Regional
Municipality
RE: MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement — Government -to -
Durham
Government Collaboration between the Mississaugas of
Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) and the Region of
Corporate Services
Durham (2025-COW-18), Our File: C00
Department —
Legislative Services
Division
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on May 28,
2025, adopted the following recommendations of the Committee of
605 Rossland Rd. E.
the Whole:
Level 1
PO Box 623
"A) That the MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement (Appendix 1 to
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
Report #2025-COW-18 of the Chief Administrative Officer) be
endorsed for signature;
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
B) That staff be directed to plan for a signing ceremony to occur
durham.ca
at a mutually -agreed upon date; and
Alexander Harras C) That a copy of the MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement be
M.P.A. forwarded to local area municipalities in Durham Region, and
Director of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), for their
information."
Please find enclosed a copy of the MSIFN-Durham Bilateral
Agreement for your information.
Alexander Harras, M.P.A.
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/tf
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at
clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page 24
c: B. Rosborough, Executive Director, Association of Municipalities of Ontario
J. Grossi, Clerk, Town of Ajax
F. Lamanna, Clerk, Township of Brock
J. Gallagher, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
M. Medeiros, Clerk, City of Oshawa
S. Cassel, Clerk, City of Pickering
B. Labelle, Clerk, Township of Scugog
D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
C. Harris, Clerk, Town of Whitby
S. Austin, Executive Director, Strategic Initiatives
Page 25
Appendix 1- MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement
COLLABORATION AGREEMENT
(the "Agreement")
BETWEEN
THE MISSISSAUGAS OF SCUGOG ISLAND FIRST NATION
("MSIFN")
AND
THE REGION OF DURHAM
(the "Region")
1. Introduction
This Agreement forms the foundation for government -to -government collaboration
between the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation (MSIFN) and the Region of
Durham ("Durham", or the "Region"). These are herein referred to as the "Parties",
which are described as follows.
MSIFN is member of the Williams Treaties First Nations (WTFNs), with reserve,
traditional, and treaty territory lands that are within what is now known as Durham.
Since time immemorial, Michi Saagiig (Mississauga) people have secured their needs
from the surrounding environment. However, the cumulative impacts of development
across the entire WTFN territory have greatly reduced the opportunities available for
MSIFN's rights and practices.
Implementation of the 1923 Williams Treaties by the Crown resulted in the denial of
rights, including harvesting rights, and lack of proper compensation and additional
lands. In 2018, the WTFNs negotiated a Settlement Agreement with the Crown that
recognizes pre-existing rights, including treaty harvesting rights, for WTFN members,
and facilitates the addition of up to 11,000 acres to each of the seven WTFNs' reserve
land base.
Decisions that occurred in the Region prior to 2018 may not have recognized these pre-
existing rights, which has exacerbated the cumulative impacts. Decisions subsequent to
Page 26
Appendix 1- MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement
the Settlement Agreement may support, or extinguish, MSIFN's ability to secure an
additional 11,000 acres of reserve land.
Durham Region covers a diverse landscape that includes urban centres and rural
communities, as well as natural spaces and agricultural lands. These are the lands
and waters with which
Indigenous Peoples have had a relationship of reciprocity since time immemorial.
Within the Region of Durham there are eight local area municipalities, including the
Town of Ajax, Township of Brock, Municipality of Clarington, City of Oshawa, City of
Pickering, Township of Scugog, Township of Uxbridge, and the Town of Whitby.
Currently home to more than 750,000 residents, Durham Region continues to be one
of the fastest growing communities in Canada.
Durham supports the 2018 Settlement Agreement and looks forward to a positive
future of respect and collaboration.
2. Purpose
This Agreement will help to further reconciliation between the Parties, while opening
new opportunities to advance mutual goals. The Parties are committed to:
2.1.1 Developing and maintaining a long-term relationship that encourages trust and
respect.
2.1.2 Learning more about one another, including each other's goals for their
communities and the lands and waters within the Region.
2.1.3 Protecting, caring for, and restoring lands and waters for mutual benefit of their
communities and support of MSIFN rights, including harvesting rights.
2.1.4 Collaborating on clean energy and infrastructure economic development
opportunities to the mutual benefit of the Parties, the climate and natural
environment, and economic reconciliation.
2.1.5 Considering opportunities for joint investment in revenue -generating
infrastructure services where MSIFN's ability to secure low-cost capital may
assist the Region in advancing and accelerating necessary infrastructure.
2
Page 27
Appendix 1- MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement
2.1.6 Upholding and furthering principles of reconciliation that are outlined in
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Report, the United
Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and
Canada's United Nations Declaration on the federal United Nations
Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDRIPA).
3. Working Together
3.1 Communications and Confidentiality
The following provisions will provide the guiding communication principles for
collaboration between the Parties during the implementation of this Agreement.
3.1.1 The Parties will engage in open, honest, meaningful, and transparent
communications on matters of mutual interest or concern. Discussions can be
informal, and agreements reached during discussions will be documented.
3.1.2 The Parties will maintain confidentiality in mutual communications when
appropriate, while recognizing the nature of governance and applicable
legislation, including the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act that relates to the Parties, and the First Nations Principles of
Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession, (OCAP). When OCAP principles
are not in contravention of MFIPPA, they will be applied. In cases where OCAP
principles contravene MFIPPA, the Region must conform to MFIPPA.
3.1.3 Durham will deploy resources to seek to reduce the administrative burden on
MSIFN. This will include:
a) Engaging MSIFN on matters of interest as early as possible.
b) Moving away from a fragmented approach to consultation files and towards
approaches that are more coordinated and collaborative in nature (see 3.2.3).
The Region will engage in consultation beyond the files on which it has been
delegated the constitutional Duty to Consult.
c) Summarizing key impacts and opportunities for files provided to MSIFN (e.g.,
clean energy partnership opportunities, impacts on key environmental features).
3
Page 28
Appendix 1- MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement
3.1.4 The Parties will meet at least quarterly, but more as needed to review
matters of interest under this Agreement. Specifically:
a) Meetings will begin with general updates from both Parties and will then focus on
project -specific matters with support from key project team members.
b) The Region will provide consistency in staff to build institutional memory and
support relationship building.
c) Attendees will include at least two appointees made by each Party.
3.1.5 Within 90 days of signing, the Parties will meet to begin preparing an annual
work plan.
3.1.6 The Parties will collaboratively establish key decision points on matters that could
have irreversible impacts on the lands and waters that are critical for current and
future practice of Indigenous rights.
3.1.7 The Region will investigate the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory
Committee, similar to existing Committees of Council that provide insight and
advice.
3.2 Collaboration Opportunities
The Parties agree to advance the following opportunities for collaboration:
3.2.1 Ecological Protection and Restoration
The parties commit to working together to protect lands and waters within the Region,
while advancing ecological restoration opportunities that also support cultural
connections to restored ecosystems, recognizing that:
a) The Region contains lands that have historically provided sustenance and
cultural connections of critical importance to MSIFN members. However, the
extensive development of the Region means that many members are no longer,
or have never, been able to practice their rights that depend on healthy lands and
waters.
b) Protection of remaining natural areas and their health is critical to prevent
exacerbated cumulative impacts on MSIFN rights. As a shared responsibility,
protection of ecosystems should occur in a manner that upholds MSIFN rights,
interests, and equally values Indigenous Knowledge alongside western
science/assessments.
0
Page 29
Appendix 1- MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement
c) The high magnitude of cumulative impacts of past decisions at all levels means
that restoration of lands and waters is crucial. Restoration should aim to support
MSIFN member's cultural connections, while healing ecosystems that both
Parties' community members rely on.
d) Ontario's policies and programs will be treated as a minimum, the Parties will
strive to higher standards whenever possible.
3.2.2 Economic Development, Partnerships, Arts and Culture
This Agreement will support economic reconciliation and climate change mitigation by:
a) Facilitating clean energy development and partnerships, while also supporting
First Nation procurement opportunities.
b) Ensuring opportunities for the Region to learn about MSIFN businesses, to
inform MSIFN with respect to the types of contractors the Region engages, and
to identify and reduce barriers to entry for First Nation participation.
c) Exploring opportunities for joint economic development initiatives, land use or
acquisition or joint infrastructure investments on mutually beneficial priorities,
including through participation in the Durham Economic Development
Partnership (DEDP) table, and as a permanent member of the Durham Economic
Task Force (DETF).
d) Leveraging MSIFN community connections for input into art, design, and cultural
opportunities, including placemaking and the identification of spaces to host
community work.
3.2.3 Consultation, Accommodation and Collaboration
Within Durham, local area municipalities now provide planning files to MSIFN for
consultation. To the extent possible, the Parties commit to improving the process
to support MSIFN's rights and interests, including:
a) Establishing consultation and accommodation protocols that allow for a
coordinated approach that proactively considers the cumulative impacts of
decisions.
b) Approaching the creation and review of key strategic and corporate documents
(e.g., infrastructure and service planning) through a lens that examines potential
connections to MSIFN reserve and fee simple lands.
G�
Page 30
Appendix 1- MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement
c) Servicing considerations (e.g. public transportation, Regional roads, waste
management, etc.) will include the potential for MSIFN partnerships.
d) Durham will help identify and support opportunities for MSIFN to acquire lands
under the fee simple process outlined in the WTFN Settlement Agreement.
3.3 Terms and Conditions
The Parties agree to abide by the following terms and conditions:
a) Reasonable capacity funding will be provided to facilitate MSIFN participation in
this Agreement.
b) This will be a living document that can be revised from time -to -time with mutual
agreement of the Parties. The parties will review the Agreement annually to
ensure that it is serving its intended purpose.
c) The Agreement will have an initial five-year term that can be extended by mutual
agreement, in writing.
d) The Agreement can be terminated with 30 days written notice by either Party,
which should include reasoning for termination. Prior to issuing written notice, the
Parties agree to meet and work towards resolution of any concerns. During the
30-day written notice period, the Parties will meet and attempt to address the
reasoning for termination given in the notice.
e) Any disputes will be elevated to MSIFN's Chief and/or assigned Councillor, along
with Durham's Regional Chair.
f) This Agreement does not constitute consultation, and does not superseded
MSIFN's inherent, Aboriginal, or Treaty rights.
n
Page 31
Appendix 1- MSIFN-Durham Bilateral Agreement
SIGNED THE day of
MISSISSAUGAS OF SCUGOG ISLAND
FIRST NATION
Chief Kelly LaRocca
Councillor Sylvia Coleman
Councillor Jeff Forbes
2025.
REGION OF DURHAM
Regional Chair and CEO John Henry
Signatory 2
Signatory 3
7
Page 32
The Regional
Municipality of
Durham
Corporate Services
Department —
Legislative Services
Division
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Level 1
PO Box 623
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
905-668-7711
1-800-372-1102
durham.ca
Alexander Harras
M.P.A.
Director of
Legislative Services
& Regional Clerk
Sent Via Email
May 28, 2025
Josef Filipowicz
Executive Director of Policy
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
College Park
777 Bay Street, 171" Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2J3
Dear J. Filipowicz:
RE: Courtice Transit -Oriented Community District Energy
System — Recommended Business Model and
Governance Framework to Enable Implementation
(2025-COW-19), Our File: D00
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on May 28,
2025, adopted the following recommendations of the Committee of
the Whole:
"A) That Regional Staff be directed to collaborate with staff from
the Municipality of Clarington to prepare the comprehensive
business case study and conduct the public consultation
required under the Municipal Act and the regulations to allow
the municipalities to create a Joint Municipal Services Board
(JMSB) to govern the delivery of a district energy system
(DES) in the Courtice Transit Oriented Community (CTOC),
and a jointly owned Municipal Services Corporation (MSC)
with a mandate to develop, own, and operate the CTOC DES;
B) That staff be directed to take necessary steps to submit a
preliminary funding application to the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities' Green Municipal Fund Community Energy
Systems Capital Project Stream for a combined grant and loan
up to a maximum of $10 million to support the first phase of
the proposed CTOC DES project;
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact Legislative Services at
clerks@durham.ca or at 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page 33
C) That staff be directed to explore opportunities for public and private sector
financing partnerships to support the implementation of the proposed CTOC
DES, including grant funding from the federal and provincial governments, as
well as project financing opportunities through the Canada Infrastructure Bank,
Infrastructure Ontario, and other institutions;
D) That staff be directed to undertake a non -binding Request for Expressions of
Interest (RFEOI) to identify potential private sector partners to enable the
provision of necessary infrastructure, operational support, and expertise in DES
delivery in the CTOC;
E) That staff be directed to report back to Council before the end of Q1 2026 with a
comprehensive business case study for a jointly -owned Municipal Service Board
and MSC between the Region and Clarington for final approval to create both
entities, including key recommendations on how the entities are proposed to be
governed and managed, sources of capital to enable project implementation,
available preliminary business case updates, key partnerships with third parties
for project implementation and operations, as well as a detailed project
implementation plan that shows how the infrastructure will be delivered in time for
the high density development planned around the future Courtice GO Station;
and
F) That a copy of Report #2025-COW-19 of the Chief Administrative Officer be
forwarded to local area municipalities in Durham Region, GTHA upper -tier
Regional Municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ontario Ministry of Energy
and Mines, Natural Resources Canada, the Durham Region Home Builders'
Association (DRHBA), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), for
their information."
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-COW-19 for your information.
Alexander Harras, M.P.A.
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/tf
Page 34
c: D. Androusenkov, Deputy Chief of Staff/Director, Stakeholder Relations,
Ministry of Energy and Electrification
The Honourable T. Hodgson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources
J. Grossi, Clerk, Town of Ajax
F. Lamanna, Clerk, Township of Brock
J. Gallagher, Clerk, Municipality of Clarington
M. Medeiros, Clerk, City of Oshawa
S. Cassel, Clerk, City of Pickering
B. Labelle, Clerk, Township of Scugog
D. Leroux, Clerk, Township of Uxbridge
C. Harris, Clerk, Town of Whitby
G. Milne, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Halton
A. Adams, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of Peel
C. Raynor, Regional Clerk, Regional Municipality of York
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO)
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)
Durham Region Home Builders' Association
S. Austin, Executive Director, Strategic Initiatives
I. McVey, Manager of Sustainability
Page 35
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 3803
77M77D)))
DURHAM
REGION
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Committee of the Whole
From: Chief Administrative Officer
Report: #2025-COW-19
Date: Mav 14. 2024
Subject:
Courtice Transit -Oriented Community District Energy System — Recommended Business
Model and Governance Framework to Enable Implementation
Recommendation:
That the Committee of the Whole recommends to Regional Council:
A) That Regional Staff be directed to collaborate with staff from the Municipality of
Clarington to prepare the comprehensive business case study and conduct the
public consultation required under the Municipal Act and the regulations to allow the
municipalities to create a Joint Municipal Services Board (JMSB) to govern the
delivery of a district energy system (DES) in the Courtice Transit Oriented
Community (CTOC), and a jointly owned Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) with
a mandate to develop, own, and operate the CTOC DES.
B) That staff be directed to take necessary steps to submit a preliminary funding
application to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Green Municipal Fund
Community Energy Systems Capital Project Stream for a combined grant and loan
up to a maximum of $10 million to support the first phase of the proposed CTOC
DES project.
C) That staff be directed to explore opportunities for public and private sector financing
partnerships to support the implementation of the proposed CTOC DES, including
grant funding from the federal and provincial governments, as well as project
financing opportunities through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, Infrastructure
Ontario, and other institutions.
D) That staff be directed to undertake a non -binding Request for Expressions of Interest
(RFEOI) to identify potential private sector partners to enable the provision of
necessary infrastructure, operational support, and expertise in DES delivery in the
CTOC.
Page 36
Report #2025-COW-19 Page 2 of 15
E) That staff be directed to report back to Council before the end of Q1 2026 with a
comprehensive business case study for a jointly -owned Municipal Service Board and
MSC between the Region and Clarington for final approval to create both entities,
including key recommendations on how the entities are proposed to be governed
and managed, sources of capital to enable project implementation, available
preliminary business case updates, key partnerships with third parties for project
implementation and operations, as well as a detailed project implementation plan
that shows how the infrastructure will be delivered in time for the high density
development planned around the future Courtice GO Station.
F) That a copy of this report be forwarded to local area municipalities in Durham
Region, GTHA upper -tier Regional Municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario (AMO), the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ontario
Ministry of Energy and Mines, Natural Resources Canada, the Durham Region
Home Builders' Association (DRHBA), and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(FCM) for their information.
Report:
Purpose
1.1 The purpose of this report is to:
a. Provide a high-level update to the preliminary business case for the CTOC
DES since the last update provided to Regional Council through Report 2024-
COW-1.
b. Respond to Council direction to evaluate ownership and governance models
for the proposed CTOC DES and provide a recommendation.
C. Obtain Council direction to staff to undertake critical next steps, including:
• Conducting detailed analysis in support of the creation of a JMSB to
govern the proposed CTOC DES, and a jointly owned Municipal Services
Corporation (MSC) with a mandate to develop, own and operate the
proposed CTOC DES.
• Conducting formal engagement with potential funding partners (including
grant funding and other financing) in support of the development of a
detailed capital plan for the proposed CTOC DES MSC.
• Conducting market sounding to solicit interest from third parties to facilitate
future project design, and potential construction, operations, finance and
maintenance.
• Conducting public consultation required under the Municipal Act to
establish an MSC.
Page 37
Report #2025-COW-19
Page 3 of 15
Developing a Comprehensive Business Case Study for a DES MSC,
including a proposed organizational structure, in addition to capital
financing plan, operations plan, and implementation plans, including
consideration of partnership opportunities identified.
2. Background
2.1 In 2019, through the recommendations of Report #2019-A-18, Regional Council
approved in in principle the Durham Community Energy Plan (DCEP). DCEP
identified district energy as one of the top decarbonization strategies for Durham
Region. This finding is backed up by more recent analysis from the RBC Climate
Action Institute which in a report released in August 2024 entitled "A Smart
Heating Solution For Canada's Fiscally -Strained Municipalities" estimated that
scaling district heating systems could lower building sector emissions in Canada's
largest cities by 36% while providing a significant new revenue stream in the case
of municipally owned systems.
2.2 In addition to enabling decarbonization, district energy can provide a wide range
of benefits including energy efficiency, fuel flexibility, simplified building operations
and maintenance, and decreased costs for building owners/occupants, while also
serving as critical infrastructure, that supports high quality local employment.
2.3 District energy is generally most cost effective when deployed in high -density
mixed -use developments where infrastructure costs can be shared across many
end -use customers, and where there is variability in heating demand throughout
the day. It is particularly cost effective in greenfield developments where district
energy can be planned and implemented alongside other infrastructure and utility
connections in a coordinated manner.
2.4 Seven of Durham's Major Transit Station Areas (MTSAs) along the Lakeshore
East GO Train corridor are seen as key opportunity areas for district energy given
the high -density mixed -use development planned for these areas. Regional staff
have focused initial efforts on exploring the feasibility of a DES serving the high -
density areas planned around the future Courtice GO station (e.g. Courtice Transit
Oriented Community, or CTOC) for the following key reasons:
a. The CTOC MTSA is projected to see significant new population density and
commercial floor area over the coming decades;
b. The CTOC MTSA is a greenfield development area where new infrastructure
is yet to be implemented (e.g. roads, water supply, sanitary sewer). This
provides the opportunity to coordinate district energy implementation with
overall site servicing to realize economies of scope and scale while
minimizing future disruption; and
C. The CTOC MTSA is strategically located within proximity to the Durham York
Energy Centre (DYEC) which is governed by a Host Community Agreement
between Durham Region and Clarington that commits to "strongly encourage
Page 38
Report #2025-COW-19 Page 4 of 15
and promote development within the Clarington Energy Park and other areas
of Clarington to utilize district heating and cooling provided by the energy from
waste facility".
2.5 A 2022 pre -feasibility study co -led by Clarington and the Region found that
conditions in South Courtice were favourable to the implementation of a DES
given proximate sources of low carbon heat, and the planned high -density
development surrounding the future Courtice GO Station. Following the 2022 pre -
feasibility study Region and Clarington staff developed a preliminary business
case focused on serving the Courtice MTSA with waste heat from Regionally -
owned infrastructure in the Energy Park immediately to the south of Highway 401.
That preliminary business case study was presented to Regional Council and
Clarington Council in early 2024, and the CTOC project concept was unanimously
endorsed in principle with staff directed to:
a. work with staff from the Municipality of Clarington to incorporate the DES
concept into the CTOC Secondary Plan to support the future implementation
of a DES focused on serving new development in the CTOC Major Transit
Station Area (MTSA).
b. evaluate potential grant and low -interest financing options that might be
available to support the proposed CTOC DES project concept.
C. evaluate ownership and governance models for the CTOC DES in
collaboration with the Municipality of Clarington, landowners in the area, as
well as potential energy utility partners
d. report back to Council with a recommended ownership and governance
model as well as an updated and refined preliminary business case,
identifying Regional financial, business planning and budget implications,
opportunity costs and assessment of risk and potential mitigation strategies
based on refined project timing and implementation strategies.
2.6 This report primarily focuses on presenting a recommended ownership and
governance model for the CTOC DES. It also presents high-level updates to the
underlying preliminary business case based on input from the CTOC Landowner
Group (LOG). Regional staff continue to work with staff from the Municipality of
Clarington to develop an enabling policy framework for the CTOC DES, including
through the CTOC Secondary Plan. Council endorsement of the recommended
ownership and governance model will enable Regional staff to advance due
diligence around potential financing options, and identification of Regional
financial implications and risk mitigation strategies.
3. CTOC DES Preliminary Business Case
3.1 The preliminary business case study referred to in Section 2 assessed technical
feasibility, costs, and GHG reduction potential of leveraging waste heat from
Regional infrastructure, such as the DYEC and the Courtice Water Pollution
Page 39
Report #2025-COW-19 Page 5 of 15
Control Plant (CWPCP). The study found that a heating -only DES leveraging
waste heat from DYEC is the most cost-effective DES option.
3.2 Following Council endorsement of the CTOC DES concept project in principle,
Regional staff have worked with the Municipality of Clarington and the CTOC
Landowner Group (LOG) to update and refine the preliminary business case with
a focus on an initial Phase 1 implementation concept (e.g. to 2035). Key updates
to the preliminary business case (Attachment #2 to this report) include:
a. Increased floor area forecast: the prior update to the preliminary business
case was based on a conservative density scenario, which translates into
approximately 700,000 m2 of floor area by 2057. Through engagement with
the CTOC LOG, staff have learned that developers in the area have plans to
build significantly more housing units and overall floor area than initially
considered, totalling up to 2 million m2. As such, the revised preliminary
business case is based on a still -conservative estimate of 1 million m2 over a
30-year build -out starting in 2029. In terms of Phase 1 DES implementation,
this translates into nine multi -unit residential buildings connected to the
system by 2035.
b. Removal of CWPCP as an anchor -DES load: the prior update to the
preliminary business case included the CWPCP as an anchor DES load,
based on the assumption that the CWPCP could meet its plant heating
demands from DES, which would free up the biogas produced on site to be
upgraded to renewable natural gas (RNG) and injected into the Enbridge
distribution network. While the RNG opportunity at CWPCP continues to be
explored by Regional staff in collaboration with Enbridge Gas, initial
assessments suggest that projected biogas production volumes at CWPCP
are not expected to be high enough in the near -term to warrant the inclusion
of the CWPCP in the refined preliminary business case focused on Phase 1
DES implementation. The opportunity for RNG utilization strategies and
inclusion of the CWPCP as a key DES customer may be revisited through
ongoing evaluation work as additional data becomes available, and as the
proposed DES connection to DYEC progresses.
3.3 Key findings from the updated preliminary business case are summarized below:
a. Lower GHG emissions: —70% lower GHG emissions compared to a business -
as -usual (BAU) scenario where each building meets its heating demand
through on -site natural gas systems.
b. Lower lifecycle costs: Overall capital costs are estimated at $67 million (in
2023 dollars) which compares favourably against alternative decarbonization
strategies, namely electrified heating systems on -site at each building on a
lifecycle cost basis. These costs will be incurred over time as the DES is built -
out, and will be subject to escalation. However, there are potential grant and
low -interest financing opportunities which could help cover upfront capital
Page 40
Report #2025-COW-19 Page 6 of 15
costs and further reduce overall lifecycle costs relative to alternative
strategies.
C. Energy cost stability: In addition to reduced lifecycle costs, the DES provides
potential for greater energy cost stability for CTOC MTSA residents, relative
to building electrification, due to reduced exposure to escalating electricity
rates. In a scenario where electricity rates escalate higher than historical
averages, CTOC DES users will see substantially lower monthly heating
costs than a fully electrified decarbonization strategy.
d. Competitive rates and connection fees: CTOC DES preliminary utility rates
compare favourably against rate benchmarks from regulated DES systems in
British Columbia, where thermal energy is regulated by the BC Utilities
Commission and data on DES utility rates is publicly available. There is
limited publicly available data on DES utility rates across Canada outside of
British Columbia.
e. Flexibility for future heat utilization and low carbon energy production: DYEC
has a project agreement and an electricity generation contract (i.e. Power
Purchase Agreement selling net electricity generated to the Ontario electrical
grid) with the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) that expires in
2036. That contract limits the amount of heat that can be economically
extracted to serve the CTOC DES. Future agreements may provide
opportunities to enhance returns on investment from the DYEC, with a
potential increase in heat extraction relative to electricity production. The DES
may also enable opportunities for future RNG production at the CWPCP as
biogas production volumes increase because of planned increases in
wastewater treatment capacity.
4. De -risking District Energy Deployment in the Courtice Transit Oriented
Community
4.1 Establishing a DES requires a secure base load of end -use customers to justify
the initial upfront capital investment. The first phase of a DES is often the most
challenging as significant capital needs to be deployed to serve a small portion of
the anticipated development. Underpinning the updated preliminary business case
outlined in Section 3 is an assumption that all new high -density development in
the CTOC connects to the proposed DES. The preliminary business case
demonstrates that there are potential benefits to all stakeholders if universal
connection among high density development is realized, however there are two
major categories of risk that need to be further assessed and addressed through
policy and governance frameworks:
a. Connection risk: A lack of certainty regarding customer connection
undermines the business case for a new DES, therefore it is crucial that
customers within a defined DES service area be connected to the system to
make the system viable.
Page 41
Report #2025-COW-19 Page 7 of 15
b. Timing risk: The timing of new building construction and occupancy can be
unpredictable, impacting when buildings can connect to the DES and
potentially delaying the investment returns due to reduced revenues.
4.2 Municipalities across North America are implementing a range of policy tools and
strategies to reduce connection and timing risks for new district energy systems,
including:
a. Conditional Rezoning — where a rezoning is required (e.g. from residential
to employment), a municipality can consider requiring the creation of a DES
as a condition. See the River District Energy System Case study in
Attachment #1 for an example of this. The CTOC Secondary Plan area is
already zoned residential, so this approach is not seen as a viable strategy to
reduce connection risk.
b. Joint Development Agreement — where a site is municipally -owned, and the
municipality wishes to partner with private sector entities to develop the site,
the municipality has greater leverage to ensure that all buildings connect to a
DES through development agreements. This approach was used by the City
of Toronto in the Etobicoke Civic Centre Project (see case study in
Attachment #1). However, this approach is not seen as viable in the CTOC
Secondary Plan area as there is limited municipal land ownership and no
immediate plans for joint development of these lands.
C. Limits on new natural gas service connections — some municipalities
across Canada and the US (including, for example, New York City, Montreal,
and Vancouver), are implementing bans on natural gas connections in new
homes. However, initial legal analysis completed by Regional staff indicate
that Ontario municipalities do not have the authority to deny building permits
based on choice of fuel source, so this option is not seen as a viable
approach to reduce connection risk.
d. Green Development Standards - GHG limits on new buildings are an
emerging municipal policy tool in Ontario, initially implemented by the City of
Toronto through the Toronto Green Standard (TGS). Such policies can
incentivize customers to connect to a low -carbon DES. Several local area
municipalities in Durham have similar programs (Whitby, Ajax and Pickering),
however there is considerable uncertainty over the ability of municipalities to
impose GHG requirements for new buildings given provincial legislative
changes (e.g. Bill 23) and an active legal challenge by the Residential
Construction Council of Ontario (RESCON) against the City of Toronto for its
TGS. While Clarington is in the process of developing its own Green
Development Standard program, this on its own is not seen as a potential
strategy to fully reduce connection risk.
e. Mandatory connection policies — mandatory connection can be limited to
specific areas, specific types of connections, or specific time periods.
Page 42
Report #2025-COW-19
Paae 8 of 15
Connections outside a designated service area remain voluntary and at the
discretion of a DES Utility. Mandatory connection may be used temporarily as
a tool to support new system development by promoting an efficient layout
and helping achieve adequate scale to launch the utility. For example, the
City of Vancouver has a mandatory connection by-law covering new
construction and major renovations with a designated service area for its
False Creek Neighbourhood energy utility (see Case Study in Attachment #1).
The aforementioned RBC Climate Action Institute report "A Smart Heating
Solution For Canada's Fiscally -Strained Municipalities" lists the introduction of
mandatory connection by-laws as a key policy support to speed up the
adoption of district energy systems.
4.3 Analysis of the policy tools and strategies outlined above indicates that a
mandatory connection policy is the most viable approach to reducing connection
risk to the proposed CTOC DES and realizing the multi -faceted benefits outlined
in the preliminary business case update. Municipalities have authority under the
Municipal Act to pass by-laws relating to public utilities, which include district
energy systems.
4.4 The mandatory connection policy approach does not address the timing risk noted
above. The preliminary business case update addresses timing risk through a
phased implementation of DES infrastructure to minimize early investment in the
system, and by assuming staged expansion to match projected growth within the
CTOC high -density neighbourhood. Initial heating demand could be served using
temporary energy centres located within the CTOC (fuelled by natural gas), and
only once sufficient development in the area is underway would the utility invest in
the infrastructure to interconnect with the DYEC for heat supply. It is important to
note that the DYEC is not part of the DES itself but is connected to the DES to
supply waste heat.
4.5 These findings have significant implications for the proposed ownership model for
the CTOC DES, which will be discussed in the following sections.
5. District Energy Ownership Models
5.1 Generally, there is no universal ownership model for district energy although most
DES fall along a spectrum from fully public to fully private (see Figure 1 below),
with a range of hybrid models possible in between:
a. Public Ownership — this is the most common model globally, often in the form
of municipal ownership, providing control over objectives and means of
district energy development. This offers low-cost financing, access to grants
and other contributions, and aligns affordability with local energy security and
decarbonization objectives. Private sector partners can reduce demands on
municipal capacity and capital, provide expertise and services (ranging from
design, construction, operations and maintenance), and offer risk transfer
opportunities. Municipal ownership is beneficial in early stages to mitigate
Page 43
Report #2025-COW-19
Page 9 of 15
connection risk through coordination with municipal planning or mandatory
connection policies.
b. Private ownership — Privately -owned district energy utilities are less common
globally. Some private systems emerged out of previously publicly owned
systems (e.g., the Enwave district heating system in downtown Toronto).
Private systems serve primarily commercial interests: competitive rates,
reliability and investor profits, but can also evolve in response to policies and
incentives such as green development standards, carbon pricing or other
environmental regulation.
C. Hybrid ownership — many of the benefits of public (municipal) ownership can
be secured through private -sector delivery although this requires a high
degree of cooperation between municipalities and the private sector. Hybrid
governance models can reduce capital and organizational demands on
municipalities, while also transferring risk. However, governance can be more
complicated, and private ownership tends to increase financing costs and
constrain the typical trade-offs between financial returns and public benefits
that are possible under direct public ownership.
Figure 1: Spectrum of DE Ownership Models
Fully Public
(Municipal, regional,
Part of public administration
or senior
Wholly owned subsidiaries
government)
Joint ventures (various legal structures)
Split assets (separate ownership of assets/ functions with
contractual relationships)
Strategic partnerships (private ownership with public cooperation)
Hybrid
Concessions (permanent or temporary private ownership with
public mandate and oversight)
Design Build Operate Finance and Maintain service contracts for
publicly owned infrastructure
Cooperatives (customer ownership)
Fully Private
Not for profit
For profit
5.2 In addition to mitigating connection risk as discussed in Section 4, common
ownership model considerations for municipalities establishing new DES include:
a. Investment required — a wholly municipally owned and delivered utility will
require the municipality to fund all capital costs. However, municipal
ownership with private sector partnerships can offload some or all the
financing requirements to a third -party utility company. Municipal ownership
with private sector partners may unlock access to grants directed at public
Page 44
Report #2025-COW-19
Page 10 of 15
sector agencies which are not available to a private sector owner. Fully
private systems would typically require no municipal capital contributions.
b. Influence over end user rates and affordability — Municipal ownership
provides the greatest degree of control over rates and affordability, as the
municipalities can determine how best to manage competing priorities such
as customer affordability, cost recovery and overall environmental
performance.
5.3 Municipal ownership can include joint ownership by two or more municipalities,
and municipal ownership does not preclude partnerships (in the form of service
contracts) with private sector service providers to support design, construction,
operation, maintenance and financing of the utility.
5.4 Regardless of the ownership model, most successful business models for DES
involve a municipality to some degree, typically through policy, planning, and/or
partial or full ownership.
6. Courtice DES Ownership and Governance Model Evaluation and
Recommendation
6.1 Building on the policy analysis in Section 4 and ownership model considerations
outlined in Section 5 above, staff conducted an options -oriented analysis of
ownership and governance structures ranging from fully municipal ownership to
fully private ownership models. This evaluation points to an arms -length
municipal -ownership model via a municipal services corporation (MSC) as the
preferred ownership model for the following key reasons:
a. Municipal ownership places the DES in the best position to manage
connection risk and ensure building connections within the CTOC. Ensuring
building connections is critical to the preliminary business case outlined in
Section 3, and will be critical in enabling the DES to attract grant funding and
low-cost capital through public and private sources which in turn supports
overall affordability of energy delivered;
b. Municipal ownership provides the Region and Clarington with control over the
end user rates and connection fees charged by the utility, which provides
transparency and accountability to ratepayers, and supports affordability
objectives for landowners and district energy customers in CTOC; and
C. Given that the CTOC DES is ultimately based on a future energy supply from
jointly -owned infrastructure between Durham and York, namely, the Durham
York Energy Centre (DYEC), any matters related to connection, heat sales
agreements, or energy supply will presumably require coordination with York
Region. As the DES also contemplates municipal infrastructure and facilities
in the Clarington Energy Park and CTOC as customers, municipal ownership
allows the Region and Clarington to control costs and ensure reliable service
delivery.
Page 45
Report #2025-COW-19
Page 11 of 15
6.2 Building on the ownership model considerations, and associated legislative
analysis, Regional Staff propose development of a DES ownership and
governance model consisting of two entities as shown in Figure 2, and described
below:
a. A Joint Municipal Services Board (JMSB) with delegated authority over the
services required to operationalize the CTOC DES. The JMSB acts like an
extension of the municipalities and will include representatives appointed by
the respective Councils of both the Region and the Municipality of Clarington.
The JMSB would provide governance over a jointly owned Municipal Services
Corporation (MSC), including approving annual budgets and the user rates
that the MSC charges to customers in the DE service area. The JMSB would
be delegated the authority to implement a district energy mandatory
connection by-law for high density development in the CTOC MTSA.
b. A Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) jointly owned by the Region and
Clarington would be responsible for delivery, ownership, and operations of the
DES. It would hire staff for its operations and establish contracts with private
sector partners needed for construction, operations, maintenance, etc.
Figure 2: Recommended CTOC DES Ownership and Governance Model
Joint Municipal Services Board
---------------------------------
i (J MSB)
Control and Management of Respective
Services Delegated by Municipalities
• Governed by Board appointed by Municipalities
• Provides Governance of Municipal Services Corporation
• Passes District Energy Bylaw (Incl. Connection Requirement)
• Sets Rates and Connection Fees
Municipal Services Corporation (MSC)
• Shareholders: Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington
• MSC delivers, owns and operates DE Infrastructure
• MSC enables access to debt financing
• MSC provides billing and rate collection on behalf of JMSB
Page 46
Report #2025-COW-19
Page 12 of 15
6.3 Establishment of an MSC is permitted under Ontario Regulation 599/60 which
requires the Region and Clarington to:
a. Develop a business case study for the MSC (Section 6);
b. Consult with the community about the plan to create the MSC;
C. Adopt and maintain policies with respect to the transfer of assets; and
d. Obtain Council approval in the form of a resolution or by-law.
6.4 The MSC would function as a subsidiary corporation of, and therefore operate as
a separate legal entity from, the corporations of the Region and Clarington. This
model is recommended as it permits a greater degree of autonomy from ongoing
municipal operating processes, providing the increased organizational agility
necessary to achieve the DES goals and objectives more efficiently and
expeditiously.
6.5 Moving forward with the MSC, an important consideration is that only
municipalities may be owners. In the result, the sole shareholders would be the
Region and Clarington. As per Section 196 of the Municipal Act, it is up to the
discretion of the municipal owner to determine the initial composition of the Board
of Directors. In terms of keeping Council informed as the shareholder, it is up to
the owner municipalities to determine whether they will be informed through
regular reporting, or if they would prefer to have Council member(s) on the Board
of Directors to act as the informative link between the MSC and Council. In
addition, the Chair of the Board will be selected by the Shareholder, and the
Board will play a role in decision making and governance. Staff from the Region
and Clarington will collaborate to develop business recommendations on these
issues.
6.6 The MSC will develop a Board of Directors that will be responsible for governance
of operations, and as mentioned above, the municipal owners will decide if a
Council member is part of the Board. The municipal owner will be responsible for
deciding the number of members they would like on the Board initially; it will likely
be recommended that an uneven number of members are selected in order to
break any voting ties. Some general policies that should be adopted and
developed for the MSC include:
• Financial policies
• Human Resource Practices/regulations
• Operations and Programs
• Asset Management Strategies
• Standard Operating Procedures
The implementation of these policies occurs after the incorporation of the MSC
and staff from the Region and Clarington will undertake to develop them in draft
now, for subsequent Council consideration.
Page 47
Report #2025-COW-19 Page 13 of 15
6.7 It is anticipated that the MSC will work with experienced third parties to support
implementation of the CTOC DES, including: obtaining financing, construction of
the necessary infrastructure, operations and maintenance of the district energy
service including customer billing services. Regional staff propose to conduct an
initial Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEOI) in Q3 2025 to understand
options for third party partnerships to mitigate risks and support project
implementation.
7. Potential Funding Sources for CTOC DES
7.1 The proposed DES could potentially be supported by a variety of funding and
financing sources to enhance its overall financial viability. These include:
a. FCM Green Municipal Fund (GMF): offering up to $10 million comprised of a
mix of grants and low -interest loans under the Community Energy Systems
stream.
b. Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB): provides low -interest debt financing, with
over $1 billion already allocated to DES utilities over the last two years
although it should be recognized that there is inherent political risk and
uncertainty associated with the future availability of this funding source.
7.2 Through this report Regional Staff are seeking direction to explore the potential for
grant and low -interest debt financing options to support the business case and
overall financial viability for the CTOC DES.
8. Tentative Project Development Timeline
8.1 The critical path for the CTOC DES calls for the proposed DES and related
service to be available in time for the first buildings in the CTOC high density core
to connect, which is currently forecasted to be 2029.
8.2 Initial steps over the period of 2025-2026 focus on establishing the CTOC DES
policy and governance framework as outlined in this report. Key immediate next
steps include:
a. Inclusion of DES supportive policy in the CTOC Secondary Plan
b. Establish a Joint Municipal Services Board (JMSB) and Municipal Services
Corporation (MSC) through completion of a comprehensive business case
study, including development of a capital financing strategy, and engagement
with potential private sector DE operating partners; and
C. Continued engagement with CTOC LOG to refine district energy service area
and phasing plan
8.3 Building on the initial steps outlined above, Phase 1 of DES design, procurement
and construction is forecasted to begin in 2027 to enable service delivery in 2029
Report #2025-COW-19 Page 14 of 15
when initial high -density buildings are expected to be completed. Initial DES
demand will be served by a temporary energy centre in the CTOC.
8.4 The utility will closely monitor development in CTOC in collaboration with the LOG
to ensure appropriate phasing of investment in subsequent district energy
infrastructure, including the design and construction of the DYEC heat recovery
system and transmission piping system which is forecasted to be in place by the
early to mid-2030's based on current development projections.
9. Conclusions and Recommended Next Steps
9.1 The updated preliminary business case for the CTOC DES reaffirms the potential
feasibility and benefits of leveraging waste heat from DYEC. The refined financial
model, increased projected floor area, and phased implementation strategy assist
in strengthening the case for a municipal -led ownership model. To mitigate
connection risk and ensure project viability, a mandatory connection policy is
recommended.
9.2 In undertaking next steps, staff seek Council direction to:
a. Conduct a detailed analysis to establish a Joint Municipal Services Board
(JMSB) and a Municipal Services Corporation (MSC) to govern and operate
the proposed CTOC DES.
b. Engage potential funding partners to develop a comprehensive capital
financing plan.
C. Conduct market sounding and issue RFEOI to assess third -party interest in
project development and operation.
d. Conducting public consultation required under the Municipal Act to establish
an MSC.
e. Develop a comprehensive business case study outlining governance,
financial, and operational strategies for the DES MSC.
10. Relationship to Strategic Plan
10.1 This report aligns with/addresses the following strategic goals and priorities in the
Durham Region Strategic Plan:
a. Goal #2 — Environmental Sustainability and Climate Action
Goal E1 — Reduce corporate greenhouse gas emissions to meet
established targets.
Page 49
Report #2025-COW-19
Page 15 of 15
• Goal E2 - Collaborate with partners on the low carbon transition to reduce
community greenhouse gas emissions;
• Goal E4 — Lead the transition to sustainable living through waste
management, diversion, and the circular economy; and
b. Goal #4 — Resilient Local Economies
• Goal R1 - Attract and retain quality employers that strengthen key
economic sectors, including energy and technology.
10.2 For additional information, contact: Ian McVey, Manager of Sustainability at 905-
668-7711, extension 3803.
Approved by: Sandra Austin, Executive Director, Strategic Initiatives
11. Attachments
Attachment #1: District Energy Ownership Models — Briefing Report — Reshape
Strategies
Attachment #2: Courtice District Energy System Preliminary Business Case
Overview
Respectfully submitted,
Original Signed by
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page 50
District Energy Ownership Models
Briefing Report R2
Reshape Project Number P808
January 16, 2025
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Statement of Limitations
This report has been prepared by Reshape Infrastructure Strategies ("Reshape") and its partners
for the exclusive use and benefit of the Region of Durham ("Client"). This document represents
the best professional judgment of Reshape and our partners, based on the information available
at the time of its completion and as appropriate for the scope of work. Services were
performed according to normal professional standards in a similar context and for a similar
scope of work.
Copyright Notice
These materials (text, tables, figures and drawings included herein) are copyright of Reshape
Infrastructure Strategies Ltd. The Client is permitted to reproduce the materials for archiving
and distribution to third parties only as required to conduct business specifically related to the
scope of this study. Any other use of these materials without the written permission of Reshape
Infrastructure Strategies Ltd. is prohibited.
Page 52
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
ERA
APE
TEGIES
Table of Contents
Tableof Contents............................................................................................................................. ii
Figures............................................................................................................................................. I I I
Tables.............................................................................................................................................. I I I
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 4
2 District Energy Ownership Models..........................................................................................4
2.1 Public Ownership........................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Private Ownership.......................................................................................................... 6
2.3 Hybrid Ownership Models............................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Concessions....................................................................................................7
2.3.2 Strategic Partnerships....................................................................................7
2.3.3 Joint Ventures.................................................................................................8
2.3.4 Split Asset Ownership.....................................................................................8
3 Ownership Model Considerations for New DE Systems......................................................... 9
4 Case Studies........................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Markham District Energy............................................................................................. 14
4.2 Zibi Community Utility................................................................................................. 16
4.3 Lakeview Village District Energy System...................................................................... 19
4.4 City of Guelph District Energy...................................................................................... 21
4.5 Enwave Toronto........................................................................................................... 22
4.6 River District Energy / Metro Vancouver Waste -to -Energy Facility ............................ 25
4.7 City of Vancouver False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Utility .................................... 29
4.8 Lulu Island Energy Company........................................................................................31
5 Report Submission.................................................................................................................37
Page 53
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Figures
Figure 1: Spectrum of DE Ownership Models................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: Example of Split Asset Ownership between Generation and Distribution ...................... 9
Figure 3: ZCU System Map (Zibi.ca)............................................................................................... 18
Figure 4: Lakeview Village Rendering (Lakeview Community Partners Limited) .......................... 20
Figure 5: Etobicoke Civic Centre Development............................................................................. 24
Figure 6: Rendering of River District at Build -out (Wesgroup Properties) .................................... 25
Figure 7: Thermal Energy Transmission Line from WTEF.............................................................. 27
Figure 8: Construction of the Olympic Village, Vancouver............................................................ 30
Tables
Table 1: Summary of Key Considerations for New DE Utilities..................................................... 12
Table 2: Overview of DE Policies in Canadian Jurisdictions........................................................... 13
Table 4: Markham District Energy— Key Data............................................................................... 14
Table 5: Zibi Community Utility-- Key Data.................................................................................. 17
Table 6: Lakeview Village — Key Data............................................................................................. 20
Table 7: MVRD / RIDE — Key Data................................................................................................... 26
Table 8: False Creek NEU — Key Data............................................................................................. 30
Page 54
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 iii
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
1 Introduction
This report provides information on common district energy ownership models, typical
ownership considerations for municipalities when establishing new district energy utilities, and
case studies of new and evolving district energy systems in Canada.
The purpose of this report is to inform subsequent discussions and decision making regarding a
preferred ownership model for the proposed Courtice Transit Oriented Community District
Energy System in Durham Region.
2 District Energy Ownership Models
There is no universal ownership model for district energy. Ownership models vary greatly by
country and by region, as well as technology and stage of market development. Ownership
models are as much a function of local history and cultural preferences as explicit public policy.
For many utilities, ownership has evolved overtime with changes in market maturity, system
size, technology, public sector priorities, and other considerations. The presence and form of
economic regulation of district energy can also influence or constrain ownership models in a
jurisdiction.
Most DE systems fall along a spectrum from fully public to fully private (Figure 1) Between fully
public and fully private there are many types of hybrid models with varying degrees of shared
ownership or governance.
Fully Public
(Municipal, regional, Part of public administration
or senior Wholly owned subsidiaries
government)
Joint ventures (various legal structures)
101 Split assets (separate ownership of assets/ functions with
contractual relationships)
Hybrid
Strategic partnerships (private ownership with public cooperation)
Concessions (permanent or temporary private ownership with
public mandate and oversight)
Cooperatives (customer ownership)
Fully Private Not for profit
For profit
Page 55
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 PAGE 4
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Figure 1: Spectrum of DE Ownership Models
2.1 Public Ownership
At one end of the ownership spectrum is full public ownership. This is still the most common
model globally for DE. It often takes the form of municipal ownership but can also include
ownership by other public sector entities such as regional governments, state/provincial
agencies, or social housing agencies. Municipal ownership provides the greatest opportunity for
control over both the objectives and means of DE development. Outcomes important to the
public sector go beyond commercial goals of affordability, reliability, and profitability, and often
include climate, environmental, equity, resilience, and economic development considerations.
Municipal ownership allows governments to determine an acceptable balance across multiple
objectives and to select the specific means of achieving the desired outcomes (e.g., service
areas, technologies, financing model, rate structures, rates, etc.). Municipal ownership provides
greater opportunities for low-cost financing (e.g., 100% debt financing and lower -cost sources
of debt), access to grants and other direct contributions for public benefits, which can help to
reduce the tension between affordability and other policy objectives.
Municipal ownership and financing require municipalities to have access to adequate capital for
investment. It can also create new commercial or reputational risks as well as demands on
organizational capacity and expertise. Further, unlike typical municipal services which cover the
entire community, a new DE service will typically only cover a small area, at least initially. This
can pose novel investment, governance, and accountability challenges for municipalities.
There are also examples of municipal DE systems that secure services from the private sector
without transferring ownership or control of DE systems. These services can include design,
construction, operations or maintenance. These may even include financing support.
Outsourcing of services can help reduce demands on organizational capacity or capital; provide
access to industry -specific expertise; and create opportunities for some risk transfer while
retaining municipal ownership and control.
Municipal ownership can be very helpful in the early stages of DE development, as well as in
periods of major technological change such as the transition from conventional to low -carbon
energy sources. Municipal ownership may enhance public trust and acceptance of new DE
systems and during periods of transition (such as decarbonization). Public ownership can enable
more direct control over risks which may hinder private sector investment or increase private
sector financing costs. Connection risk can be a major impediment to setting up DE networks or
transitioning existing networks to low -carbon energy, particularly in the absence of other
supporting policies. Municipalities can reduce connection risk through close coordination of DE
development with municipal policy/planning or mandatory connection policies.
Municipal ownership may increase public acceptance and legal support for mandatory
connection policies. Municipal ownership may also reduce development or transition risks by
Page 56
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 PAGE 5
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
bringing low-cost financing or lowering upfront capital costs through strategies such as
coordinating the installation of DE infrastructure with other municipal infrastructure.
The benefits of and need for municipal ownership can decline over time with increased scale
and maturity of systems. This has led some municipalities to divest of mature systems.
Nevertheless, early municipal ownership can have lasting impacts on the layout of networks,
the mix of technologies, and the design of contracts or rates long after divestment.
Case studies of municipally owned systems are provided for Markham District Energy, the City
of Guelph's district energy program, and the City of Vancouver False Creek NEU.
2.2 Private Ownership
At the other end of the ownership spectrum is full private ownership.' Privately -owned DE
utilities are less common globally. This model is more common in markets with little or no
economic regulation of private DE systems, particularly in the United States, but also parts of
Canada and Europe. Private owners can include dedicated DE utilities, gas and electric utilities
with DE subsidiaries, and property developers (e.g., large master -planned developments which
include DE systems). Pension and infrastructure funds are active investors in private DE systems.
Some private systems emerged out of previously publicly owned systems (e.g., the Enwave
district heating system in downtown Toronto). Others have emerged in response to unique
commercial opportunities to provide competitive energy services through economies of scale
and efficiency. For example, the Creative Energy system in downtown Vancouver was
developed by private interests starting in the late 1960s at a time when natural gas was less
common and district energy offered a strong value proposition to the consumer, as well as air
quality benefits.
Many of the oldest DE systems in the United States were developed by electric utilities and
relied on waste heat from electric power plants located in urban areas. As electricity generation
moved towards larger power plants located farther from urban centres, many electric utilities
divested their DE systems, although there are examples of continued ownership, such as the
Manhattan Steam System owned by Con Edison.
Though less common, there are also cooperative or community ownership models which can be
categorized as private ownership in that they do not involve direct municipal ownership or
governance. However, municipal governments may still lead the formation of these models and
also participate indirectly in their governance.
1 The discussion in this section focuses on utilities which serve external customers. Many institutional campuses such as hospitals,
universities and military bases have DE systems serving their own facilities; while they are technically DE systems, they do not have
the same issues and challenges.
Page 57
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 PAGE 6
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Regardless of how they came about, most private systems now serve primarily commercial
interests: competitive rates, reliability, and investor profits. Private systems can also evolve in
response to policies and incentives such as new building standards, carbon pricing or other
environmental regulations. This is the case for some new private DE systems in master planned
communities facing higher environmental standards (an example of this is the River District
Energy system case study). These systems are commercial responses to new policies — they are
not necessarily pursuing these public benefits as ends in and of themselves.
2.3 Hybrid Ownership Models
Many of the benefits of municipal ownership can, in theory, be secured through private -sector
delivery with the right ownership or governance models. However, this requires a high level of
trust and cooperation between municipalities and the private sector or other community
organizations. These hybrid ownership models can reduce or eliminate capital and
organizational demands on municipalities, while also transferring risk and securing additional
expertise. But public sector influence in hybrid ownership models may be more indirect and
necessarily more oriented to ends (such as GHG outcomes) rather than to specific means (such
as technology selection). Governance can also be more complicated and nuanced in these other
models. Private ownership tends to increase financing costs and constrain the kinds of trade-
offs between financial returns and public benefits that are possible under direct public
ownership. However, these trade-offs may also be reduced by greater efficiency or transfer of
risks under private sector delivery.
2.3.1 Concessions
In some cases, there is strong public governance of private systems beyond or in lieu of
traditional economic regulation. This may be the granting of concessions or through strategic
partnerships between municipalities and private companies to support the creation, transition,
or expansion of private systems in support of new policy objectives. Neither of these
approaches involve direct ownership by municipalities, but they can provide indirect control
over outcomes and operations to secure public benefits over and above private benefits.
2.3.2 Strategic Partnerships
Strategic partnerships do not involve ownership by municipalities but rather strategic
consideration in exchange for public benefit. For example, in exchange for securing public
benefits (such as GHG reductions), a municipality may provide support to a private DE utility
such as:
• Providing access to land, resources, and infrastructure (possibly on favourable terms);
• Contributing land or infrastructure paid for by the municipality on favourable terms;
• Committing to connect municipal buildings or to include connection requirements as a
condition in the sale of municipal land to developers;
Page 58
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 PAGE 7
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
• Committing to align policies to encourage connection to DE (e.g., green building
policies, accelerated permitting processes for developments connecting to DE; property
tax rebates for buildings connected to DE);
• Coordinating installation of municipal and DE infrastructure;
• Accelerating permitting process for DE projects; or
• Providing property tax rebates for DE systems (where private DE systems are required
to pay property taxes) or for properties that connect to approved DE systems.
Private systems may be incented to work with municipalities on strategic partnerships in order
to protect their existing assets or to secure and de -risk new investment opportunities.
2.3.3 Joint Ventures
Joint ventures are playing an increasing role in the DE sector, particularly in large European
cities. In a joint venture, a special purpose vehicle is formed, with shared ownership between
the public and private partners. Governance is shared, with municipal control proportional to
their representation on the board of directors. The Zibi Community Utility is an example of a
joint venture with municipal participation via Hydro Ottawa.
2.3.4 Split Asset Ownership
Another form of public -private partnership is the split asset model, where private companies
control some assets and public companies control the remaining assets, with contracts
governing the relationships between assets and owners. For example, a municipality may own a
distribution piping system (and be responsible for setting retail rates and governance of the
DPS), while a partner may own and operate the energy centre and sell heat to the municipal
DPS at a wholesale rate (or vice versa). This concept is illustrated in Figure 2.
As an example of a split asset model, Metro Vancouver, which owns an existing waste -to -energy
plant, is building new heat recovery and transmission infrastructure to sell heat under a long-
term supply contract to an existing private DE utility in Vancouver. Metro Vancouver is also
exploring the possibility of extending transmission infrastructure and selling heat to a new
municipally owned DE system in Burnaby, BC (this example is described in greater detail in the
River District / Meto Vancouver case study in Section 4).
Page 59
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 PAGE 8
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Distribution Assets Generating Assets
ownership
demarcation
ntre
i
Energy Transfer Stations
(one per building)
Figure 2: Example of Split Asset Ownership between Generation and Distribution
3 Ownership Model Considerations for
New DE Systems
Common ownership model considerations for municipalities establishing new district energy
systems include:
• Municipal Investment Required
• Municipal Ability to Reduce Connection Risk
• Municipal Influence over Rates and Affordability
• Municipal Control over GHG Outcomes.
These considerations are discussed below and summarized in Table 1.
Municipal Investment Required
This is the most straightforward; a fully municipally owned and delivered utility will require the
municipality to fund all capital costs. Municipal ownership with a design -build -operate -finance -
maintain (DBOFM) contract can offload some or all of the financing requirements to a third
party utility company. Hybrid models may require some municipal financing depending on how
the project is structured. Fully private systems would typically require no municipal capital
contributions.
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 Page 60 PAGE 9
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
A potential benefit of municipal ownership is that it may unlock access to grants directed at
public sector agencies, which a private -sector owner may not be able to access.
Municipal Ability to Reduce Connection Risk
Connection risk is usually the most critical risk faced by a new district energy utility. A lack of
connected customers is fatal to the success of a new system, and the nature of district energy
infrastructure means that any DE assets can only serve buildings within a relatively short
distance, making it crucial that target customers are connected to the system.
Perhaps the simplest and strongest tool available is a mandatory connection policy. Mandatory
connection can be limited to specific areas, specific types of connections or specific time
periods. Outside these parameters, connections or renewals can be voluntary. For example, the
City of Vancouver has a mandatory connection bylaw covering new construction and major
renovations within a designated service area for its False Creek Neighborhood Energy Utility
(see Section 4 for further information on the False Creek NEU). Connections by existing
buildings, or by buildings outside the service area, remain voluntary. Mandatory connection
may be used temporarily as tool to support new system development by promoting an efficient
layout and helping achieve adequate scale to launch the utility.
There are no examples we are familiar with in Canada where a municipality has passed a
mandatory connection bylaw compelling connection to a privately held district energy system.
There are open questions whether this would be legally permissible or politically acceptable in
Ontario.
There are cases where municipalities have ensured connection to private DE systems through
other means. The River District Energy system (described in Section 4) is one example. River
District Energy is owned by the master developer of a large brownfield site. City of Vancouver
required the creation of a district energy system as a condition of the site's rezoning from
industrial to residential uses.
The Etobicoke Civic Centre project (also described in Section 4) shows another approach to
ensuring connection to a privately -held DE utility. The site is largely owned by the City of
Toronto, and through its Joint Development Agreement with Enwave, the City and Enwave
worked collaboratively to ensure that the site would be served by low -carbon district energy
and that all buildings would be connected to the system.
Given that the Courtice GO station area has multiple developers, not a single master developer,
and municipal government is not a major landowner, these two approaches may not be viable.
Other tools can indirectly incentivize buildings to connect to district energy. Any connection
incentive policies must be reasonably credible to support private investment, and private
investors may also want assurance that such policies will continue for a sufficient period. These
incentives can be financial or non -financial.
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 Page 61
PAGE 10
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
For example, limits on new gas connections or strong green building standards that allow
compliance through DE connections can help de -risk new system development, though these
tools are not currently available to the Region of Durham. Expedited rezoning and development
application approvals for buildings connecting to low -carbon DE can also incentivize connection.
In general, there are fewer examples of these types of indirect tools leading to successful
development of new systems, particularly in the context of sites with multiple landowners.
Municipal Influence over Rates and Affordability
Municipal ownership likely provides the greatest degree of control over rates and affordability.
With municipal ownership, municipalities can determine how best to manage competing
priorities such as affordability, cost recovery, and environmental performance.
Municipal Control over GHG Outcomes
Greenhouse gas intensity limits (GHGi) on new buildings are an emerging policy tool in Canada.
Initially implemented by the City of Vancouver and the City of Toronto, they are now being
deployed by other communities, though the ability of municipalities in Ontario to impose GHGi
requirements on new buildings is somewhat uncertain given the potential for the province to
limit municipal powers under Bill 23.
Greenhouse gas intensity limits on new construction can indirectly impose a low -carbon
requirement on district energy utilities by requiring them to provide service to a certain
standard if they are going to connect customers. Some municipalities also provide separate
compliance pathways which incentivize customers to connect to low -carbon district energy
systems by allowing buildings served by low -carbon DE to meet less stringent thermal energy
demand standards.
Alternatively, with municipal ownership, municipalities can directly manage the GHG intensity
of a district energy system as part of their ownership and operation of the system. The City of
Vancouver's False Creek NEU has operated in this manner for many years. The City has had a
longstanding target to supply 70% of the utility's energy from renewable sources. Council has
now directed the utility to evaluate options to increase the share of renewables to 100%.
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models— R2 Page 62
PAGE 11
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Table 1: Summary of Key Considerations for New DE Utilities in Ontario by Ownership Model
OwnershipMunicipal
Investment
Municipal Ability to
Municipal Influence over
Municipal Control
Municipal
Highest
Highest (potential for
Highest
Highest
mandatory connection)
Municipal with
High (potential for
Potentially same as full
Potentially same as
DBFOM or Similar
Potentially none
mandatory connection)
municipal ownership
full municipal
ownership
Hybrid Models (JV,
Depends on
Depends on
Depends on details of
Likely requires GHG
Split Asset)
arrangement
arrangement — high
agreement
regulation via green
degree of uncertainty
building policy
Private Ownership
Limited
Best suited to projects
Likely requires GHG
with Strategic
Typically none
with municipally -owned
Limited
regulation via green
Partnership
land
building policy
P808—Region of Durham - DE Ownership Models — R2 Page 63
PAGE 12
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
An overview of DE policies from other Canadian jurisdictions is provided in Table 2. Although
the list is not exhaustive, it illustrates that municipal ownership with a mandatory connection
bylaw is a very common strategy for overcoming connection risk when establishing new DES.
Table 2: Overview of DE Policies in Canadian Jurisdictions
Mandatory
City-wide
Informal /
Connection
DE
City
Green
Economic
"Encouraged"
City (Province)
to
Requirement
Buildings
Building
Incentives
in
Development
Municipally
in Site
as Anchor
Policy
for
Application
Owned
Rezoning
Loads
with
Connection
Approvals
System
GHGI
Process
City •
Edmonton
.;
City of Calgary
.;
City •
Vancouver
City of Surrey
==mom=
(BQ
City of North
Vancouver
City •
Richmond
MMMEMM
(BQ
City
==mom=
Toronto (ON)
City •
arkha
Page 64
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
13
ERA
APE
TEGIES
4 Case Studies
4.1 Markham District Energy
Markham District Energy (MDE) is a utility company owned by the City of Markham. MDE
operates two geographically independent district energy systems:
The Markham Centre system, the first system developed by MDE, which serves
Markham's main business and retail centre, and
• the Cornell Centre system, which is anchored by the regional hospital.
The Markham Centre system began operations in 2000. The Cornell Centre system began
operation in 2012 as part of an expansion of the hospital campus. In total, MDE operates four
energy plants within Markham, providing hot water and chilled water. Heat is generated from a
combination of combined heat -and -power engines and natural gas -fired boilers, while cooling is
provided by chiller plants.
Table 3: Markham District Energy— Key Data
Markham District Energy
Location
Markham, ON
Ownership Model
Owned by the City of Markham
Governance
Board of Directors
Economic Regulation
Not regulated by the Ontario Energy Board
Year Established
2000
Services
Heating and Cooling
Current Service Area
1.2 million mz (13 million ft2)
Low Carbon Energy Supply
Several projects in the planning phase
Connection Incentives /
Requirements
No mandatory connection bylaw.
System History and Development
Page 65
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 14
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
MDE was established by the City in the late 1990s due to two main drivers. The first driver was
resiliency concerns in response to the 1998 ice storm in eastern Ontario and Quebec. The storm
did not significantly impact the City of Markham, but the event raised awareness of the
potential impacts from a major weather event. The second driver was economic development.
District energy was seen as a differentiating factor which the City could use to attract high -value
business such as IBM which, at the time, was canvassing cities to locate a major new facility.
Recent legislative changes had opened up the opportunity for municipalities to invest in new
utility operations (including thermal energy systems), and MDE was born.
Ownership, Governance and Operation
MDE is owned by Markham Enterprises Corporation, a holding company entirely owned by the
City of Markham. Markham Enterprises Corporation is also one of the owners of Alectra
Utilities. The Board of Directors is made up of four members of Markham City Council (including
the mayor) plus five independent directors.
All operational resources are internal to MDE, and the City has no role in MDE, other than
governance via the Board. MDE has a total of 35 staff, including operations and management.
MDE was initiated with loans from the City of Markham and Markham Enterprises, as well as
funding from provincial gas tax revenues. Subsequent financing was provided by Infrastructure
Ontario and Manulife Financial. MDE now has a relatively high debt -to -equity ratio, but as a
mature system with many long-term contracts it has a low risk profile for lenders.
Connection Incentives, Rates and Regulation
Thermal energy utilities in Ontario are not economically regulated by the Ontario Energy Board.
Rates are generally established via long-term contracts between utilities and their customers.
The City of Markham does not intervene in the rate setting process for MDE. Instead, customer
rates are negotiated with individual customer buildings to be commercially competitive with a
comparable on -site alternative. MDE has not historically charged connection fees to private
developers connecting new buildings to the system.
MDE does not have a mandatory connection bylaw and all customers have been secured
through negotiation. The City does not offer density bonuses for connection to MDE.
Nevertheless, MDE claims to have signed every new building in their service areas, and credits
their success to offering competitive terms, as well as providing the qualitative benefits of a
district energy connection (reliability, additional space, etc.).
The absence of a connection fee (sometimes referred to as a developer contribution) is likely a
strong connection incentive, as it reduces the building's construction cost (though more costs
must be recovered through rates).
Page 66
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
15
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
MDE's contracts typically have terms of 20-30 years. As the Markham Centre system began
operation in 2000, many of MDE's original customers are in the process of renewing their
contracts. Renewal language is typically included in existing contracts; most contracts include
two 10-year extension terms.2 According to the terms of the contracts, renewal rates must be in
line with rates recently offered to similar customers at the time of renewal.
System Decarbonization
The City has not directly regulated MDE's greenhouse gas emissions. MDE has announced a
commitment to reducing GHG emissions in line with the City of Markham municipal targets and
aims to achieve zero -carbon operations by 2050.
MDE has secured $135M in low-cost financing from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to fund low -
carbon projects. This amount has been matched by CIBC for a total of $270M in available low-
cost financing. MDE has also been successful in securing grants from the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities and the federal Low -Carbon Economy Fund.
The funding and financing noted above will provide capital for three major low -carbon projects
to decarbonize MDE's systems. These initiatives include a large-scale wastewater heat recovery
project, a pilot biomass plant, and a heat recovery chiller to recover heat from IT and healthcare
loads that require cooling in the winter. These planned projects are forecast to reduce MDE's
GHG emissions by —80%.
Although older customer contract rates are based on an avoided cost of natural gas heating, the
avoided cost benchmark used to negotiate rates with new customers is based on lower GHG-
intensity heating, typically using a heat pump. Costs for system decarbonization will be
recovered through renegotiated rates with existing customers (as contracts are renewed) and
through contracts with new connections.
4.2 Zibi Community Utility
The Zibi Community Utility (ZCU) District Energy System will provide net -zero carbon heating
and cooling for all buildings in a new 34-acre development in Ottawa and Gatineau on a former
industrial site on the Ottawa River.
To provide heating, the system recovers low-grade waste heat from the neighboring Kruger
tissue mill. In summer, cooling is provided by rejecting heat into the Ottawa river, either
through direct river water heat exchange or via chillers. The energy centre currently services six
buildings totaling 57,000 m2 but will service 370,000 m2 at full buildout in 2032. ZCU is integral
to helping Zibi be the region's first zero -carbon emission community.
2 The primary source for this case study is an interview with Bruce Ander (President & CEO) and Peter Ronson (Chief Operating
Officer) of MDE carried out over Zoom on October 23, 2023.
Page 67
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 16
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Table 4: Zibi Community Utility — Key Data
Zibi Community Utility
Location
Ottawa, ON and Gatineau, QC
Ownership Model
Equal Partnership between Hydro Ottawa &
Dream
Governance
Board of Directors
Economic Regulation
Thermal networks not regulated in Ontario
or Quebec
Year Established
2021
Services
Heating and Cooling
Current Service Area / Load
Current: 57,000m2 (613,000 ft2)
Future: 370,000 m2 (4 million ft2) at full
build -out
Low Carbon Energy Supply
Industrial waste heat recovery, river water
heatexchange
Connection Incentives / Requirements
Utility is 50% owned by developer
System Development
Theia Partners, a real estate developer focused on projects with high environmental
performance, led the whole Zibi development including the ZCU. Theia's vision for Zibi was to
create one of the world's most sustainable and environmentally conscious communities, with a
goals of being net zero carbon, and achieving 30% reduction in operational building energy use
compared with a code -compliant baseline.
The master planning phase was led by Theia, which later sold its share to the other investors
(Dream Impact Trust and Dream Asset Management Corporation), who now own equal shares
of the development. Theia continues to actively manage the Zibi Community Utility system in
partnership with Hydro Ottawa and Dream.3
Hydro Ottawa became involved in Zibi because of the City of Ottawa's low -carbon development
strategy that encourages Hydro Ottawa to engage in partnerships to deliver low -carbon
infrastructure. Hydro Ottawa has also set a target to be net zero by 2030.
3 https://theiapartners.com/projects#district
Page 68
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
17
LSRTAPE
TEOIES
ZCU MAP
O
11
j„
O Krugeasis>ue mill
aa,
Usirre de susus Kaugu
O
O Zlbi Central D%v TM—1 Plans
Cenbale sAermique de quanier zibi
b Enerteugy SecorMary Died ib n Ontario
O Di.Div dsi
.ibur shermiqua s«mn 0ntr10
O DmVib Energy Secondary Dlatribudon 0.
b,e -
DistirbuE thermlque s DI-i re Duebec
Figure 3: ZCU System Map (Zibi.ca)
System Ownership, Governance and Operation
Windmill Dream Limited Partnership (Dream) and Hydro Ottawa each have a 50% interest in the
utility.' The system is operated by Ottawa Hydros and governed by a board of directors.
ZCU secured a $20 million loan and $3 million grant from the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal fund (GMF).6 Natural Resource Canada also provided a $1
million Energy Innovation fund grant. As of 2019, approximately $10 million in partner equity
has also been invested in the system.
4 Zibi Community Utility LP Financial Statements, December 31, 2019
5 https:Hhydroottawa.com/en/blog/ottawas-first-carbon-neutral-community-here
6 https://fcm.ca/en/news-media/news-release/gmf/canada-and-fcm-invest-in-national-capital-regions-first-net-zero-
community/backgrounder
Page 69
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
18
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Rates, Connection Incentives and Regulation
As both landowner/developer of Zibi and a 50% shareholder in the Zibi Community Utility,
Dream can ensure that all buildings in Zibi are connected to ZCU, making additional connection
incentives or requirements unnecessary. Through Dream's role in the governance of ZCU,
Dream has a degree of control over the utility's rates. As the landowner, Dream has an interest
in ensuring that ZCU rates are not a deterrent to the marketability of the development.7
Since ZCU's infrastructure includes a pipeline which crosses the provincial boundary, they have
required approvals from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER). CER does not regulate thermal
energy rates; its regulation has focused on environmental protection and ensuring Zibi has set
aside sufficient financial resources to deal with any future abandonment of the thermal energy
pipeline.' Thermal energy utilities are not economically regulated by the Ontario Energy Board
in Ontario or Regie de L'energie in Quebec.
4.3 Lakeview Village District Energy System
Lakeview Village is a planned mixed -use waterfront community in Mississauga, on the former
site of an Ontario Power Generation coal-fired power plant. Lakeview Village is expected to
have up to 20,000 residents at buildout. As part of the planned redevelopment of the site, the
property developer, Lakeview Community Partners (LCP), has announced their intent to include
a low -carbon district energy system.
The planned technical solution is to provide both district heating and district cooling via a four -
pipe system (supply and return pipes for both heating and cooling). The chilled water loop will
be supplied via a centrifugal chiller plant. The hot water loop will be supplied via a central heat
pump using heat recovered from treated effluent at the G.E. Booth Wastewater Treatment
Plant (WWTP). The G.E Booth WWTP is owned by the Region of Peel and located immediately
east of the Lakeview Village development site.
Lakeview Community Partners has engaged Enwave, a Toronto -based district energy utility, to
deliver the thermal energy system. The details of the LCP-Enwave arrangement are not yet
public. As the master developer of the entire site, LCP is in a position to ensure that all buildings
at Lakeview will connect to the thermal energy system.
7 https://dream.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/DRM AnnualReport final.pdf
8 Order XC-001-2021. Canada Energy Regulator, 22 February 2021.
Page 70
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 19
Figure 4: Lakeview Village Rendering (Source: City of Mississauga / Cicada Designs)
The current technical concept for Lakeview DE is for thermal energy to be transferred from the
treated effluent a the WWTP to a separate loop via a heat exchanger. The Region of Peel
expects to own the effluent heat loop on the G.E. Booth site and potentially the heat exchanger.
All downstream infrastructure such as distribution piping, the effluent heat recovery heat
pump, and all chilled water infrastructure is expected to be owned by Enwave.
Similar to Zibi, the Lakeview DE utility rates will not be regulated by the Ontario Energy Board.
Table 5: Lakeview Village District Energy — Key Data
Lakeview Village District Energy
Location
Mississauga, ON
Ownership Model
Unknown. Enwave was selected as utility
partner but ownership arrangement is not
yet public.
Governance
Unknown
Economic Regulation
Thermal networks not regulated in Ontario
Year Established
TBC
Services
Heating and Cooling
Page 71
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 20
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Lakeview Village District Energy
Service Area / Load
Planned: 1,000,000 m2 (11 million ft2) at full
build -out
Low Carbon Energy Supply
Effluent heat recovery
Connection Incentives / Requirements
Unknown. Property developer selected
utility partner so connection requirements
likely.
4.4 City of Guelph District Energy
In 2013, the City of Guelph launched two separate district energy service areas, one in the
downtown core and one in a business park on the periphery of the city. The initial vision was for
each service area to be served by a 10 MW combined heat and power (CHP) plant. The district
energy project was delivered by Envida Community Energy, a new subsidiary of Guelph Hydro,
itself a subsidiary of the City -owned Guelph Municipal Holdings Incl.
The City invested rapidly in these new service areas, with total investment on the order of $14
million. The City did successfully sign up several customers. However, customer growth stalled,
and it eventually became apparent that the systems were far from achieving the scale required
to make the CHP plants viable. The project's financial performance was poor, and the City
eventually elected to dismantle the business park system entirely.
The downtown Guelph DES provides heating and cooling to two customers (a convention
centre, and a residential condo tower). In June 2022, Guelph announced that the downtown
district energy system had been sold to Cascara Energy. Cascara had previously been engaged to
operate the system on the City's behalf. According to a later Freedom of Information request,
Cascara purchased the system from the City effectively for free10. Available information
suggests that ultimately the City's entire $14 million investment was written off.
9 "Combined heat and power facility announced for Hanlon Creek Business Park". Ward 2 Guelph Press Release, April
10, 2014.
10 Saxon, Tony. "We finally know how much the city sold downtown district energy for (spoiler alert: $8)".
GuelphToday, Dec 6 2023.
Page 72
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 21
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Guelph DE Case Study Insights
The experience of the Guelph district energy initiative illustrates that commitment and a
willingness to invest are not sufficient to successfully establish a new district energy system.
Customer connections are critical, and brand-new systems are particularly vulnerable to
connection risk. Without a combination of the right circumstances (typically, a major new
development area) and either enthusiastic customer participation or policy tools to drive
connection, new district energy systems can face significant challenges.
While there are examples of new DE systems being established by municipalities without relying
on compulsory tools such as mandatory connection, those cases are relatively rare. Strong
municipal policies to ensure buildings (typically new builds) connect remains the most common
connection risk mitigation strategy for new district energy systems.
4.5 Enwave Toronto
Enwave Toronto is Canada's largest district energy system. Enwave's Toronto system includes a
steam heating system as well as an innovative chilled water system. Enwave serves
approximately 180 buildings in downtown Toronto, including many landmark buildings and
institutions. Enwave also owns other district energy systems in Canada, though the Toronto
system is the company's largest.
History
The company that is now Enwave was originally established in 1969 as a non -share capital
corporation to provide heat to four hospitals in downtown Toronto11. In 1980, it was merged
with other steam system assets in the area. It remained a non -share corporation and the board
was expanded to include representatives appointed by the City, the hospitals, the provincial
government, and the University of Toronto12.
The utility was converted to a share corporation in 1998, with shares issued to the City, the
provincial government, the University of Toronto, and the four hospitals which founded the
system 13. All of these entities owned large buildings served by the district energy system.
Over time, these customers sold their shares, and ownership was eventually consolidated.
Today, Enwave is owned by Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and IFM Investors, an investment
management firm. Since privatization in 1998, Enwave has continued to expand. The utility
added its chilled water service in Toronto in 2004 and has subsequently purchased existing DE
systems and established new systems throughout North America.
11 The Toronto Hospitals Steam Corporation Act 1969. Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1968-69, Chapter 131.
12 The Toronto District Heating Corporation Act, 1980. Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1980, Chapter 73.
13 The Toronto District Heating Corporation Act, 1998. Statutes of the Province of Ontario 1998, Chapter 15 Sched C.
Page 73
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 22
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
The history of Enwave illustrates how district energy ownership can evolve over time. The
project, which began as a non-profit collaboration between four hospitals, expanded to include
participation by the municipality, the province, and other major customers. This type of
ownership evolution has also been quite common in Sweden, where the share of district energy
utilities owned by municipalities declined from nearly 100% in 1990 to about 60% by 2004.
Joint Development Agreement with City of Toronto
In response to City policies requiring low -carbon heating systems for new buildings, Enwave has
continued to work in partnership with the City of Toronto. In 2018, following a procurement
process by the City to select a "revenue partner to deliver district energy systems across
Toronto with little risk to the City", Enwave and the City completed a Joint Development
Agreement.14 The stated objectives of the JDA are to:
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve energy resilience;
• Achieve speed to market, scalability, and ability to fund projects identified for
development; including attracting grants from external parties;
• Foster economic development, City building, and new revenue opportunities;
• Mitigate risks associated with project development and operation; and
• Create balance between long term project development and the capability to initiate
projects that are ready for development now.15
Following the selection of Enwave as the preferred proponent, the City of Toronto and Enwave
negotiated the terms of the JDA (the full term sheet can be found on the City's website16)
Under the JDA, a joint development team will "identify and propose" potential DE projects to
recommend to City Council and Enwave's Board of Directors and "Council approval will be
required before the City can commit resources or access to City assets to a project".
The City will share in the benefits derived from approved project implementation, which may
include revenue sharing and ownership of carbon credits. The City's financial contribution to
individual projects may include in -kind contributions, capital in the form of grants from other
levels of government, and leases/access to City assets.
The first project completed under the JDA is the district energy system at Etobicoke Civic Centre
in Toronto (also known as Six Points, at the intersections of Bloor Street West and Kipling Ave).
This project will serve a 17-acre City -owned site, comprising seven development blocks,
including the new Etobicoke Civic Centre and five blocks of residential development delivered
by CreateTO as part of The City's Housing Now Initiative. The proposed DES will be a
"networked" geoexchange system with the borefields located beneath the footprints of
14 https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/gl/bgrd/backgroundfile-227886.pdf
1s https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-109095.pdf
16 https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-112992.pdf
Page 74
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 23
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
buildings on the site. The networked geoexchange fields will connect to a single energy centre
housed in the Etobicoke Civic Centre that will provide hot and chilled water to the district.17 The
DES will enable the Six Points community to have near -zero operating emissions. As the
developer of the site, the City will ensure that all buildings connect to the Enwave system,
eliminating connection risk.
_ EXISTING B/d
69�' snNc BUILDING
� Bps m
72,
. � 39 "' 1 � 331bors .� .
141#
ETOBICOKE CIVIC CENTRE '••• r
Ts �. f9.32 m /�• ) .
�.
30 N•dt41
31
~' —floors •
h • EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING 1 a` � ��
�~.Z.� i • i
• • . • • •� 1� / ,,. B�1'• .N : EXISTING BUILDING
281
47
all
••�t �'
•• %: 04
y wit •...••. •.
EXISTING B • 1� yj
tom • : •o • �••.•r _ EXISTING BUILDINCy
Figure 5: Etobicoke Civic Centre Development
11 The Six Points site is adjacent to another CreateTO site at Bloor Street West and Islington Avenue, comprising an additional four
residential towers, these buildings are not part of the Six Points DES, however the agreement does appear to allow Enwave to build
DES infrastructure beyond the development site, which would enable the system to grow beyond the Six Points service area in the
future, in addition to the existing large buildings that neighbour the site.
Page 75
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
24
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
4.6 River District Energy / Metro Vancouver Waste -to -Energy Facility
This project is a collaboration between the public and private sectors to deliver a regional -scale
district heating utility. The major components include:
River District Energy (RDE), a privately -held district heating utility serving new buildings
within the River District development site in southeast Vancouver. RIDE has been in
operation since 2012 and provides hot water service to 20 buildings using temporary
gas -fired boiler plants.
Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD), a regional government for the greater
Vancouver area. It provides regional services such as water, wastewater, and solid
waste management to its member municipalities. MVRD owns the Waste -to -Energy
Facility (WTEF), a solid waste management facility in Burnaby, BC which currently
produces 22 MW of electricity. MVRD has signed a contract to provide thermal energy
to RIDE by drawing waste heat off the WTEF.
City of Burnaby. The City of Burnaby is developing new district energy systems in
Burnaby. It will own and operate these systems and has passed a connection bylaw
requiring new buildings to connect and will seek to retrofit existing buildings for
connection. The City of Burnaby and MVRD are working to finalize a contract for MVRD
to sell thermal energy to a new district energy utility being developed by Burnaby.18
Figure 6: Rendering of River District at Build -out (Wesgroup Properties)
is Burnaby District Energy Policy, 2023
Page 76
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 25
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Table 6: MVRD / RDE — Key Data
I
MetroRiver District Energy & Vancouver Waste -to -Energy
I
Location Vancouver, BC and Burnaby, BC
Ownership Model
Split asset. Includes a privately held utility and multiple publicly -
owned utilities. Transmission system is separate from distribution.
Governance
• RIDE: investor -owned, privately held
• MVRD: board made up of elected officials from member
municipalities
• City of Burnaby: City Council
Economic Regulation
• River District Energy is regulated by the BC Utilities
Commission
• Thermal energy sales by City of Burnaby to its customers
will be unregulated
• Metro Vancouver's sale of wholesale thermal energy to RIDE
and the City of Burnaby is technically subject to regulation
by the BCUC, however Metro Vancouver intends to request
an exemption from BCUC regulation
Year Established
• RIDE established 2011
• MVRD district heating system to begin operations in 2027
• City of Burnaby district heating service to begin 2026
Service
RIDE: Heating Only
Burnaby: TBD
Current Service Area /
RIDE Current: 300,000 m2 (3.2 million ft2)
Load
RIDE Build -out: 900,000 m2 (9.7 million ft2)
Burnaby: TBD
Low Carbon Energy Supply
Waste heat from existing MVRD-owned waste -to -energy facility
Connection Incentives /
Rezoning of River District area includes requirement to connect to
Requirements
RIDE.
Burnaby has passed a connection bylaw for new buildings in
Metrotown and Edmonds service areas.
Funding / Financing
RIDE has received commercial debt financing on favourable terms
due to the project's environmental benefits.
Page 77
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
� VGIII,VUVCI
Burnaby
— Indicative Pipe Routing
0.75 1.5 km
Figure 7: Thermal Energy Transmission Line from WTEF to River District Energy, Metrotown and Edmonds
System History and Development
The WTEF heat transmission system was established through close collaboration between local
governments and Wesgroup, the developer of River District.
Metro Vancouver and the City of Vancouver both have a longstanding interest in increasing
resource recovery from the WTEF through district energy. When the WTEF was first built in the
late 1980s, MVRD sold steam to an adjacent paper mill. In the early 2000s, MVRD added a
turbine and generator and began generating power for sale to BC Hydro to supplement revenue
from steam sales. In 2011, the paper mill closed, and since that time power sales have been the
only source of energy sales revenue from the WTEF.
The City of Vancouver has pushed for the development of new district energy projects since the
launch of its own system, the Neighbourhood Energy Utility, in 2010. When Wesgroup, the
owner of the River District site, was in discussions with the City regarding rezoning to allow the
construction of multifamily residential, the City included a requirement that the River District
area include district energy. As a result of this, buildings within River District have been required
to connect to RIDE under the terms of the rezoning of the site since 2011.
Page 78
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 27
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Wesgroup evaluated potential utility partners for River District, but ultimately chose to establish
their own utility, River District Energy. RDE has been owned by Wesgroup from the system's
inception and ownership has never expressed interest in divesting of the system.
Later policies implemented by the City of Vancouver required that RDE add a low -carbon
resource rather than rely indefinitely on natural gas. River District completed a feasibility study
for low -carbon energy supply, the results of which showed that multiple low -carbon technology
options were considered feasible, including purchasing thermal energy from the WTEF.
The RDE study was followed by a WTEF DES Business Case study commissioned by Metro
Vancouver. As part of this study, Metro Vancouver considered a range of ownership options for
the heat transmission system, but ultimately decided to own it directly. Once that decision was
made, MVRD and RDE worked together on a thermal energy purchase agreement.
In 2021, Metro Vancouver and River District Energy concluded a thermal energy purchase
agreement. MVRD is now working closely with the City of Burnaby to expand the system into
major development nodes in Burnaby. As of 2024, new buildings larger than 9,293 m2 (100,000
ft2) in the Metrotown and Edmonds areas of Burnaby will be required to connect to a new DEU
being established by the City of Burnaby.
Ownership, Operation, Governance and System Capitalization
Wesgroup will continue to own RIDE, and RDE will continue to be responsible for its own assets
including its community energy center (which includes backup boilers for periods when WTEF
heat is unavailable), distribution lines to customer buildings, and energy transfer stations. RDE
has not received any grants towards system development costs, however it has received a
commercial debt financing on favorable terms due to the project's environmental benefits.
The City of Burnaby will own the Burnaby DEU. The DEU will initially be run within the City's
engineering department but may be transferred to a wholly -owned subsidiary of the City. The
City is pursuing grants to support system development costs.
Metro Vancouver owns the WTEF and will also own the heat transmission line system to bring
thermal energy to RDE's community energy centre and to planned energy centres in Burnaby.
Metro Vancouver is pursuing funding from the Government of Canada to support system
development costs.
Page 79
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
28
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Rate Setting and Regulation
RDE's thermal energy rates are regulated by the BC Utilities Commission. Metro Vancouver's
thermal energy sales to RIDE and to the City of Burnaby are subject to regulation by BCUC, but
Metro Vancouver intends to seek an exemption. The City of Burnaby's district energy system
would not be subject to regulation by the BCUC as local governments are exempt from
regulation by BCUC.
Under the City of Vancouver's Zero Emissions Building Plan, buildings connecting to RIDE are
required to meet increasingly stringent GHG emission limits from 2023 onwards. By the early
2030s, all new buildings connected to RIDE must have a GHG emissions intensity of zero.
The City of Burnaby is implementing new policies to require low GHG emissions from new
buildings, and these policies will also apply to buildings served by the Burnaby DEU.19
4.7 City of Vancouver False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Utility
The False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Utility provides low -carbon heating to the False Creek
service area using waste heat recovered from untreated sewage. The energy centre is co -
located with a sewage pumping station. Key project statistics are provided in Table E-2.
In 2005, several years after the City of Vancouver was awarded the 2010 Winter Olympics, City
Council approved plans to redevelop a former industrial site at the southeast end of False Creek
to house the Olympic Village. After the games, the buildings would be repurposed as housing,
and the rest of the site would be built out as a sustainable, mixed -use community known as
Southeast False Creek.
The primary objective for the development of the False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Utility (FC
NEU) was the reduction of GHG emissions, in alignment with the sustainability goals for the
neighbourhood.21
In addition to GHG emission reductions, the City's goals for the creation of the NEU were to
provide reliable, comfortable and cost -competitive thermal energy; and reduce the use of high -
quality energy (electricity) for the provision of low-grade space and hot water heating.
The City wanted to establish the FC NEU to demonstrate the commercial viability of DE,
however the development timeline dictated by the 2010 Olympics meant that there was
insufficient time for the City to select a private sector utility partner and obtain the necessary
19 The source of information for this case study is Reshape's direct experience supporting Wesgroup, River District Energy and
Metro Vancouver throughout the development of this project since 2011, supporting sources are noted and linked throughout.
21 The utility was originally known as the Southeast False Creek NEU, but with the expansion of the system outside of Southeast
False Creek, the system name was changed to the False Creek NEU.
Page 80
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 29
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
regulatory approvals from the BC Utilities Commission, so the City elected to develop the
project as a 100% municipally owned utility.
Figure 8: Construction of the Olympic Village, Vancouver
Table 7: False Creek NEU — Key Data
False Creek NEU
Location
Vancouver, BC
Ownership Model
Municipally owned (part of City's engineering
department)
Governance
Governed by City Council with independent
expert rate review panel.
Economic Regulation
Exempt from regulation by the BC Utilities
Commission.
Year Established
2010
System Size
Current: 620,000 m2 (6,700,000 ft2)
Future: 1,900,000 m2 (20,500,000 ft2)
Service
Heating
Low Carbon Energy Supply
Base -load heating is supplied by sewage heat
pumps (current NEU target is 70% renewable
supply) combined with natural gas boilers fueled
by renewable and conventional natural gas.
Connection Incentives /
Mandatory connection within service area
Requirements
(defined in NEU bylaw)
Page 81
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
30
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
The City's main drivers for establishing a 100% publicly owned DE utility were:
• Limited time to select private sector partner.
• Public ownership enables exemption from regulation by BC Utilities Commission.
• Direct municipal control over 25% of the connected floor area in the first phase of the
system provided load certainty.
• Ability to establish a mandatory DE connection bylaw in the NEU service area to ensure
connection of future loads.
• Ability to access significant grants and low-cost financing.
The False Creek NEU is operated by the City of Vancouver engineering department, and is
overseen by Vancouver City Council, who make decisions on capital investment, policy and
customer rates. The rates are reviewed by an independent rate review panel.
The rate structure of the NEU is designed to mirror a regulated private sector model; capital and
operating costs are recovered through customer rates, including a return on equity.21 The rate
structure was designed to demonstrate commercial viability of DE and to enable benchmarking
against other DE utilities.22 The transparency of the business model would also help facilitate
the sale of the NEU to the private sector in the future, if the City chose to sell the asset.
4.8 Lulu Island Energy Company
Lulu Island Energy Company (LIEC) is a wholly -owned municipal corporation that provides
heating and cooling services in two service areas within the City of Richmond. LIEC's energy is
supplied by a mixture of low carbon and conventional energy sources. At present, LIEC provides
service to approximately 600,000 m2 of connected floor area.
Table 8: Lulu Island Energy Corporation — Key Data
CompanyLulu Island Energy
Location City of Richmond, BC
Ownership Model Wholly -owned subsidiary of the City of Richmond. 30-year design,
build, finance, operate and maintain (DBFOM) agreement with Corix
Utilities to assist with delivery of City Centre service area (with debt
financing provided by Canadian Infrastructure Bank).
Governance • District Energy Service Agreement between LIEC and the City
outlining roles, responsibilities, requirements and processes.
• Board currently composed entirely of City managers.
"Subject to a soft rate cap that prices be no more than 10% above electricity rates.
22The City chose not to include notional income taxes on the utility proforma.
Page 82
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 31
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Lulu Island Energy Company
• Council determines and enforces connection requirements via
Service Area Bylaws and establishes retail rates, with regard to
LIEC costs, contributions/grants, and conditions of any LIEC
financing.
Economic Regulation
Excluded (municipal systems are not subject to regulation in BC)
Year Established
2013
Service
Heating and Cooling
Service Area
Current Alexandra Neighbourhood: 214,000 m2 (2.3 million ft2)
Current City Centre (including Oval Village): 390,000 m2 (4.2 million ft2)
Future City Centre 4.4 million m2 (47 million ft2)
Low Carbon Energy
Alexandra Neighbourhood:
Supply
Geoexchange, air source heat pump, evaporative fluid coolers,
condensing boilers, renewable natural gas
City Centre:
Condensing boilers, chillers, sewer heat recovery (future), renewable
natural gas
Connection Incentives /
Service Area Bylaw with Mandatory Connection
Requirements
System History and Development
As the fourth largest city in British Columbia, Richmond has become a leader in the
development of district energy to support the City's ambitious greenhouse gas reduction
targets. Richmond made the initial decision to establish a fully -owned municipal system to
ensure full control over its development and rates, including exclusion from onerous regulation
by the BC Utilities Commission. There has been strong political support from the system
throughout its history. While LIEC directs and owns all infrastructure and services (and Council
has full authority over rates), LIEC has pursued innovative partnerships to assist in the delivery
of the infrastructure and services, including financing.
Page 83
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
32
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
The explicit goals of LIEC are to:
• Establish a highly efficient district energy network providing heating and, in some cases,
cooling services to buildings at competitive rates;
• Provide reliable, resilient local energy for the benefit of its customers;
• Operate and maintain low carbon energy systems;
• Position Richmond to be a national and international leader in district energy utilities;
• Develop and manage effective partnerships; and
• Sustain long term financial viability.
LIEC was established in 2013 following the construction of the first phase of the City's very first
district energy system — the Alexandra District Energy Utility (ADEU). The ADEU employs a mix
of technologies including air -source heat pumps, evaporative fluid coolers, condensing boilers,
and geo-exchange fields located in City lands to efficiently heat and cool connected buildings.
LIEC's second service area was a new neighbourhood surrounding the Olympic Oval built for the
2010 Winter Olympics, which has since been converted to a community centre. In 2014, LIEC
entered into a 30-year Concession Agreement with Corix Infrastructure to design, construct,
finance, operate, and maintain the infrastructure for this new service area. LIEC retained
governance and full ownership of the infrastructure, with rates set by Council.
In 2022, LIEC entered into an agreement with Corix Infrastructure Inc. and the Canada
Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to help design, build, finance, operate and maintain a district energy
system for the entire Richmond City Centre (City Centre District Energy Utility (CCDEU)). This
agreement replaces the concession agreement for the Oval Village, which is now part of the
much larger CCDEU service area. The expanded utility will serve an additional 170 new buildings
(an additional 4.6 million m2), representing $500 million of new capital and over one million
tonnes of GHG reductions.
Under the new agreement, Corix will continue to support design, construction, operation and
financing of the CCDEU (including the Oval Village). The CIB will provide $175 million in debt
financing for the CCDEU, facilitating waste heat recovery from the regional sewer system. The
CCDEU will continue to be owned entirely by the City of Richmond through LIEC. LIEC approves
all capital, operating and maintenance plans of the new special purpose entity set up by Corix,
Council continues to set retail rates and enforce connection requirements. The current LIEC
service areas are shown in Figure 9, below. The area outlined in red as the future service area is
the new larger CCDEU service area in the agreement with Corix.
Procurement Process and Agreements
The current arrangement with Corix and CIB evolved incrementally for over a decade. The City
of Richmond originally explored the feasibility of a district energy system around the Olympic
Oval in partnership with the developer of the lands prior to the Olympics as part of the rezoning
process. After determining preliminary feasibility, the City decided to pursue a district energy
system under City ownership but with a third -party delivery partner.
The City issued a Request for Expressions of Interest, and after evaluating responses, entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with Corix to develop a district energy system on the
Page 84
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
33
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
City's behalf. After further due diligence, the City and Corix entered into a concession
agreement for Corix to design, build, finance, operate and maintain the system.
Several years later, the City issued another RFEOI to support development of district energy in
the City Centre. After reviewing responses, the City entered negotiations with Corix to develop a
larger district energy system for the City Centre, including the Oval Village. During negotiations,
LIEC secured a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the CIB to explore a possible role for
CIB in financing an expanded system. After several years of due diligence and negations, Corix,
CIB and LIEC executed a design, build, finance, operate and maintain (DBFOM) agreement for
City Centre in September 2021.
Ownership, Governance and Rate Setting
LIEC is a wholly -owned municipal corporation. As a municipal utility, it is excluded from
regulation by the BC Utilities Commission. After the incorporation of LIEC (which required
approval of the Inspector of Municipalities), the City of Richmond and LIEC entered into a
District Energy Utilities Agreement in 2014, which assigned LIEC the function of establishing and
operating district energy systems and providing thermal energy services on behalf of the City.
LIEC currently owns and operates the ADIEU and the new CCDEU. Richmond has been
experiencing rapid development in these areas and LIEC has been expanding to meet this
increased energy demand.
LIEC is governed by a Board of Directors currently composed entirely of City staff. It is required
at least once in every calendar year to have its sole shareholder, the City of Richmond, endorse
consent resolutions addressing the business that would otherwise be required to be transacted
at an annual general meeting. LIEC's articles of incorporation also require that the Board
appoint an auditor and officers of LIEC, and that LIEC holds an annual information meeting open
to the public, at which LIEC must present the audited financial statements for the previous fiscal
year.
Council is responsible for approving and enforcing connection requirements and for establishing
retail rates under Service Area Bylaws. LIEC currently operates under three Service Area Bylaws
(an artifact representing that the Olympic Oval service area preceded the larger CCDEU Service
Area), with three separate rate schedules.21 In setting rates, Council must have regard to the
costs of LIEC (net of any developer contributions or grants) and also any conditions of financing
for LIEC. However, Council has considerable discretion to manage rates through the use of
deferral accounts (which operate like lines of credit to manage discrepancies between revenues
and costs over time, particularly during the early development phases of development where
infrastructure is constructed in advance of development).
Retail rates for end users are also managed through the use of developer contributions and
external grants, when available. Developer contributions may be required as a condition of
connection and may take the form of financial contributions or contributed infrastructure (e.g.,
23 ADEU Bylaw, CCDEU Bylaw, OVDEU Bylaw
Page 85
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
34
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
energy transfer stations or interim on -site energy sources which are designed and constructed
by developers under the direction of LIEC and Corix).
Under the DBFOM agreement with Corix, equity financing is provided on terms similar to
regulated utilities in BC, with Corix assuming certain risks and performance requirements in
exchange for a return on its equity. Long-term debt financing is provided by the Canadian
Infrastructure Bank on favourable terms.
Council provides direction to LIEC on low -carbon energy. LIEC, in turn, is responsible for
reviewing and approving Corix's annual capital and operating plans to achieve these goals. Corix
is compensated for its cost of service, which includes financing, staff and other approved costs.
The cost of service is calculated annually but payments may be deferred subject to limits on
cumulative deferrals. Any deferred payments are subject to financing on comparable terms.
Deferrals are used to ensure affordable rates as infrastructure and carbon requirements are
phased.24
24 This case study is based on Reshape's first-hand experience supporting LIEC development and agreement negotiation on behalf of
LIEC.
Page 86
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
35
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Figure 9: LIEC Service Areas (Lulu Island Energy Company)
Page 87
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
S Report Submission
RESHAPE INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGIES
Prepared By:
Will Cleveland, MSc
Principal
Reviewed By:
Sonja Wilson, PEng (AB, BC, ON)
Principal
Revision H
0 2024.03.08 Draft Issued for Client Review WPC
1 2024.03.13 Draft Issued for Client Review WPC
2 2024.01.16 Final Final issue WPC
Filename: RPT-P808-RegionOfDurham-DEOwnership-FINAL-R2.docx
Page 88
P808 - Report for Region of Durham from Reshape Strategies— R2 37
Regional Municipality of Durham
Courtice DES Business Case
April 2025
COURTICE DES SERVICE AREA (CONCEPTUAL ONLY)
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Red outline indicates
approximate DES service area
(can be expanded to serve
adjacent areas)
CTOC 3D View Looking SW (Urban Strategies DRAFT CTOC Demonstration Plan, December 2023)
Page 90
DISTRICT ENERGY OPTIONS EVALUATED
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
A heating -only system with heat from DYEC is
the preferred DES concept and the basis of
the DE business case because it:
• Has the lowest capital and lifecycle cost'
• Results in an 70% reduction in GHG
emissions from gas boiler BAU over
analysis period.
• Results in the lowest cost per tonne of
avoided GHG emissions.
1. Including the capital and lifecycle costs of in -building cooling systems
Page 91
c
0
E
V)
0
U
a�
U
U
0
�_
J
DYEC HEATING ONLY - DES BUSINESS CASE
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
Lifecycle Cost of DE vs. Reference Case
Reference Case 100% Electrified DE -Heating Only (DYEC)
■ Capital & Financing Costs ❑ Fuel Costs ❑ Non -Fuel O&M
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
• To achieve similar GHG outcomes without the DES, all
buildings in the Courtice MTSA would need to have
100% electrified heating (Reference case).
• The lifecycle cost of low -carbon heating in the Courtice
MTSA supplied by DE is lower than electrification of
heating at the building level.
• In the reference case, fuel costs are —30% of the
lifecycle cost, and capital is —40%. In the DE case,
capital and financing costs are 57% of the total
lifecycle cost and the fuel cost is 9%.
— DE provides greater energy cost stability to MTSA
residents, relative to building electrification, due
to reduced exposure to escalating electricity
rates.
Page 92
LANDOWNER GROUP (LOG) DEVELOPMENT FORECAST
(UPDATED JANUARY 2025)
MTSA Boundary
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
jPa I=
al Units
Ownership
800
2030
900
2031
845
20320rot
9,214
0-
11,759
Tribute
9
Brookfield
12
525
550
550
3,725
5,350
Properties
Louisville
15
-
-
-
1,625
1,625
Homes
13
-
-
-
5,080
5,080
Metrolinx
Non -
Participants
NP, 32
-
-
-
6,401
6,401
(NP)
Total Unitsl
1,325
1 1,450
1 1,395
1 26,045
1 30,215
At an estimated average unit size of 720 ft2 (67
m2), the build -out floor area in the high -density
area of the MTSA is estimated to be 2 million
m2 or —20 million square feet.
Page 93
COURTICE DES LOAD FORECAST ASSUMPTIONS (UPDATED)
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
Q 700,000
0 600,000
v 500,000
400,000
u 300,000
200,000
100,000
2025 Updated Forecast ("Target" Density)
M �1 M Ln I- M �1 M Ln I- M �1 M Ln I-
N M M M M M Ln Ln Ln Ln
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
fV N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
2023 Prior Forecast ("Minimum" Density)
50
1,100,000
45
1,000,000
900,000
40
t
N
E
800,000
35
m
Q
700,000
30
600,000
25
c
o
500,000
20
0
400,000
15
z
c
U
300,000
10
200,000
5
100,000
W O C 4 :I- L.0 W O r J :I- LA W O N lzt 1Z
N M M M M M Ln Ln Ln Ln
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
(V (V fV lV N lV rV N cV N N (V N fV N
iii.High Rise MURB Low Rise MURB
Office Retail
.Advanced Manufacturing Total Connected Buildings
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
50
45
W.
35
30 m
25
c
20 U
4-
15 0
z
10
Page 94 6
PHASE 1 DISTRIBUTION PIPING PLAN ASSUMPTIONS
V
N
Cr
N
2
H
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
• First phase of
distribution
piping system
• Estimated to
be 1400 m
• Service
connections to
buildings not
shown
Page 95
PHASE 1- ENERGY CENTRE
• The first phase of the DES will be heated by a
—7 MW temporary energy centre (TEC).
• Once sufficient development in CTOC is
underway, connection to DYEC will be
24
21
18
v
15
v
2
12
v
a
v 9
v
0
6
3
0
Served by DYEC
Waste Heat + Gas
Boiler Peaking &
Backup
co
(7
� N
O
N m
N
Ln
2029 20312033 2035 2037 2039 20412043 2045 2047 2049 20512053 2055 2057
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Temporary Energy Centre at the UBC Neighbourhood District Energy System (Corix Utilities)
Page 96
UPDATED DES BUSINESS CASE (BASE CASE)
Business case is presented as cost neutral from the DE Utility perspective (including return on equity) with competitive
costs for DE rate payers and similar capital costs for landowners relative to the 100% electrified reference case.
DE Utility Cost Recovery
DE Utility Revenues Equal to Costs on PV Basis
(including RoE)
140,000
0 120,000
0
0
100,000
> 80,000
v
v 60,000
40,000
20,000
I
Revenues Costs
❑ Capital and Financing Costs
❑ Non Fuel Operating Costs
® Fuel Costs
❑ DE Variable Rate Revenue
Rate Payer Costs
Monthly Heating and Cooling for Typical
Residential Unit lower* with DE than with
100% Electrified Heating
300
250
= 200
c
0 150
4j"100
.. r
50
N m m m� on m m
O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N
IDES Case Residential Unit Monthly Costs
......• 100% Electrified Reference Case
Residential Unit Monthly Costs
Business -as -Usual Reference Case
Residential Unit Monthly Costs
200,000
180,000
160,000
140,000
_ 120,000
O
0 100,000
80,000
40,000
20,000
0
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Landowner Costs
DE Connection Fees Similar to 100%
Electric On -Site Systems
DES Connection
Charges
On -site Cooling
Sv-,tP m s
Reference Case Reference Case Reference Case District Energy
-100% - Green - BAU
Electrified Development
Standard
Page 97 9
DES BUSINESS CASE - DE UTILITY CASH FLOW
30
25
20
15
0 10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
2029 2030 20312032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 20412042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 20512052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058
Annual Costs Annual Revenues —Net Annual Cash Flow
Page 98 10
FINANCIAL RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Connection Risk
Timing Risk
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Connection Risk: Will
buildings connect?
Timing Risk: When will
buildings connect?
Page 99
FINANCIAL RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES CONT.
Mitigating Strategies for Connection Risk
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Mitigating Strategies for Timing Risk
Mandatory connection bylaw in defined service Don't build too much too soon!
area. — Minimize early investment in system
Supported with: — Plan expansion of DES to match growth of
neighbourhood
— Competitive rates
— Competitive connection fees — Utilize temporary energy centres
— Streamlined / accelerated permitting process — Complete cost/benefit analysis of extending
— Other incentives service to new service areas (extension test).
Page100
OWNERSHIP & GOVERNANCE OF COURTICE DES
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Joint Municipal Services Board
(JMSB)
-------------------------------------------
Control and Management of Respective Services
Delegated by Municipalities
---------------------------------------------
• Governed by Board appointed by Municipalities
• Provides Governance of Municipal Services Corporation
• Passes District Energy Bylaw (Incl. Connection Requirement)
• Sets Rates and Connection Fees
Municipal Services Corporation (MSC)
• Shareholders: Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington
• MSC delivers, owns and operates DE Infrastructure
• MSC enables access to debt financing
• MSC provides billing and rate collection on behalf of JMSB
Page 101
POTENTIAL FOR LOW-COST FINANCING AND GRANTS
• Over the past 2-3 years CIB has entered into financing agreements with three DES utilities
totaling more than a billion dollars.
• Many low -carbon DE projects secure lesser amounts as grants.
Selection of Funding and Financing Recipients (non -exhaustive)
Name of Program
Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB)
Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB)
Green Municipal Fund (GMF)
Green Municipal Fund (GMF)
Green Municipal Fund (GMF)
Green Municipal Fund (GMF)
Low Carbon Economy Fund
Markham Centre District Energy 135
Enwave Energy Corporation 600
Markham Centre District Energy 1 7.2
Zibi Community Utility 3 20
City of Vancouver NEU 1.5 15
Lonsdale Energy Corporation 2 2
Enwave Energy Corporation - PEI
3.5
RESHAPE
STRATEGIES
Page 102 14
Courtice DES Business Case - Confidential - Meeting with Clarington 2025.02.04 - DRAFT R2
TARGET PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE & PROCESS
•Inclusion of DE in Courtice MTSA Secondary Plan
•Establish Municipal Services Corporation for DE
•Establish JMSB and CTOC DES Bylaw
•Engagement with financial institutions re: project financing
•Phase 1 DES Design, Procurement and Construction
•Phase 1 DES in service in 2029
•Heat supply from temporary gas boiler plant in MTSA
•Negotiation of Phase 2 agreements
•Design and construction DYEC heat recovery system and transmission piping
/ •Heat supply from DYEC connected to Courtice DES
2036--2050 •Connection to DYEC to decarbonize heat supply
•Expansion beyond Courtice MTSA
2050+
n
PEGIES
• In the near term, the Municipalities will work to include DE as part
of the Courtice MTSA Secondary Plan as an enabling policy for DE.
• The objective is to have DE service available in time for the first
buildings in the CTOC to connect (2029).
• The DE Service Area and Phasing Plan will be developed in
coordination with Landowner's Group.
• To manage investment risk, the first phase of the DES will be
served by a temporary gas boiler plant (or plant integrated with a
municipal facility).
• Once sufficient load is connected to the DES, the connection to
DYEC will be completed, decarbonizing the heat supply to all
buildings connected to the DES.
• Depending on growth outside the MTSA, the DES may be
expanded to serve additional areas.
Page103
ESTABLISHING GOVERNANCE AND OWNERSHIP
L
HARATEGIES]
• Following Council endorsement of proposed governance and ownership model, Regional and Clarington staff will
undertake next steps as mandated by the Municipal Act to develop the proposed governance and ownership model,
including:
— Develop a comprehensive Business Case Study that outlines the rationale for establishing the Municipal Services
Corporation, including projected costs, revenue streams, operational structure, and key benefits. The Plan will
include:
• Governance structure design — determine board composition, decision -making processes, and reporting
mechanisms
• Funding mechanisms— detail how the MSC will be funded through debt financing, connection fees, and user
rates
• Asset transfer policies — describe which assets will be transferred, and under what terms
• Staffing and recruitment — describe the staffing plan, including management and technical personal, and how
they will be recruited
— Conduct public consultations — engage public through public meeting/information session to gather feedback on
the proposed MSC, its services and potential impacts
— Legal review — consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with relevant provincial legislation regarding
creation and operations
— Council approval — Fall/winter 2025 staff will return to council to present the business case and seek approval
Page104
SENT VIA EMAIL
May 29, 2025
June Gallagher
Clerk
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON L1 C 3A6
The Regional
Municipality of Dear Ms. Gallagher:
Durham
Corporate Services
Department — RE: Region of Durham Response to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by
Legislative Services Unleashing the Economy Act, 2025 (2025-CG-7), Our File:
Division C13
605 Rossland Rd. E.
Council of the Region of Durham, at its meeting held on May 28,
Level 1
PO Box 623
2025, adopted the following recommendations:
Whitby, ON L1 N 6A3
Canada
"A) That the letter dated May 16, 2025, found in Attachment #1 to
905-668-7711
Report #2025-CG-7 of the Commissioner of Community Growth
1-800-372-1102
and Economic Development, be endorsed as the Region of
Durham's response to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing the
durham.ca
Economy Act, 2025, including the following key comments:
Alexander Harras
i) The Region supports efforts to streamline the approvals
M.P.A.
Director of
process for mining projects in Ontario when it does not
Legislative Services
come at the expense of safeguarding against
& Regional Clerk
environmental and community impacts;
ii) The Region is supportive of mechanisms that would result
in increased local procurement in the electricity sector.
Limiting competition, however, could increase costs if local
or preferred suppliers are more expensive than
international alternatives, which may result in increased
electricity prices for ratepayers;
iii) Proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, 1990,
fail to address systemic issues in archaeological resource
management, such as delayed consultation with
Indigenous communities and unilateral provincial control
over Indigenous artifacts and cultural heritage.
Additionally, the proposed amendments exacerbate
already weakened heritage protections brought in through
Bill 23. Any exemptions under the Ontario Heritage Act
could result in negative impacts, including the destruction
of Indigenous artifacts and burial sites;
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 extension 2097.
Page105
iv) The new proposed regime for endangered species and at -
risk species is designed for more flexible permitting and
registry -based approvals, rather than automatic
prohibitions on activities that harm listed species or their
habitats. Additionally, narrowing the definition of habitat in
the ESA to just the immediate area surrounding dwelling
sites excludes protection of broader ecosystems that
endangered and at -risk species rely on for survival. While
these changes could expedite development approvals,
they may also reduce environmental oversight;
v) The "trusted proponent" model under the Special
Economic Zones Act, 2025, may create a two-tier
development system, favouring select private businesses
with fewer regulations; and
vi) The Region should be included in consultations related to
the identification of Special Economic Zones within
Durham and the selection of "trusted proponents" that
would operate within the region; and
B) That a copy of Report #2025-CG-7 be forwarded to the
Region's local area municipalities, conservation authorities, and
Williams Treaty First Nations."
Please find enclosed a copy of Report #2025-CG-7 for your
information and be advised that, in accordance with recommendation
B) contained in the report, a copy of Report #2025-CG-7 has also
been forwarded to each of the Region's local area municipalities,
conservation authorities, and Williams Treaty First Nations.
Alexander Harras,
Director of Legislative Services & Regional Clerk
AH/vw
Enclosed
c: C. Goodchild, Director of Community Growth
If you require this information in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2097.
Page106
If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 1-800-372-1102 ext. 2564
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Report
To: Regional Council
From: Commissioner of Community Growth and Economic Development
Report: #2025-CG-7
Date: May 28, 2025
Subject:
Region of Durham Response to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by Unleashing the Economy
Act, 2025
Recommendation:
That it be recommended to Regional Council:
A) That the letter dated May 16, 2025, found in Attachment #1 to this report, be
endorsed as the Region of Durham's response to Bill 5, Protect Ontario by
Unleashing the Economy Act, 2025, including the following key comments:
i) The Region supports efforts to streamline the approvals process for mining
projects in Ontario when it does not come at the expense of safeguarding
against environmental and community impacts;
ii) The Region is supportive of mechanisms that would result in increased local
procurement in the electricity sector. Limiting competition, however, could
increase costs if local or preferred suppliers are more expensive than
international alternatives, which may result in increased electricity prices for
ratepayers;
iii) Proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, 1990, fail to address
systemic issues in archaeological resource management, such as delayed
consultation with Indigenous communities and unilateral provincial control over
Indigenous artifacts and cultural heritage. Additionally, the proposed
amendments exacerbate already weakened heritage protections brought in
Page107
Report #2025-CG-7
Page 2 of 10
through Bill 23. Any exemptions under the Ontario Heritage Act could result in
negative impacts, including the destruction of Indigenous artifacts and burial
sites;
iv) The new proposed regime for endangered species and at -risk species is
designed for more flexible permitting and registry -based approvals, rather than
automatic prohibitions on activities that harm listed species or their habitats.
Additionally, narrowing the definition of habitat in the ESA to just the immediate
area surrounding dwelling sites excludes protection of broader ecosystems
that endangered and at -risk species rely on for survival. While these changes
could expedite development approvals, they may also reduce environmental
oversight;
v) The "trusted proponent" model under the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025,
may create a two-tier development system, favouring select private businesses
with fewer regulations; and
vi) The Region should be included in consultations related to the identification of
Special Economic Zones within Durham and the selection of "trusted
proponents" that would operate within the region; and
B) That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Region's local area municipalities,
conservation authorities, and Williams Treaty First Nations.
Report:
1. Purpose
1.1 On April 17, 2025, the Province introduced the proposed Bill 5, Protect Ontario by
Unleashing the Economy Act, 2025 (Bill 5) with a commenting period of 30-days.
Various changes were made to the Bill during its passage through Standing
Committee of the Interior. These changes included amendments to the purpose of
the Act, revisions to definitions, and modifications to sections dealing with species
conservation, permits and hearings. The purpose of this report is to provide
Regional Council with an overview of the legislative changes proposed by Bill 5 and
outline Regional staff's comments.
1.2 To meet the provincial commenting deadline of May 17, 2025, a letter outlining
Regional staff comments was sent to the province on May 16, 2025 (Attachment
#1). If Regional Council makes any changes to the comments, Regional staff will
follow up with the province accordingly.
Page108
Report #2025-CG-7
2. Background
Page 3 of 10
2.1 This legislative proposal represents an omnibus Bill that includes 10 schedules,
some that propose minor amendments to existing legislation and others that
propose new legislation, all with the stated goal of protecting Ontario from global
economic uncertainty.
2.2 Bill 5 introduces proposed changes to the following Acts:
a. Mining Act, 1990 (ERO Posting #025-0409);
b. Electricity Act, 1998 (ERO Posting #025-0409);
C. Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 (ERO Posting #025-0409);
d. Ontario Heritage Act, 1990 (ERO Posting #025-0418);
e. Endangered Species Act, 2007 (ERO Posting #025-0380);
f. Environmental Assessment Act (ERO Posting #025-0396 and 025-0389)
g. Environmental Protection Act (not posted to the ERO); and
h. Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 (ERO Posting #025-0416).
2.3 In addition to changes to existing Acts, Bill 5 also introduces the following new
proposed legislation:
a. Special Economic Zones Act, 2025 (ERO Posting 025-0391); and
b. Species Conservation Act, 2025 (ERO Posting #025-0380).
3. Mining Act, 1990
3.1 Currently, mining projects in Ontario are regulated by several ministries, each
dealing with different permits or authorizations separately. This requires that
proponents engage with multiple permitting ministries and Indigenous communities
on each activity separately and in isolation.
3.2 Proposed changes to the Mining Act, 1990, would create a "one project, one
process" approach, intended to streamline the above noted processes by taking a
project level approach with an assigned "Team Lead" to guide proponents through
the approvals/permitting process.
3.3 Further proposed changes would give the Minister of Energy and Mines authority to
deny the issuance of mining leases and cancel existing claims and tenures, if the
Minister deems it necessary to protect the strategic national mineral supply chain.
Page109
Report #2025-CG-7
Page 4 of 10
3.4 The proposed changes are believed to result in faster project approvals and
potentially lower costs for mining companies. The Region supports efforts to
streamline the approvals process for mining projects in Ontario when it does
not come at the expense of safeguarding against environmental and
community impacts.
4. Electricity Act, 1998 and Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998
4.1 Proposed changes to the Electricity Act, 1998, and Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998,
would establish regulation -making authority to enable the Minister of Energy and
Mines to limit foreign jurisdictions' participation in Ontario's electricity sector through
new electricity procurement restrictions. It would also provide a mechanism for the
province to respond to future trade restrictions imposed by other countries. No
specific regulations to this effect have been released at this time. Regional staff will
monitor and report to Regional Council on future proposed regulations and their
expected impacts.
4.2 The Region is supportive of mechanisms that would result in increased local
procurement in the electricity sector. Limiting competition, however, could
increase costs if local or preferred suppliers are more expensive than
international alternatives, which may result in increased electricity prices for
ratepayers.
5. Ontario Heritage Act, 1990
5.1 Prior to Bill 23, provincial plan review responsibilities for archeology rested with the
Region, where we would require archaeological assessments for properties deemed
to have archaeological potential. This is now the responsibility of the local area
municipalities.
5.2 Bill 5 proposes changes to the Ontario Heritage Act, 1990 that would:
a. expand inspection and enforcement powers in the protection of artifacts and
archaeological sites; and
b. authorize the Lieutenant Governor in Council to exempt property from
archaeological and heritage conservation requirements, if deemed that the
exemption could advance provincial priorities (e.g., transit, housing, health and
long-term care, other infrastructure or such other priorities as they may be
prescribed).
Page110
Report #2025-CG-7
Page 5 of 10
5.3 The amendments would also establish criteria that must be met for a property to be
eligible for an exemption. The province has indicated that there will be a separate
consultation on potential criteria for exemptions, however, no details have been
provided at this time. Regional staff will monitor the progress of these consultations
and keep Regional Council apprised.
5.4 Proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, 1990, fail to address
systemic issues in archaeological resource management, such as delayed
consultation with Indigenous communities and unilateral provincial control
over Indigenous artifacts and cultural heritage. Additionally, the proposed
amendments exacerbate already weakened heritage protections brought in
through Bill 23. Any exemptions under the Ontario Heritage Act could result in
negative impacts, including the destruction of Indigenous artifacts and burial
sites.
6. Endangered Species Act, 2007, and the new Species Conservation Act, 2025
6.1 There are more than 230 species at risk in Ontario, many of which are located in
Durham, including numerous birds, fish, insect, reptile and plant species. These
species have experienced population declines over the past several decades and
are at risk of being lost completely.
6.2 Bill 5 is proposing to make immediate changes to the Endangered Species Act,
2007 (ESA) with the intent to eventually repeal the ESA and replace it with a new
Species Conservation Act, 2025 (SCA).
6.3 Interim changes to the ESA would come into effect as soon as Bill 5 is passed, and
include:
a. updating the purpose of the ESA to remove species recovery and stewardship
as explicit goals and include social and economic considerations in addition to
species protection and conservation;
b. allowing government discretion to add species or remove species from the
Species at Risk in Ontario list;
C. narrowing the definition of habitat from the broad area which an animal uses to
find food to a more limited area immediately surrounding a den or nest;
d. removing requirements to create recovery strategies for species at risk;
e. removing "harass" from the prohibitions regarding harm to species; and
f. winding down the Species Conservation Action Agency and the Species at
Risk Conservation Fund.
Page111
Report #2025-CG-7
Page 6 of 10
6.4 The new proposed SCA would enshrine the above interim changes, and:
a. implement a "registration -first" approach, allowing project proponents to begin
activities immediately following registration, subject to following rules set out in
a yet to be determined regulation;
b. exempt harassment of species as an activity that requires registration or a
permit;
C. no longer require registration (or permits) for impacts to migratory birds and
aquatic species protected under the federal Species at Risk Act;
d. create the ability to use mitigation and compliance orders; and
e. establish a new Species Conservation Program.
6.5 The new proposed regime for endangered species and at -risk species is
designed for more flexible permitting and registry -based approvals, rather
than automatic prohibitions on activities that harm listed species or their
habitats. Additionally, narrowing the definition of habitat in the ESA to just the
immediate area surrounding dwelling sites excludes protection of broader
ecosystems that endangered and at -risk species rely on for survival. While
these changes could expedite development approvals, they may also reduce
environmental oversight.
6.6 The province has indicated that it will be consulting with the public, Indigenous
communities, and various agencies and organizations in the development of
regulations to implement the registration -first approach, which is expected to come
into force early in 2026. Regional staff will monitor the development of this
regulation and other associated regulations and report to Regional Council as
necessary.
7. Environmental Assessment Act and Environmental Protection Act
7.1 As a result of changes to the scope of a specific mining project (Eagles Nest) in
northern Ontario, the province is proposing to remove the current requirement,
under the Environmental Assessment Act, that the project undergo a
comprehensive environmental assessment. Additional changes propose to remove
environmental assessment requirements for the YORM waste project to provide
additional waste capacity in Ontario due to potential impacts of tariffs on Ontario's
waste sector.
7.2 The province currently charges a fee for registering an activity in the Environmental
Activity and Sector Registry, under the Environmental Protection Act. Such projects
pose minimal risk to the environment and human health when regulated. Proposed
Page112
Report #2025-CG-7 Page 7 of 10
changes would allow the Minister of Environment Conservation and Parks to refund
the imposed fee in circumstances where a registration has been removed from the
Registry.
8. Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023
8.1 Currently, there is a requirement for giving public notice and opportunities for
comment for proposals for provincial permits and approvals related to the Ontario
Place redevelopment project or those that further the project. As such, proposals for
permits and approvals would have to be posted to the Environmental Registry of
Ontario. Proposed changes provide for an exemption to this requirement.
9. Special Economic Zones Act, 2025
9.1 Bill 5 proposes the Special Economic Zones Act, 2025, which is a new law to allow
the province to designate special areas, deemed critical to Ontario's economy and
security. These areas can range in size from a small parcel of land to a large area.
9.2 Within Special Economic Zones (SEZ), the province can exempt "trusted
proponents" and "designated projects" from regulatory frameworks and municipal
by-laws to accelerate project permitting and approvals. Projects in SEZ will also
benefit from simplified requirements, and priority access to provincial one -window
services. This "trusted proponent" model under the Special Economic Zones
Act, 2025, may create a two-tier development system, favouring select private
businesses with fewer regulations.
9.3 The Special Economic Zones Act will allow the province to override municipal
zoning, official plans, and development standards. Municipalities would have no
decision -making role once a project is designated within a SEZ. Additionally,
community engagement processes could be circumvented, reducing transparency
and public input. Following the proclamation of Bill 23, the Region is now an "upper -
tier municipality without planning approval responsibilities" under the Planning Act,
so the local area municipalities will be most impacted by this.
9.4 The proposal does not include a listing of proposed SEZ, so the implications for
Durham Region are unknown at this time. However, on May 5, correspondence from
Premier Ford to Prime Minister Carney indicated that `nation -building' projects
including the Ring of Fire, nuclear energy generation, GO passenger train service, a
new James Bay deep seaport and a driver and transit tunnel expressway under
Highway 401 should be prioritized.
Page113
Report #2025-CG-7 Page 8 of 10
9.5 Given the density of nuclear facilities within Durham Region, it is possible that the
Region or parts of the Region could be designated as a SEZ. Projects such as the
Pickering Refurbishment Project, Small Modular Reactor projects and future
developments at Darlington, the proposed new large nuclear generation at
Wesleyville (within Northumberland County but immediately adjacent to Durham
Region) could be included. Additionally, in November 2024, Ignace Ontario was
selected by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to construct Canada's
deep geological repository (DGR) for nuclear waste. This site also has the potential
to be identified.
9.6 In September 2024, the province announced that it would begin exploring the
feasibility of a new Highway 401 tunnel expressway. Currently, this project is not
expected to extend into Durham. Similarly, the reference to GO passenger train
service likely refers to the GO West to Kitchener, not the GO East to Bowmanville.
9.7 Proposed locations of SEZs, how they would be designated, and identification of
"trusted proponents" have not been determined. The Region should be included
in consultations related to the identification of SEZs within Durham and the
selection of "trusted proponents" that would operate within the region.
9.8 Regional staff will monitor and develop proactive approaches should areas within
Durham be designated as SEZs.
10. Relationship to Strategic Plan
10.1 These proposed legislative changes may impact the Region's Strategic Directions
and Pathways in Durham Region's 2025-2035 Strategic Plan:
a. Connected and Vibrant Communities
• C2. Enable a full range of housing options, including housing that is
affordable and close to transit.
b. Environmental Sustainability and Climate Action
• E5. Respect the natural environment, including greenspaces, waterways,
and agricultural lands.
C. Resilient Local Economies
• R1. Attract and retain quality employers that strengthen key economic
sectors, including energy and technology.
Page114
Report #2025-CG-7 Page 9 of 10
d. Strong Relationships
• S2. Build and strengthen respectful relationships with First Nations, Inuit,
Metis, and urban Indigenous communities.
• S4. Advocate to the federal and provincial government and agencies to
advance regional priorities.
10.2 This report aligns with the following Foundation in Durham Region's 2025-2035
Strategic Plan-
a. People: Making the Region of Durham a great place to work, attracting, and
retaining talent.
11. Conclusion
11.1 On April 17, 2025, the province introduced Bill 5, which proposes various
amendments to existing legislation and includes the establishment of new
legislation. The province is inviting comments on the proposals until May 17, 2025, a
30-day commenting window. This condensed timeline did not allow for a report to
Regional Council, prior to responding. A letter containing Regional staff comments
was submitted to the province on May 16, 2025 (Attachment #1). Any changes
made to these comments by Regional Council will be forwarded to the province.
11.2 The proposed legislative changes signal a significant shift in Ontario's
environmental, energy, land use, and procurement frameworks — many of which
have direct implications for municipalities.
11.3 The new Species Conservation Act reduces automatic environmental protections for
species and habitats. Environmental Assessment Act and Ontario Heritage Act
amendments introduce new exemptions and ministerial powers. Changes to the
Electricity Act, Ontario Energy Board Act, and Mining Act centralize decision -
making, introduce procurement restrictions, and extinguish legal recourse —
potentially reducing local input on major infrastructure and energy projects. Most
notably, the Special Economic Zones Act allows provincial regulations to override
municipal by-laws and approvals, posing a substantial risk to local land use
autonomy and governance.
11.4 Municipalities must prepare for faster -paced development with fewer consultation
requirements, diminished environmental oversight, and reduced legal and planning
certainty.
Page115
Report #2025-CG-7
Page 10 of 10
11.5 The specific regulations related to these proposed legislative changes have yet to
be determined and/or will be subject to future consultation by the province. Regional
staff will monitor the progress of these changes and ensure Regional Council is
made aware of any Regional implications.
11.6 A copy of this report will be forwarded to the Region's area municipalities,
conservation authorities, and the Williams Treaty First Nations.
12. Attachments
Attachment #1: Region of Durham Staff Response to Bill 5, the Protect Ontario
by Unleashing the Economy Act, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
Colleen Goodchild, Director of Community
Growth
Recommended for Presentation to Council
Nancy Taylor BBA, CPA, CA for
Elaine C. Baxter-Trahair
Chief Administrative Officer
Page116
Attachment 1 to Report #2025-CG-7
77ODD))
DURHAM
REGION
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
May 16, 2025
Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks
Species at Risk Branch
40 St. Claire Ave. W
Toronto, Ontario
M4V1 M2
Sent Via Email
Community Growth and
RE: Region of Durham Staff Response to Bill 5, the Protect
Economic Development
Ontario by Unleashing the Economy Act, 2025
Department
Community Growth Division
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on proposed Bill 5,
the Protect Ontario by Unleashing the Economy Act, 2025 (Bill 5). This
605 ROSSLAND ROAD EAST
LEVEL4
legislative proposal represents an omnibus Bill that includes 10
PO BOX623
schedules, some that propose minor amendments to existing
WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3
CANADA
legislation and others that propose new legislation.
1-800- 72- 11 Bill 5 was introduced on April 17, 2025, with a commenting period of
1-800-372-1102 p � g
30-days. Considering Regional Council's reporting cycle, the 30-day
Email: timeline did not allow for Regional Council to consider this matter prior
CommunityGrowth@durham.ca to the May 17, 2025, commenting deadline. Therefore, the following
durham.ca
comments represent those of Regional staff.
A report seeking Regional Council endorsement of these comments
will be presented at the May 28, 2025, meeting of Regional Council.
Should Regional Council make any changes to the comments, regional
staff will follow up accordingly.
The Region supports efforts to streamline the approvals process
for mining projects in Ontario when it does not come at the
expense of safeguarding against environmental and community
impacts.
2. The Region is supportive of mechanisms that would result in
increased local procurement in the electricity sector. Limiting
competition, however, could increase costs if local or preferred
suppliers are more expensive than international alternatives,
which may result in increased electricity prices for ratepayers.
3. Proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, 1990 fail to
address systemic issues in archaeological resource
management, such as delayed consultation with Indigenous
communities and unilateral provincial control over Indigenous
artifacts and cultural heritage. Additionally, the proposed
"Service Excellence If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact
for our Communities" Reception at 1-800-372-1102, extension 2548.
Page117
amendments exacerbate already weakened heritage protections
brought in through Bill 23. Any exemptions under the Ontario
Heritage Act could result in negative impacts including the
destruction of Indigenous artifacts and burial sites.
4. The new proposed regime for endangered species and at -risk
species is designed for more flexible permitting and registry -
based approvals, rather than automatic prohibitions on activities
that harm listed species or their habitats. Additionally, narrowing
the definition of habitat in the ESA to just the immediate area
surrounding dwelling sites excludes protection of broader
ecosystems that endangered and at -risk species rely on for
survival. While these changes could expedite development
approvals, they may also reduce environmental oversight.
5. The "trusted proponent" model under the Special Economic
Zones Act, 2025 may create a two-tier development system,
favouring select private businesses with fewer regulations.
6. The Region should be included in consultations related to the
identification of any Special Economic Zones within Durham and
the selection of "trusted proponents" that would operate within
the region.
The Region is looking forward to participating in future consultations
related to this Bill, as more details are provided and proposed
regulations are developed. If you have any questions about the above
noted comments, please contact Amanda Bathe, Senior Planner at
Amanda. Bathe(cD_durham.ca.
Thank you,
Colleen Goodchild, MCIP, RPP
Director of Community Growth
Community Growth & Economic Development Department
Page118
Ontario 0
Ministry of Natural Resources Ministere des Richesses naturelles
Development and Hazard Policy Direction de la politique d'exploitation des
Branch ressources et des risques naturels.
Policy Division Division de 1'e1aboration des politiques
300 Water Street 300, rue Water
Peterborough, ON K9J 3C7 Peterborough (Ontario) K9J 3C7
May 27, 2025
Subject: Reintroduction of the Geologic Carbon Storage Act
Hello,
Over the past three years, the Ministry of Natural Resources has been taking a
measured and phased approach to enabling and regulating geologic carbon storage in
Ontario. Carbon storage is new to the province, and developing a comprehensive
framework to regulate this activity would help ensure that it is done responsibly, with
measures in place to safeguard people and the environment.
Geologic carbon storage (further referred to as carbon storage) involves injecting
captured carbon dioxide (CO2) into deep geological formations for permanent storage.
This technology could provide industries in Ontario with a critical tool for managing their
emissions and contributing to the achievement of Ontario's emissions reduction targets.
On November 25, 2024, the Resource Management and Safety Act, 2024 was
introduced in the Ontario legislature. This Act included a proposed Geologic Carbon
Storage Act. The legislature was dissolved on January 28, 2025, and all incomplete
business was terminated.
We are writing to notify you that today, the Bill was reintroduced in the legislature. The
suite of proposed changes remains the same as what was introduced in November
2024, aside from a small number of administrative updates made to provide clarity.
The original proposal can be accessed through the Environmental Registry/Regulatory
Registry: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-9299.
If you would like more information or have any questions, please contact Andrew
Ogilvie, Manager of Resources Development Section, at 705-761-5815 or through
email: Resources. Development(a)_ontario.ca.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Keyes
Director, Development and Hazard Policy Branch
Page119
Ministry of Natural Resources
Development and Hazard Policy
Branch
Policy Division
300 Water Street
Peterborough, ON K9J 3C7
ME rIFI f 0114.7
Ministere des Richesses naturelles
Direction de la politique d'exploitation des
ressources et des risques naturels.
Division de I'elaboration des politiques
300, rue Water
Peterborough (Ontario) K9J 3C7
Ontario 0
Objet : Reintroduction de la Loi sur le stockage geologique du carbone
Bonjour,
Au cours des trois dernibres annees, le ministere des Richesses naturelles a adopte
une approche mesuree et progressive pour autoriser ainsi que reglementer le stockage
geologique du carbone en Ontario. Le stockage du carbone est une nouveaute dans la
province et 1'elaboration d'un cadre complet pour reglementer cette activite permettrait
de s'assurer qu'elle est menee de manibre responsable en mettant en place des
mesures afin de proteger les personnes et 1'environnement.
Le stockage geologique du carbone (egalement appele stockage du carbone) consiste
a injecter le dioxyde de carbone (CO2) capture, dans des formations geologiques
profondes en vue d'un stockage permanent. Cette technologie pourrait fournir aux
industries de ('Ontario un outil essentiel qui permettrait de gerer leurs emissions et de
contribuer a la realisation des objectifs de reduction des emissions de la province.
Le 25 novembre 2024, la Loi de 2024 sur la gestion des ressources et la securite a ete
presentee a I'Assemblee legislative de I'Ontario. Cette loi comprenait une proposition de
Loi sur le stockage geologique du carbone. La dissolution de la legislature a eu lieu le
28 janvier 2025 et toutes les activites incompletes ont pris fin.
Nous vous informons qu'aujourd'hui, le projet de loi a ete reintroduit a la legislature.
L'ensemble des modifications proposees reste identique a ce qui a ete introduit en
novembre 2024, a 1'exception d'un petit nombre de mises a four administratives
destinees a apporter de la clarte.
La proposition originale est accessible sur le Registre environnemental ou le Registre
de la reglementation : https://ero.ontario.ca/fr/notice/019-9299.
Si vous souhaitez obtenir plus de renseignements ou si vous avez des questions,
veuillez communiquer avec Andrew Ogilvie, gestionnaire de la Section de 1'exploitation
des richesses naturelles, au 705 761-5815 ou par courriel a
Resources. Development(a).ontario.ca.
Page120
Veuillez agreer mes sentiments les meilleurs.
Jennifer Keyes
Directrice, Direction de I'elaboration et des politiques relatives aux dangers
Page121