1. Eden Mills Going
Carbon Neutral
Survey Report
A p r i l 2 n d , 2 0 1 4
E N V S * 4 0 1 2
Taylor Workman, Alex Ciccone, Paul Laforet,
Brandon Sproule, Leah deBortoli, Stephanie Masina

2. April 2nd
, 2014
Doctor Shelley Hunt
School of Environmental Sciences
University of Guelph
50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1
RE: GOING CARBON NEUTRAL FINAL RESEARCH REPORT
Dear Dr. Hunt,
Please find attached our consultant group’s final research report as a means to support
Eden Mills’ advancement in becoming the first carbon neutral village in North America. Over
the past several months our group members (under the guidance of Mr. Charles Simon and
colleagues) aided in the distribution, collection, analysis of the village’s 2013 annual carbon
footprint. In addition we researched complementary and alternative methods of lowering
carbon emissions, stemming from household energy use and personal transportation.
The end result is this report that overviews different conservation practices, forms of
alternative energy, carbon sequestration, and the practicalities thereof. Additionally, a
summary of the Village’s progress during 2013 has been provided through the comparison and
analysis of current and historical carbon expenditures.
We thank you for the opportunity in becoming a part of Eden Mills’ Going Carbon
Neutral project.
Sincerely,
Alex Ciccone, Leah deBortoli, Paul Laforet, Stephanie Masina, Brandon Sproule, and Taylor
Workman

3. Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….....1-2
 1.1 Background.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2
2.0 Going Carbon Neutral Survey………………………………………………….………………………………………3-12
 2.1 Survey Methods………………………………………………….…….………………………………………....3-4
 2.2 Survey Results……………….……...…………………………………….……………………………………..4-12
3.0 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13-32
 3.1 Reduce………………………………………………………………………………………………………………13-17
 3.1.1 Community Gardens……………………………………………………………………………13-15
 3.1.2 Community Car Sharing………………………………………………………………………15-16
 3.1.3 Home Solutions…………………………………………………………………………………..16-17
 3.2 Replace: Community Energy Project.....................................................................17-24
 3.2.1 Background………………………………………………………………………………………………17
 3.2.2 Starting an Energy Business…………………………………………………………………17-18
 3.2.3 Cooperatives……………………………………………………………………………………….18-21
 3.2.4 Cooperative Case Study: Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative…………..21
 3.2.5 Investing in Existing Energy Project…………………………………………………….21-22
 3.2.6 Buying Environmentally Sourced Electricity……………………………………………..23
 3.2.7 Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………….23-24
 3.3 Absorb: Carbon Sequestration…………………………………………………………………………..24-32
 3.3.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….24
 3.3.2 Aquatic……………………………………………………………………………………………….25-28
 3.3.3 Pedological………………………………………………………………………………………….28-30
 3.3.4 Biotic ………………………………………………………………………………………………….30-32
4.0 Funding Opportunities………………………………………………………………………………………………….33-44
 4.1 Community Energy Partnerships Program – Ontario Power Authority……33-34
 4.2 Conservation Fund – Ontario Power Authority………………………………………34-39

4.  4.3 Green Municipal Fund – Federation of Canadian Municipalities…………….39-41
 4.4 Gas Tax Fund – Infrastructure Canada……………………………………………………41-42
 4.5 R&D Repayable and Cost-shared programs- CanmetENERGY – Natural
Resources Canada……………………………………………………………………………………….42-43
 4.6 Mountain Equipment Co-Op Environment Fund…………………………………….43-44
5.0 Crowdsourcing ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..45-47
 5.1 Small Change Fund…………………………………………………………………………………45-46
 5.2 Motherland Fund………………………………………………………………………………………..46
 5.3 Ideavibes…………………………………………………………………………………………………….47
6.0 References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48-52

5. 1
1.0 Introduction
Over the years, human civilization has evolved into a dominant force shaping the planet’s
basic physical systems through excessive land use and resource exploitation (Dalby, 2013).
Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have become a key component in the
modification of the natural environment (Dalby, 2013). The industrial revolution brought on
elevated levels of CO2 which has been linked to numerous environmental issues that humanity
is faced with today (Mattoo and Subramanian, 2012). Although debate over global climate
change as a threat to environmental, social and political security began in the early 1990s, this
concern was not regarded as a high-profile issue until 2007 (Dalby, 2013). Despite current
mitigation measures, levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have neared 400 parts per
million in early 2013; a rate increase of 2 parts per million annually (Dalby, 2013). In order to
mitigate the potentially dangerous levels of CO2, there is a need for the establishment of
sustainable communities (Dalby, 2013).
Initially, climate-change researchers have focused on developing and implementing
large-scale responses at national and international levels while neglecting to include municipal-
level solutions (Rosenzweig et al., 2010). However, municipalities are crucial to collective global
climate change mitigation (Rosenzweig et al., 2010). Urban areas are responsible for
approximately 71% of energy-related carbon emissions, meaning they are capable of achieving
tremendous reductions (Rosenzweig et al., 2010). Municipal leaders have demonstrated an
increased willingness to take action against climate change, as compared to national politicians
(Rosenzweig et al., 2010). The municipality of Eden Mills, Ontario has constructed initiatives to
effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
1.1 Background
In November of 2007, Eden Mills launched the “Going Carbon Neutral” project with the
aim to become North America’s first village to achieve carbon neutrality (Wisener and Sword,
2012). The community began a biennial inventory of its carbon dioxide emissions in order to

6. 2
encourage citizens to reduce their personal emissions via conservation, home upgrades, and
carbon sequestration activities (Wisener and Sword, 2012). The survey has been carried out in
2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 The most recent survey was conducted in 2013 with the assistance of a
student-based consultant group.
As with previous years, the central concern surrounding the survey was the level of
participation amongst the community members. In order to improve participation, the 2011
consultants devoted the majority of their efforts to simplify the survey and increase the ease of
execution for participants (Alpi et al., 2012). With a refined survey provided by the 2011
consultants, this year’s objectives were to aid in the distribution, collection and analysis of the
surveys as well as research new and innovative ways for Eden Mills to continue toward carbon
neutrality.

7. 3
2.0 Eden Mills Going Carbon Neutral Survey
2.1 Survey Methods:
The 2013 carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions surveying process for the village Eden Mills
“Going Carbon Neutral” initiative commenced once the University Student Team (hereafter
referred to as the Team) received the residential contact information (hereafter referred to as
the Master List). The Master List identified which village residents wished to participate, as well
as whether they wanted to complete the survey electronically or by paper copy. Each
residence and institution (the Community Hall, Edgewood Camp, and the Eden Mills United
Church) on the Master List was randomly assigned an identification code by the Team to ensure
anonymity and organization.
The surveys were initially distributed Monday, January 13th, 2014, with additional
surveys distributed over the subsequent three weeks. The Team sent the electronic surveys via
email and the paper copies were delivered by the appropriate neighbourhood volunteer.
Survey submissions were received over the course of three weeks. Electronic submissions were
collected using the Limesurvey database and paper copies were hand-delivered to the Team
shortly after the official deadline of Friday, January 31st, 2014 at 11:59pm. Data from the
paper copies were manually entered into the Limesurvey database and later exported as a
results spreadsheet. The results were then analyzed in order to check for potential
inaccuracies. The survey participants who provided unusual information were contacted for
data verification.
Values for household energy sources, land transportation, and air travel were converted
to CO2 equivalents (CO2e) based on the coefficients (Table 1.0) used in the 2011 survey analysis
in order to provide accurate comparisons. Once all parameters were properly converted into
carbon equivalent units in tonnes, results were derived and summarized.

8. 4
Table 1.0 – Carbon dioxide (CO2) Coefficients (Chen et al., 2008)
Survey Parameters CO2 Coefficients
Electricity 0.18 kg CO2/KwH
Heating Oil 2.83 kg CO2/L
Propane 1.51 kg CO2/L
Wood 2653 kg CO2/cord
Wood Pellets 1.9 kg CO2/kg wood
Short Haul Flights <1.5 hours or 0 km – 567 km 240 kg CO2/flight
Medium Haul Flights 1.5 – 3.1 hours or 568 km – 1991 km 440 kg CO2/flight
Long Haul Flights 3.0 – 5.0 hours or 1992 km – 3117 km 1230 kg CO2/flight
Extended Long Haul Flights >5.0 hours or >3117 km 2460 kg CO2/flight
Vehicle gasoline consumption 2.36 kg CO2/L
Vehicle diesel consumption 2.73 kg CO2/L
2.2 Survey Results:
Participation:
A total of 67 residences and 2 institutions participated in the Eden Mills “Going Carbon
Neutral” survey study for 2013. Data collected from the 2011 survey for the third institution,
Edgewood Camp, was included in sample calculations in order to gain a better representation
of the village’s CO2 emissions. This brings the total sample size to 70 participants, which
represents approximately 40% of the Eden Mills village (Figure 1.0). Among the remaining
residences, 37% declined the initial offer to participate, while 23% expressed an interest in
participating but were later unable to complete the survey due to a variety of factors (ex.
traveling, surgery, family illness, insufficient information from hydro company). These results
indicate that 63% of community members were initially interested in participating in the Eden
Mills “Going Carbon Neutral” survey. In comparison to the 2011 survey participation, initial
interest declined by 1%, and the number of completed surveys declined by 2%.

9. 5
Figure 1.0 – Survey Participation Statistics
Measured Emissions:
A total of 1609 tonnes of carbon were emitted from Eden Mills via household energy,
land transportation and air travel expenditures by the 2013 survey sample population, including
both households and institutions. Residences contributed approximately 1554 tonnes, or 97%,
to the sample total, while the three institutions contributed 55 tonnes, or 3% (Figure 2.0). By
extrapolating the residential sample total, then adding the institution sample total, it is
estimated that the village of Eden Mills emitted a grand total of 4091 tonnes of carbon during
2013. Once extrapolated, it can be seen that residences now represent approximately 99% of
total carbon emissions at 4036 tonnes, and institutions represent 1% at 55 tonnes (Figure 3.0).
40%
37%
23%
Survey Response Rate
Completed the survey
Did not volunteer to take
the survey
Did not complete the
survey

10. 6
Figure 2.0 – Residence vs. Institution Sample Emission Percentages
Figure 3.0 – Residence vs. Institution Village Emission Percentages
97%
3%
Proportion of total carbon emissions
Residences
Institutions
99%
1%
Extrapolated proportion of carbon
emissions
Residences
Institutions

11. 7
This translates into a residential per capita average of 10.1 tonnes within Eden Mills,
which is well below the Canadian average in 2011 of 20.4 tonnes (The Conference Board of
Canada, 2013) (Figure 4.0). However, this was to be expected given that the Canadian average
takes into consideration additional emissions generated through the transportation of goods,
industrial processes, commercial building expenditures, agricultural processes, and waste
management (The Conference Board of Canada, 2013). In the 2011 survey analysis, the
Canadian average was divided into separate categories based on carbon emission sources. This
allows us to omit the non-comparable categories (commercial, agricultural, waste
management) from the original 20.4 tonne Canadian average. As a result, the Canadian average
was reduced by 31% to an annual average of 14.1 tonnes.
Figure 4.0 – Total Carbon Emissions Per Capita
The following statistics included in Table 2.0 reflect the Village’s total carbon emissions,
both with and without institutional contributions, and provide a comparison to previous survey
results. The first three rows represent the major carbon sources contributing to the Village’s
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1 4 7 1013161922252831343740434649525558616467
TonnesofCO2equivalentpercapita
Survey participants
Total 2013 Carbon Emissions Per Capita
CO2 per capita
Eden Mills average
Canadian average 2011

12. 8
residential total of 4036.2 tonnes. In comparison to the 2011 survey, household sources have
decreased by 5.99%, land transportation sources have increased by 21.0%, and air travel
sources have increased by 24.2%. Together, these fluctuations have contributed to a total
increase of 10.6% in carbon emissions for both residences and institutions since 2011. This
increase could be explained by a larger quantity of households within the Village. In 2011,
there were 163 households and 3 institutions, while 2013 included 174 households and 3
institutions. Therefore, the sample results for household, land transportation, and air travel
carbon sources would be extrapolated across a larger population size. The decline in household
carbon sources could be attributed to an increase in solar and green-sourced energy use.
Additionally, individuals using these energy sources may have been more inclined to participate
in this year’s survey leading to a potential misrepresentation of total household carbon
emissions.
Table 2.0 – Projected Total Village Carbon Emissions (tonnes)
2007
(% total)
2009
(% total)
2011
(% total)
2013
(% total)
Difference between
2011 and 2013
Village
building/home
1609.5
(34.8%)
1537.4
(35.2%)
1500.3
(41.1%)
1410.4
(34.9%)
5.99% decrease
Village land
transportation
1650.6
(35.7%)
1899.2
(43.5%)
1380.8
(37.8%)
1671.0
(41.4%)
21.0% increase
Village air
transportation
1364.1
(29.5%)
926.0
(21.2%)
769.0
(20.8%)
954.8
(23.7%)
24.2% increase
Village total 4624.2 4362.5 3650.1 4036.2 10.6% increase
Village total
including
institutions
4708.1 4446.5 3697.8 4090.9 10.6% increase
The above statistics include a combination of the residents’ personal carbon emissions
and work related emissions. The following results are only representative of the personal use,
omitting land and air transportation that are strictly work-related. In 2013, 83% of residential
expenditures were from personal use, while only 17% was work-related (Figure 5.0). The per
capita value for personal carbon emissions in Eden Mills in 2013 was then found to be 8.64

13. 9
tonnes, while the household average was found to be 19.2 tonnes. In comparison with
previous survey results, the 2013 residential average has decreased from 2009 (9.04 tonnes),
but increased since 2011 (8.24 tonnes) (Alpi et al., 2012) (Figure 6.0).
.
Figure 5.0 – Personal Use vs. Work-Related Household Carbon Emissions
Figure 6.0 – Average Per Capita Emissions
83%
17%
Personal and business carbon sources
Residence personal
Residence business
14.1
9.04
8.24 8.64
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2011 Canadian
average
2009 survey 2011 survey 2013 survey
Average Per Capita Carbon Emissions

14. 10
Taking a closer look at just the residential expenditures (without institutions), household
energy consumption contributed the largest portion of carbon emission at 43%, followed by
land transportation at 37%, and air travel at 20% (Figure 7.0). These percentages equate to
548, 483 and 261 tonnes of carbon being generated by each source, respectively, to make up
the projected village residential total of 1292 tonnes.
Figure 7.0 – Sources of Residential Carbon Emissions
The personal use household energy expenditures can be divided into electricity, oil,
propane, wood (bush cords and face cords), and wood pellets (Figure 8.0). Electricity can be
further divided into three forms: traditional electricity, solar, and green-sourced energy, such as
Bullfrog Power (Figure 9.0). The use of solar and green-sourced energy by numerous Eden Mills
survey participants resulted in 13.1 fewer tonnes of carbon being emitted in 2013. The
relevance of this distinction between electricity can be seen in the seceding Household
Improvements section.
43%
37%
20%
Carbon Sources in Eden Mills
Household energy
Land travel
Air travel

15. 11
Figure 8.0 – Sources of Household Energy Expenditures
Figure 9.0 – Forms of Electricity
28%
24%19%
27%
2%
Household Energy Sources
Electricity
Heating oil
Propane
Wood
Wood pellets
5%
3%
92%
Sources of Household Electricity
Green-sourced energy
Solar power
Traditional electricity

16. 12
Household Improvements:
The following graph depicts the percentage of survey participants to make household
improvements or installations in order to increase energy efficiency in the home (Figure 10.0).
All improvements and installations recorded by the survey were completed following the 2011
“Going Carbon Neutral” survey. The most common energy improvement initiatives included
installing new windows and doors, switching to fluorescent lights, purchasing Energy Star
appliances, and applying new caulk and/or weather-stripping. The least common
improvements included installing more efficient heat pumps or solar hot water heaters, and
insulating water tanks and pipes. No new solar electric panels were installed over the last two
years by participants. Some of the additional home improvements included the installation of
new roofs, septic tanks, high-efficiency propane furnaces, low flush toilets, smaller water
heaters, and kitchen renovations with new, efficient appliances.
Figure 10.0 – Household Improvements and Installations
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Percentage(%)
Home Improvements and Installations

17. 13
3.0 Literature Review
Since its inception in 2007, the Eden Mills “Going Carbon Neutral” effort is based on
three central tenets in order to tackle climate change: reduce, replace and absorb. This
literature review has been framed by these three tenets in order to ensure it is relevant for
Eden Mills.
3.1 Reduce
3.1.1 Community Gardens
Community gardens consist of plots of land where residents can grow their own food.
Community gardens are typically used when individuals have limited access to sufficient soil for
horticulture or live in areas that are not in close proximity to stores with fresh produce. The use
of community gardens can provide significant reductions in a community’s carbon footprint,
effectively decreasing carbon emissions. Community gardens accomplish this through two
separate pathways: direct pathways (eg. greenhouse gas mitigation) and indirect pathways (eg.
lifestyle changes and education) (Okvat and Zautra, 2011).
In terms of direct pathways, carbon sequestration is one of the most well known. This
involves the removal of existing carbon from the atmosphere as opposed to efforts to decrease
the potential for new carbon emissions and has often been referred to as the reverse
greenhouse effect (Okvat and Zautra, 2011). The reverse greenhouse effect in community
gardens occurs by sequestering carbon through the crops that are planted. The plants take in
CO2 and through respiration create carbon and oxygen. The plants release oxygen and
sequester carbon in the soil as well as plant tissue, adding to the fertility of the soil and
reducing the amount of atmospheric carbon (Okvat and Zautra, 2011).

18. 14
The climate stabilizing ability of a community garden has been estimated from a 0.4
acre, organic community garden and has proven to increase the amount of organic matter
content of the plot of land from 1% to 7.7% over the course of 10 years (Okvat and Zautra,
2011). This means that over the course of those 10 years, while assuming that the organic
matter of the soil was found in the top 8 inches of soil, the community garden sequestered a
total of 19 tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere (Okvat and Zautra, 2011). This number can
be increased in scale if the organic matter horizon of the soil is deeper (Okvat and Zautra,
2011).
It has also been estimated that over the past 10 years, the establishment of 10,000
community gardens across the US has amounted to a total of 190,000 tonnes of sequestered
carbon. This effectively offsets the carbon emissions of 30,400 American citizens for a full year
(Okvat and Zautra, 2011). When interpreting this number, one should be cautious as there are
many other factors that are involved in carbon sequestration. However, this estimation does
provide an excellent idea of the magnitude to which community gardens are capable sequester
carbon (Okvat and Zautra, 2011).
Another direct pathway associated with community gardens is the reduction in energy
demands that are required from the transportation of food. Community gardens reduce the
amount of carbon emissions that are produced from acquiring fresh produce. Other carbon
producing processes that community gardens are able to alleviate include: the energy demand
required for the packaging of mass-produced foods, grocery store cooling, as well as heating
and lighting (Okvat and Zautra, 2011). In addition, community gardens reduce the amount of
runoff through the absorption of rainwater by the soil. Transported runoff ends up in the sewer
systems which increases the required energy needed for pumping and treatment (Okvat and
Zautra, 2011). Finally, the use of kitchen scraps and yard waste as compost for community
gardens is common practice, which decreases carbon emissions required for transportation of
garbage to landfills (Okvat and Zautra, 2011).

19. 15
Indirectly, community gardens teach people about the process of climate change and
why it is so important to reduce our own carbon emissions. They demonstrate how little things
such as growing your own fruits and vegetables can have long-reaching impacts on the amount
of carbon emissions released into the environment. The education of individuals on the
importance of carbon emission reduction and the spreading of knowledge is just as important
as the direct methods for reducing carbon emissions.
3.1.2 Community Car Sharing
The transportation sector has been associated with 33% of the annual greenhouse gas
emissions across Canada, with a subset of 59% associated with cars and light trucks (Canadian
Co-operative Association, 2009). Community car shares hold the potential to decrease carbon
emissions. They effectively remove a number of cars from roads and encourage the individuals
who have given up their vehicles in favour of car sharing to walk or cycle short distances where
a motor vehicle would not be necessary. By using car sharing programs the average household
has been shown to decrease the use of motorized transportation by 40 to 60% a year (Canadian
Co-operative Association, 2009). This outlines the importance of the program in the reduction
of carbon emissions.
There is a multitude of car sharing co-operatives in Canada; however, the most suitable
for Eden Mills is that of the community car co-operative in Guelph, Ontario. The cooperative
was created in 2001 and currently has two cars as well as 35 members. Additionally, the Guelph
co-op is currently adding new cars each year and requires a $500 deposit from new members
(Canadian Co-operative Association, 2009).

20. 16
Some towns that are attempting to go carbon neutral have opted to buy electric cars for
community car sharing projects. The town of Ashton Hayes, located in North Western U.K. has
purchased an all-electric Nissan Leaf, zero emission vehicle. The car can cover 136-169
kilometers on one charge and anyone in the village with a clean driving licence over the age of
18 can use the car for brief periods (Going Carbon Neutral, 2011). The car loaned out booking
time slots either over the phone or on the internet (Going Carbon Neutral, 2011). The town of
Ashton Hayes requires no annual membership fees to use the vehicle (Going Carbon Neutral,
2011). The phone service and website were established in conjunction with the Commonwheels
Social Enterprise Company and provides car booking and management 24 hours a day, 365 days
a year (Going Carbon Neutral, 2011). The current renting cost of the car is $7.10 an hour plus $5
per kilometer driven (Going Carbon Neutral, 2011).
3.1.3 Home Solutions
There are many improvements which individuals can make within their homes in order
to reduce their personal carbon emissions, for example storm windows. They can be installed
on the interior or exterior of any window and can range from inexpensive plastic sheets or
films, designed for a single heating season, to longer lasting solutions such as triple-track glass
units with low-emissivity coatings (U.S Department of Energy, 2012). Interior storm windows
are generally considered to be more convenient, as they can be removed and installed with
ease and require less maintenance because they are not exposed to the outside weather (U.S
Department of Energy, 2012).
There is a number of home energy saving programs that are run by the government of
Canada, most notably the Green Source Funding Database Home Energy Savings Program which
involves a home energy audit. The energy audit examines an individual’s home on a room by
room basis outlining the location of energy leaks (Environment Canada, 2012). The available
funding can provide a maximum of $10,000 in Ontario federal rebates and the government of
Ontario compensates 50% of the home audit (Environment Canada, 2012). Possible rebates

21. 17
include: the installation of an energy star qualified gas furnace valued at $600, insulated attic
valued at $1,200, insulated crawl space valued at $1,600, and installation of solar domestic hot
water systems valued at $1000 (Environment Canada, 2012).
3.2 Replace: Community Energy Project
3.2.1 Background
An additional method of reducing carbon emissions involves replacing existing energy
systems. Eden Mills does not produce their own energy; their electricity originates from mixed
sources. 56% of the energy used by Eden Mills originates from nuclear plants, 2% from coal
generation facilities, 22% from hydro, 10% from natural gas generation facilities and the
remainder from renewable sources (Achieving Balance, 2013). Eden Mills has a large incentive
to change their energy sourcing because of the small reliance on renewable sources of energy.
In order to reduce the carbon footprint associated with energy use, Eden Mills can implement
one of four options: create a ‘typical’ energy business (partnership or corporation), start an
energy cooperative, ‘buy-in’ to an existing energy cooperative or purchase renewable
electricity.
3.2.2 Starting an Energy Business
The most intuitive and straightforward method of sourcing renewable energy is to start
a business that provides renewable energy. In this scenario, a person or group of people would
create a business that generates electricity from a renewable source. In Ontario, there are two
options applicable to Eden Mills: a business partnership and a business corporation.
Business partnerships are formed with two or more people, in contrast to sole
proprietorships which only have one liable businessperson. A business partnership can take

22. 18
three forms in Ontario: a Limited Liability Partnership, a General Partnership and a Limited
Partnership. Limited liability partnerships are only available to professionals such as doctors,
chartered accountants, and lawyers. Therefore, this is not an option for Eden Mills. In general
partnerships, every member that formed the business is equally and unlimitedly liable for any
action the business entity faces. For example, if the business faced bankruptcy or litigation,
each general member would be held liable for the outcome. General partnerships are jointly
and severally liable, meaning if one member is unable to pay a fine the company faces the
other members are wholly liable (DTI, 2000). Limited partnerships are similar to general
partnerships but extend to some members who are not fully liable for the business’ actions. The
additional ‘limited partners’ have limited liability for the business and are similar to investors.
In contrast, business corporations can be sought as an alternative to business
partnerships. Many large businesses are incorporated (having gone through the process to
become a corporation) because it provides a safer form of liability. When a business
incorporates, it is considered a separate entity from its shareholders and is liable in itself. Its
shareholders and employees are not held liable for the corporation and therefore have
increased protected from bankruptcy or litigation. Despite this benefit, incorporation is
expensive and requires more complicated paperwork compared to partnerships (DTI, 2000).
It is our recommendation that Eden Mills not pursue either of these two traditional
business strategies. These traditional business structures do not suit the community mentality
of the citizens. Furthermore, we believe that these structures present an unacceptable level of
risk such as the requirement for at least some citizens to have joint and several liability in
general partnerships. In the event that Eden Mills decides to produce their own energy, we
recommend a cooperative business structure.
3.2.3 Cooperatives

23. 19
The cooperative business structure is an innovative way to achieve renewable energy
production in a community setting. Cooperatives are their own legal structure, but are all
incorporated (Cameron, n.d.). Unlike other businesses, they are governed by the Co-operative
Corporations Act (Christianson, 2012). These business structures are owned by multiple
members with equal ownership. Each member must buy-in to the cooperative and is then
granted voting power at one equally weighted vote per member (Cameron, n.d.). This stands in
stark contrast to publicly traded corporations where the number of shares one owns dictates
that person’s voting power. Cooperatives follow the desires of its members; they are not
required to provide shareholder value and economic growth if those are not sought (Cameron,
n.d.).
These cooperatives can be one of three types (see Figure 6 below). If they fall under the
Green Energy Act (GEA) definition and have share capital, the bonds that co-op members
purchase have monetary returns at a fixed rate (Lipp, 2012). Any surplus beyond this rate is
retained for future projects or other purposes in the best interest of the co-operative (Lipp,
2012). Both of the share capital options (either falling under the GEA’s definition or not)
provide returns to cooperative members in relation to success of the project (Lipp, 2012).
Profits that are generated are split among all members.
Figure 6: Three cooperative categories (Lipp, 2012).

24. 20
Energy cooperatives haves increased opportunities for funding, specifically in the energy
generation sector (eg. through the Community Energy Partnership Program *CEPP+). CEPP’s pre-
FIT program covers up to 80% of planning costs, to a maximum of $20,000 for a single project
(CEPP). In terms of construction, CEPP covers 50% of actual project costs up to a maximum of
$100,000 per application for projects 10Kw- 500Kw (CEPP). Additionally, cooperatives are
robust structures because they are often created with a long-term community mentality. The
life expectancy of cooperative is roughly double that of business corporations (Christianson,
2012). This kind of resilience has led them to produce $2.1 billion/ year in Ontario alone
(Cameron, n.d.). Furthermore, a cooperative model retains much more revenue within the
community and provides additional local jobs (Walker, 2008). It also acts to combat ever-rising
energy prices and energy instability (MacArthur, 2010). Lastly, cooperatives are more
transparent because of their public ownership and governance (MacArthur, 2010). This helps to
combat the ‘not in my backyard’ mentality that many renewable projects face and brings
community members together (MacArthur, 2010).
Cooperatives clearly have many benefits over traditional business structures, however
they do have two major drawbacks (common to all business types): cost and risk. As with any
renewable energy project, a large up-front investment is required. It can be difficulty to obtain
funding for projects due to a lack of bank loans and/or private investment. The cost associated
with cooperatives will not see an immediate return on investments, as returns from renewable
energy projects can take many years (MacArthur, 2010).
In terms of risk, there are three main issues: funding, destruction and membership.
Funding options are extremely volatile (eg. the FIT program) which can influence both the
timing and the size of renewable energy projects. There is always a risk of physical damage to
projects after construction. Energy production facilities have a finite lifespan and many things
can go wrong to shorten their production life. In the context of wind turbines, Evan Ferrari

25. 21
suggests building multiple smaller turbines in order to overcome this problem (MacArthur,
2010). Finally, members in cooperatives are free to leave if they so choose. Member support
may flux with the success and rate of progress of a community energy project. See section 3.2.5
on investing in existing energy projects for comparison of risk. Despite these risks, cooperative
energy projects are becoming increasingly popular in Canada. As of 2011 there were over 70
alternative energy cooperatives, most of them in Ontario (Lipp, 2012).
3.2.4 Cooperative Case Study: Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative
Toronto Renewable Energy Cooperative (TREC) is a successful energy cooperative, it was
founded in 1998 as a non-profit renewable energy cooperative (MacArthur, 2010). Since its
inception, TREC has matured into an organization with over 600 members, 99% of which are
from Toronto (MacArthur, 2010). These members were inspired by the large-scale,
commonplace cooperative ownership of wind turbines in Denmark- often termed the ‘Danish
experience’ (MacArthur, 2010). They used the Danish technique of funding energy projects
which allows investment at the early stages and the development stage (Lipp, 2012). The initial
investments are treated as down-payments on project shares upon completion of the project
(Lipp, 2012). For additional examples of this system, refer to the Middlegrunded project and
Samsoe Island project in Denmark.
A noteworthy case-study is the windmill which can be seen from the Gardiner
Expressway, the turbine is seen by over 200,000 people daily (MacArthur, 2010) and is an iconic
symbol of renewable energy. The innovative funding model used by this cooperative provided
the initiative with more funding than it required (MacArthur, 2010). All this despite the many
legal barriers they faced in fulfilling their project (MacArthur, 2010).
3.2.5 Investing in Existing Energy Projects

26. 22
Additionally, Eden Mills may invest in an existing renewable energy cooperative. This
requires far less capital, carries significantly lower risks and requires minimal paperwork and
legal navigation. To illustrate an investment of the sort, SolarShare will be used as a framework.
SolarShare (along with Windshare) is a subsidiary project of TREC formed in 2010
(SolarShare). A $40 lifetime membership allows individuals (or collectives thereof) to invest up
to $100,000 at a fixed rate of 5% annual return; guaranteed for 5 years (SolarShare).
Investment in an existing energy cooperative solves the two largest barriers to creating a new
cooperative: capital and risk. The minimum investment for energy cooperatives is generally
low; SolarShare requires a minimum investment of $1000 (SolarShare). In terms of risk, energy
cooperatives generally have guaranteed return on investments. As stated previously,
SolarShare guarantees 5% return for 5 years. The Onatario Power Authority (through the FIT
program) has granted guaranteed prices for their electricity, allowing them to provide a
guaranteed return to investors (SolarShare). The large investments allow energy cooperatives
to diversify their assets allowing for a less volatile revenue stream. Investors are not exposed to
the risks associated with project construction, in contrast to developing their own cooperative.
SolarShare uses bridge financing and insurance during their development stage to combat risk
(SolarShare).
There are very few barriers associated with investing in existing renewable energy
cooperatives; however it is not completely without its faults. Investment in an existing
cooperative does not have the same visceral appeal as creating a project in Eden Mills.
Although large sums of money will be invested in renewable energy, the physical infrastructure
of solar panels, wind turbines or hydro plants will not be present in the village. The lack of a
physical structure to stand as a symbol of the villagers’ investment in carbon neutrality may in
effect lead to less interest in investment. Having a physical structure would also stand as a
symbol for renewable energy, reminding villagers and those passing through Eden Mills of the
importance of carbon neutrality.

27. 23
3.2.6 Buying Environmentally Sourced Electricity
An innovative method of sourcing sustainably produced electricity is the purchase of
offsets. In Ontario, Bullfrog Power offers this service. Customers pay a premium in addition to
regular electricity costs to the company which in turn uses the premium to support renewable
energy projects. For example, if a user of Bullfrog Power uses 1kW of electricity, Bullfrog
ensures that they produce 1kW of electricity from a renewable source in the name of that
customer. This electricity is added to an arbitrary electrical grid, but claimed as an offset by the
purchaser of that power. This makes it similar to investing in a renewable energy project
directly, but with a few important differences. Investing in a renewable project provides a
financial return on investment, while paying Bullfrog simply acts as a carbon offset. Being a
private company, Bullfrog is not held as accountable for their customers as cooperative
businesses are. For example, Bullfrog does not need to ‘open their books’ and show their
customers exactly where their money is used. The lack of transparency should be seriously
considered by Eden Mills.
3.2.7 Recommendation
From the above analysis, it seems clear that to build towards renewable energy, Eden
Mills should pursue one of two options: investment in an existing energy cooperative, or the
creation of their own. Investing in an existing cooperative is more cost effective, less risky and
easier. Creating a cooperative to build a renewable electricity facility is a proof of concept,
serves as a symbol of the Villagers’ dedication and will educate the public about the feasibility
of renewable energy. However, there is potential for diversification. It is our recommendation
that Eden Mills invest in an existing energy cooperative in order to offset their conventional
energy usage in addition to constructing a small renewable energy project within the village of
Eden Mills.

28. 24
In an effort to educate the public about renewable energy, the city of Timmins erected a
small wind turbine and solar panel in 2009 (Timmins Times, 2009). This small project serves as a
guide for Eden Mills. The energy produced by the small turbine and panel in Timmins is
illustrated live on an LCD display near the heart of the city. This data is presented alongside a
small bulletin with a brief overview of wind and solar energy. The project cost around $15,000
and was largely funded by an Ontario Ministry of Energy grant (Timmins Times, 2009). For more
information regarding the implementation of this project, Kees Pols can be contacted at the
Mattagami Region Conservation Authority (MRCA) in Timmins (http://mrca.timmins.ca/).
A small renewable energy project like the one in Timmins would help to resolve some of
the downsides of Eden Mills not starting an energy cooperative. The low cost frees up
community members from investing in larger existing energy cooperatives, in essence
purchasing a large amount of carbon offsets and taking a step toward carbon neutrality. This
hybrid approach is a low-risk possibility that maintains most of the benefits of both options.
3.3 Absorb: Carbon Sequestration
3.3.1 Introduction
Of the three strategies being implemented to reduce carbon emissions, carbon
sequestration is the most important for initial implementation. Currently, alternative energy
sources are scarce and have not yet been perfected. Carbon sequestration has the ability to
offset and trap current emissions of carbon until alternate energy technology is affordable and
easy to access. On earth there are five main carbon pools; biotic, pedologic, atmospheric,
aquatic and fossil fuels. The fossil fuel pool is decreasing dramatically and causing increasing
amounts of damage through the release of carbon emissions. The goal of this section is to
address current methods of increasing the three other major carbon pools and their feasibility.

29. 25
3.3.2 Aquatic Pool
The largest of all carbon pools on earth are the aquatic carbon pools (Lal et al., 2013).
Unfortunately, most literature focused on the practical uses of aquatic sequestration have
analyzed water bodies theoretically capable offsetting global atmospheric carbon: oceans.
While direct translation of oceanic results to riverine result would be inaccurate, the underlying
principles of their methods may reveal mechanisms to sequester carbon present in both
oceanic and riverine systems. A mechanism that may be applicable to riverine systems is the
manipulation of phytoplankton populations in order to increase carbon sequestration. The
addition of iron into aquatic systems causes phytoplankton blooms. This fluctuation in biomass
causes an increase in carbon sequestration in the biotic pool which leads to an increase in
primary production. A rise in primary production will theoretically allow higher trophic level
populations to increase. Additionally, phytoplankton converts carbon dioxide into organic
carbon. While much of this carbon is consumed and respired by the biotic pool, there is a
fraction of said carbon that remains sequestered in the water.
Kepkay et al. (1997) conducted an observational study off the shore of Nova Scotia,
Canada which examined naturally occurring phytoplankton blooms and their efficiency of
sequestering carbon. They periodically took samples of phytoplankton in different conditions
throughout the study. Researchers found that prior to phytoplankton bloom, the carbon to
nitrogen ratio within phytoplankton species was between 6:1 and 7:1 (Kepkay et al., 1997).
While the carbon to nitrogen ratio during blooms was closer to 11.9:1 (Kepkay et al., 1997).
Thus, a plankton bloom causes roughly double the sequestration of carbon in plankton. After
the bloom, the carbon ratio returns back to pre-bloom levels (Kepkay et al., 1997). Therefore, a
method of sustaining plankton populations is required in order for riverine sequestration to be
a viable option. Sayre (2010) estimated that for every gram of algae produced, 0.44-0.54g of
carbon is produced.

30. 26
Basu and Pick (1997) suggested that rivers can attain significant densities of
phytoplankton, especially where residence time and low flow rates accommodate increased
growth and reproduction. Phytoplankton populations have also been shown to be limited by
hydrological, chemical, physical and biotic factors (Basu and Pick, 1997). There is debate
between researchers as to whether hydrological or chemical factors have the greatest influence
on the limitation of phytoplankton populations (Basu and Pick, 1997). Regardless, this debate
demonstrates the large impact that nutrient limitations have on population size. Basu and Pick
(1997) observed a lag between the increase in phytoplankton population and predation from
zooplankton. Intense predation pressure on phytoplankton in theory may negate some of the
efforts to sequester carbon. However, if phytoplankton continues to be stimulated to levels
that promote heavy predation, theoretically it is effectively converting sequestered carbon
from one biotic source to another. To determine if carbon sequestered in phytoplankton can be
directly translated to sequestration in zooplankton one can reference the carbon to nitrogen
ratio of zooplankton. Estimates of the carbon to nitrogen ratios for zooplankton species range
from 4.4:1 to 14.2:1 (Walve and Larsson, 1999). Identifying the species of zooplankton present
in the system must be done in order to provide an accurate estimate of carbon sequestration
(Walve and Larsson, 1999). In addition, the amount of carbon contained within zooplankton can
be estimated using Equation 1 (Manca and Comoli, 2000).
ln C = ln a + b * ln L
Equation 1: obtained from Manca and Comoli (2000)
The equation shows that the weight of carbon (C) in µg is a function of the body length
of the present zooplankton species (L) in mm and fitted constants (a and b). Using equation 1,
the sequestered carbon in a single zooplankton can be obtained (Manaca and Comoli, 2000). By
sampling zooplankton populations, one can gain an estimate of zooplankton population size
and biomass. Using the derived biomass and weight of carbon estimates, one can monitor the
size of the carbon sink in the zooplankton population.

31. 27
Equation 2 can be used in order to determine the amount of carbon that will be
sequestered in phytoplankton (Redalje, 1983).
Equation 2: obtained from Redalje (1983)
The equation shows that specific growth rate (µ) is dependent on the change in
phytoplankton carbon biomass (dCp) as well as the change in time (dt) (Redalje, 1983). If
observational analysis can be conducted to determine the specific growth rate of
phytoplankton species, one could determine the change in phytoplankton biomass for a specific
time frame. This is especially important if iron fertilization were to be implemented.
Theoretically, iron fertilization should increase the specific growth rate, due to iron being the
limiting nutrient to phytoplankton growth (Buesseler et al., 2004). Therefore one should
observe increased carbon capture per time frame.
There is an overwhelming bulk of the research that is focused on the effect of
fertilization of oceanic ecosystems with iron. A study conducted by Buesseler et al. (2004)
demonstrated that fertilizing the Southern Ocean resulted in a decrease in the dissolved
inorganic carbon within the first 40 to 50 meters of the water column. Carbon was leached to
lower depths of the water column due to the increased productivity of phytoplankton. While
the manipulation of the water column provided by Buesseler et al. (2004) did create a
phytoplankton bloom as well as increased sequestration of carbon, the manipulated
phytoplankton bloom was approximately half the magnitude of naturally occurring blooms.
Despite these findings, Buesseler et al. (2004) hypothesized that the data collection had been
concluded before the end of the bloom. Buesseler et al. (2004) found that in their 1,000 km2
study area, 1800 tonnes of carbon leached through the water column in response to the
addition of 1.26 tonnes of iron. Researchers found that more than 50% of the leached carbon

32. 28
re-mineralized into less stable forms of carbon. They also estimated that approximately 900
tonnes of carbon were sequestered. This study has shown that iron fertilization possesses the
ability to increase amounts of carbon in oceanic bodies by leaching into the deep ocean. The
question that still remains is: what property allows this carbon to remain so stable in the carbon
pool? Currently, there is not sufficient research on sequestration of carbon in riverine systems
to provide a definitive answer as to the ability of organic carbon produced by phytoplankton to
create a stable carbon sink.
3.3.3 Pedological
The second largest carbon sink on earth is the pedological pool (Lal, 2013). This pool
consists of both organic and inorganic carbon (Lal, 2013). The organic component of the pool
holds the greatest potential for carbon sequestration, being roughly twice the size of the
inorganic component (Lal, 2013). The organic component includes humus and charcoal (Lal,
2013). It also consists of a mixture of plant and animal residues at various stages of
decomposition and substances created microbiologically from the breakdown of these products
(Lal, 2013). The inorganic component consists of elemental carbon as well as carbonite
material such as calcite, dolomite and gypsum (Lal, 2013). The secondary carbonates are
formed through the reaction of atmospheric CO2 with calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg)
brought in from outside the system via weathering processes (Lal, 2013). Despite the large size
of the organic carbon pool, the majority of efforts researched focus on sequestration using
inorganic carbon sources.
To create sequestration through geologic injections, the carbon must either be
transported from industrial processes or liquefied and injected deep into geological strata or
saline aquifers (Lal, 2013). By far, the most significant progress has been made in the aquifer
injection methods. Gerdemann et al. (2007) estimated the cost of sequestering carbon in
aquifers to be 69$ per tonne of carbon dioxide sequestered. Aydin (2010) estimated that the
cost of storing carbon in aquifers was between 0.2 and 5.1$ per tonne of carbon sequestered.

33. 29
Aydin (2010) also suggested combustion as an alternate method to obtain carbon. This strategy
involves the use of fuel and oxygen to stimulate the expulsion of carbon monoxide. Aydin
(2010) then suggested that the carbon monoxide would yield carbon dioxide and hydrogen
when reacted with steam in a catalytic reactor. Aydin (2010) recognizes that the resultant
hydrogen can be harnessed as energy using boilers, furnaces, gas turbines, engines and fuel
cells.
The first method of aquifer sequestration is depicted in the chemical equations below,
where it (1) indicates the dissolution of carbon dioxide in water and (2) indicates carbonic acid
formation and deprotonation.
Equation 3: Obtained from Giammar et al. (2005)
(3) indicates forsterite dissolution, (4) indicates the precipitation of magnesite and (5) indicates
the mineral trapping species (Giammar et al., 2005). The research conducted by Giammar et al.
(2005) experimentally manipulated the injections of carbon dioxide and forsterite in the
aquifers studied. The precipitation of magnesite was isolated as an indicator of the strength of
the reaction (Giammar et al, 2005). The experiment yielded results which indicate significant
precipitation of magnesite did not occur (Giammar et al., 2005). However, the experiment did

34. 30
reveal a correlation between the surface area of the aquifer and the efficiency of the reaction.
These results could suggest that this experiment may yield more optimistic results under
different test conditions.
Utilization of olivine has also been approached as a method to sequester carbon in
aquifer reserves. The following reaction demonstrates the use of olivine to stimulate the
precipitation of magnesite (Kwon et al., 2011).
Equation 4: obtained from Kwon et al. (2011)
The benefit of using olivine to initiate the precipitation of magnesite is that olivine is
extremely stable at ambient temperatures. This process requires high heat to stimulate the
reactant. Kwon et al. (2011) suggested that heat released during the carbonation of olivine
could be a potential catalyst for the reaction. In environments below 200 ∘ C olivine does
through carbonation. This indicates that the use of olivine could increase the efficiency of the
process. Kwon et al. (2011) conducted an experiment to test the ability of olivine to initiate the
precipitation of magnesite, however the factors involved could not be isolated and evaluated in
their experiment. Jones et al. (2010) also conducted a study using olivine to stimulate the
reaction. Their experiment yielded an 85% conversion of the introduced olivine to stable
magnesite compounds. This conversion occurred quickly, taking only 6 hours to sequester the
carbon. While this method appears to have low costs, the initial costs and equipment is likely to
be high.
3.3.4 Biotic
The biotic pool is the next largest carbon pool (Lal, 2013). The most well-known source
of biotic sequestration is the sequestration of carbon in trees. Due to the high efficiency of the
Eden Mills forest carbon sequestration supported by research provided by University of Guelph

35. 31
professors, this section will focus on a method introduced in the literature as a function of
increasing the growth rate and productivity of vegetative growth.
Galinato (2011) suggested that biochar is a stable form of carbon. Biochar is created
from the thermo-chemical pyrolysis of biomass material; most commonly wood (Galinato,
2011). This product has shown its effectiveness in amending soil in the Amazon and significantly
increasing yields. Due to the nature of present day environmental management, natural
disturbances such as wildfires are suppressed. The role of fires in nature is to use the built up
fuel on the forest floor and add nutrients to the soil. The anthropogenic management of forests
builds up the reserve of fuel to such a high amount that any fires that start due to inclement
weather will devastate the land and destroy the carbon sink.
By implementing the use of biochar as a carbon sink, an existing forest carbon sink
benefits in three ways. First, woody debris is used as fuel to synthesize biochar. If one were to
extract the excess material from the Eden Mills forest floor to produce biochar, it would
subsequently reduce the severity of fires and reduce the risk of losing the existing carbon sink.
Secondly, the act of producing biochar sequesters 0.6-0.8 tonnes of carbon for every tonne of
biochar that is synthesized (Galinato, 2011). This is important to carbon sequestration because
it reduces the stock of food for decomposing microbes and reduces the carbon emissions from
their respiration. The treatment of the surface of biochar with olivine could allow for
improvement in stability of the carbon source due to the findings of Kwon et al. (2011). The
researchers noted that when olivine is introduced to the surface of soil, it captures carbon in
the presence of weathering and leeches these compounds deeper into soil. This effectively
increases the duration of the carbon sequestration. However, it is important to note that this is
not proven with experimental results. If this is to be considered as an option, experimentation
should be conduction to determine if biochar and olivine will readily react. Finally, biochar has
the ability to increase the health and productivity of the ecosystem. In the process of breaking
down woody material, nutrients are made readily available to be introduced to the soil upon
weathering factors (Galinato, 2011). This increases the availability of nutrients and increases

36. 32
the growth of surrounding vegetation (Galinato, 2011). Theoretically, this would translate into a
much faster rate of carbon sequestration in the existing tree carbon sink. No experimental data
currently exists to establish accurate estimations of the increase in productivity provided by
biochar. This method presents itself as the most logical course of action. In implementing this
method Eden Mills can maximize the carbon sequestered in the forest sink while expending
minimal costs.

37. 33
4.0 Funding Opportunities
This section serves as a reference and guide to a number of the funding opportunities
that are available for green energy initiatives in Ontario. Eden Mills has actively explored and
used the Ontario MicroFIT program in order to construct solar projects throughout the
community. The MicroFIT and FIT programs are being downscaled; therefore it is responsible to
explore new funding opportunities. Multiple funding opportunities explored below are
exclusive to co-operatives. This section will explore a variety of funding opportunities as well as
crowd-sourcing/crowd-funding.
4.1 Community Energy Partnerships Program – Ontario Power Authority
What is it: The CEPP provides financial grants to co-operatives that are developing renewable
energy projects in Ontario. These grants provide funding to assist with the "soft" or
developmental costs associated with new renewable energy projects including: legal costs,
resource assessments, engineering studies, project management and studies associated with
the Renewable Energy Approval or other required approvals.
Eligibility: Renewable energy projects may be eligible for funding if they:
- Have installed capacity greater than 10kW
- Use wind, solar photovoltaic, biomass, biogas, landfill gas or waterpower
- Are located in Ontario
- Have a Feed-In-Tariff contract or intend to apply to the FIT program
- Are developed by an eligible applicant in the province of Ontario that is a “co-
operative corporation”, as defined in the Co-operative Corporations Act (Ontario), all of
whose members are resident in Ontario

38. 34
Opportunity: There are two funding streams available under the CEPP; Pre-FIT Organizational
Development Funding and Development and Approvals Funding.
The Pre-FIT Organizational Development stream provides funding to eligible applicants
for costs associated with developing an offering statement for the purposes of developing a co-
op.The Pre-FIT Organizational Development Stream will cover 80 percent of eligible costs to a
maximum of $20,000 for an applicant pursuing a single project, a maximum of $30,000 for two
projects and a maximum of $40,000 for three or more.
The Development and Approvals Funding stream provides funding after a FIT Contract
is awarded for the project. Activities eligible for funding include legal services, engineering
work and studies required for a renewable energy approval, as well co-op related work.
Applicants are eligible for 50 percent of actual project costs up to a maximum of
$100,000 per Application for Small Projects with a FIT Contract (between 10 kilowatts and up to
and including 500 kilowatts in size). An Applicant with a project greater than 500 kilowatts in
size with a FIT Contract that was signed on or before December 13, 2012 may be eligible for a
maximum of $500,000 per Project, less any CEPP funding received for the project.
Process: Applications are accepted continuously throughout the year in a non-competitive
manner, however once the maximum annual funding amount of $500,000 is exhausted no
further applications will be reviewed.
For more information, including applications:
http://www.communityenergyprogram.ca/Project_Grants/FITGrants_Apply.aspx
4.2 Conservation Fund – Ontario Power Authority
What is it: The Conservation Fund provides financial support to new and innovative electricity
conservation initiatives designed to enable Ontario’s residents, businesses and institutions to
cost-effectively reduce their demand for electricity.
Eligibility: The Conservation Fund supports innovative electricity conservation projects that:

39. 35
- Build marketplace capacity for conservation actions
- Test new or unique conservation program elements
- Verify the energy savings potential and cost-effectiveness of novel demand-side
technologies and processes
- Can be scaled-up to achieve significant energy savings in Ontario.
The Conservation Fund welcomes applications from non-profit and for-profit
incorporated entities including but not limited to: local distribution companies (LDCs),
technology companies, consulting firms, industry associations, educational institutions, and
public sector organizations. Funding will not be provided to individuals.
The Conservation Fund only considers applications for projects to develop or pilot
innovative conservation programs, practices and technologies.
Opportunity: As the fund is focused on transforming the market and stimulating large-scale
change, proposed projects must be designed to deliver specific outcomes. The categories of
projects eligible for support are listed below:
Project Type Project Outcome
Program Testing of a new conservation program or specific program element,
resulting in the creation of a new conservation program, a new program
element or the revision of an existing conservation program. The project
must test the concept in a real-world environment and involve suitable
partners. To determine both project impact and eligibility as a conservation
initiative, projects must have an evaluation, measurement and verification
component.
Tool Development and assessment of a new energy management tool or
approach (e.g., policy, benchmarking solution, mapping technology) to
establish feasibility and broader potential.

40. 36
Training Program Pilot of a targeted training program designed to close a skills gap, with the
potential to become a new capability-building initiative.
Community of
Practice
Formation of a self-sustaining network designed to facilitate sharing of
information and best practices to target groups.
Strategic Research Research study investigating a project or program concept. The outcome of
the study must be a business case for implementing the initiative as a pilot
project.
Emerging
Technology
Demonstration
Demonstration, measurement and verification of emerging technologies
and processes. The project must test a near-commercial technology in a
real-world environment. Projects must have an evaluation, measurement
and verification component to determine cost effectiveness, electricity
savings potential and eligibility under conservation initiatives.
Emerging
Technology
Development
Development of an emerging technology/process to validate its technical
potential and to advance its state of commercial readiness, leading to pre-
commercial demonstration.
Strategic
Opportunities
Stream
Large-scale piloting of strategically important program approaches that
cannot be piloted at a smaller scale. Pilot results must have the strong
potential to directly influence conservation programming. Pilot impact
must be verified through rigorous project evaluation, measurement and
verification. Submissions for this stream are accepted infrequently and only
upon consultation with the OPA. The vast majority of projects will fit into
the other streams described above.
In addition to delivering a specific outcome, projects must also directly address one of the
following categories of conservation action:
Conservation
Category
Action

41. 37
Energy
Efficiency
Energy efficiency occurs when customers reduce their electricity consumption
but retain a similar level of end-use service. Energy efficiency is the gain
realized from using more energy-efficient equipment, processes and buildings.
Demand
Response
Demand response occurs when customers reduce their electricity demand at
certain times, such as during peak use hours (peak clipping), or shift some of
their demand to off-peak hours (peak shifting).
Conservation
Behaviour
Conservation behaviour occurs when customers reduce their electricity
consumption by scaling back an activity that is powered by electricity.
Load Reduction Load reduction occurs when instead of using common electric equipment,
customers elect to switch away from using electricity to use another fuel
source such as geothermal or solar heating or cooling. For example, instead of
using an electric hot water heater, a solar hot water heater could be used.
Load
displacement
Load displacement is when electricity is generated by an onsite, behind the
meter project driven by a primary energy source of process waste heat, waste
power, waste by-product, or waste gas. Such applications must have a net
efficiency benefit to the user and must not be fueled by diesel, coal or any
other fuel disallowed by the OPA. Additionally, any project or technology (e.g.
solar photovoltaic, wind, waterpower, bioenergy) eligible under the OPA Feed-
in Tariff Program or the OPA Micro Feed-in Tariff program is not considered
load displacement.
Applications relating to the research, development and demonstration of transmission,
distribution, and electricity generation technologies (e.g. solar photovoltaic, wind, water power,
and bioenergy) are not eligible for Conservation Fund support.
` The maximum Conservation Fund project length is three years. Furthermore,
Conservation Fund-supported projects may not receive any additional funding from the OPA or
any OPA-administered or funded program.

42. 38
As shown in the table below, the Conservation Fund will consider providing support up
to a specified maximum percentage of project costs. Applicant cash and in-kind contributions
must therefore provide a minimum level of guaranteed leverage of OPA funds and in-kind
contributions must be auditable. While other non-OPA sources of funding can be used as
leverage and are encouraged, duplicate funding of OPA-supported tasks is not permitted.
The maximum Conservation Fund support for a project varies according to project type
as outlined below:
Project Category Maximum OPA support for project/Maximum % of project
costs
Program $500,000 / 75%
Tool $500,000 / 75%
Training Program $250,000 / 75%
Community of Practice $250,000 / 75%
Strategic Research $100,000 / 100%
Emerging Technology
Demonstration
$500,000 / 75%
Emerging Technology
Development
$250,000 / 75%
Strategic Opportunities Stream $1,000,000 / 50%
Costs eligible for project support from the Conservation Fund are those directly related
to the design, development, demonstration, installation, implementation, testing,
measurement and performance verification of the project.
Process: Upon confirming project eligibility, the first step to being considered by the
Conservation Fund is submission of a project overview using an application form. The form can
be submitted at any time to the Conservation Fund by email to
cfundapplications@powerauthority.on.ca.

43. 39
The overview is screened by a business and technical review committee and, if
approved, applicants are invited to submit a full proposal. Proposals are accepted by invitation
only.
The Conservation Fund project development process is collaborative (fund staff will
provide feedback and guidance at various stages of a proposal’s development. In fact, as a
condition of funding support, we may require you to make changes to your project scope or
design. Examples of what we may ask for include a strengthened measurement and verification
plan and enhanced outreach and communication activities. Our intention is to help you design a
project that delivers the results needed to help us transform the market and to build a culture
of conservation in Ontario.
The fund also accepts proposals based on priorities identified through strategic research
and conservation program results and needs. Through the request for proposal (RFP) process,
“targeted calls” help to address specific needs on a regular basis. Details of these calls will be
published on the Conservation Fund website.
To maintain the fund’s flexibility to respond to emerging needs and opportunities, the
investment priorities of the fund are subject to change.
For more information: http://www.powerauthority.on.ca/cfund/application-process
4.3 Green Municipal Fund – Federation of Canadian Municipalities
What is it: The Government of Canada endowed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
(FCM) with $550 million to establish the Green Municipal Fund. The Fund supports partnerships
and leveraging of both public and private-sector funding to reach higher standards of air, water,
soil quality, and climate protection. The GMF funds the very best examples of leadership and
innovation in municipal sustainable development.

44. 40
Eligibility: The GMF funds three types of municipal environmental initiatives:
- Plans, including sustainable neighbourhood action plans, community brownfield action
plans and greenhouse gas reduction plans
- Feasibility studies and field tests aligned with the project criteria in the brownfields,
energy, transportation, waste and water sectors
- Capital projects in the brownfields, energy, transportation, waste and water sectors
For plans, only municipal governments and municipally owned corporations working in
partnership with a municipal government are eligible for funding. Municipal government
applicants include the following type of entities:
- City
- County
- Region
- rural municipality
- town
- township
- village
- improvement district
- local board of a city, country, region, rural municipality, town, township or village
- regulatory authority in an unorganized or unsurveyed territory
- First Nations

45. 41
Partners include: non-municipally owned organizations, private-sector companies, not-for-
profit companies, and NGOs.
Opportunity: The grants offered cover up to 50% of eligible costs for plans, feasibility studies,
and field tests to a maximum of $175,000. Below-market loans are also available, usually in
combination with grants, to cover up to 80% of eligible costs for capital projects. The loan
maximum is $10 million and the grant amount is set at up to 20% of the loan to a maximum of
$1 million.
Process: There have been a number of high quality applications received and as such the fund
has shifted to becoming a competitive selection process. Prerequisites and supporting
documentation are required to be attached to any application form. There is a questionnaire
found online to help assess eligibility. For more information, including eligibility questionnaire
and application forms: http://www.fcm.ca/home/programs/green-municipal-fund/apply-for-
funding/application-resources.htm
4.4 Gas Tax Fund – Infrastructure Canada
What is it: The federal Gas Tax Fund provides predictable, long-term funding for Canadian
municipalities to help them build and revitalize public infrastructure that achieves positive
environmental results.
More specifically, the Fund supports municipal infrastructure projects that contribute to
cleaner air, water and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These infrastructure projects fall
into the following categories:
· Drinking water
· Wastewater infrastructure
· Public transit
· Community energy systems
· Solid waste management
· Local roads

46. 42
Eligibility: Eligible recipients include provinces, territories, local or regional governments,
public sector bodies, non-profits organizations and private companies; either alone or in
partnership with a province, territory or a government.
Opportunity: Through the Economic Action Plan, the government will provide $1 billion over
five years for a Green Infrastructure Fund. This fund supports sustainable energy transmission
and generation, along with municipal wastewater and solid waste management infrastructure.
The allocation of funds for Ontario (in thousands) is as follows for the next 5 years:
2014-15: $744,949
2015-16: $744,949
2016-17: $782,196
2017-18: 782,196
2018-19: $819,444
Total: $ 3,873,735
Process: Applications are accepted on an on-going basis. Based on up-to-date funding
allocations, deadlines may be adjusted without notice. For more information:
http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/prog/gtf-fte-eng.html.
4.5 R&D Repayable and Cost-shared programs- CanmetENERGY – Natural Resources Canada
What is it: There was limited information to be found regarding this opportunity. If interest is
shown the best solution would be to contact them directly. The basic information found is as
follows.
Natural Resource Canada’s CanmetENERGY administers some repayable and cost-shared
contract funding for projects that fall within its technology areas. It is the Canadian leader in
clean energy research and technology development. CanmetENERGY manages science and
technology programs and services, support the development of energy policy, act as a window

47. 43
to federal financing and work with partners to develop more energy efficient and cleaner
technologies in:
- Buildings and communities
- Clean Fossil Fuels
- Bio Energy
- Renewables
- Transportation
It seems there is a possibility to receive some sort of funding from this organization but
specifics are unavailable online.
4.6 Mountain Equipment Co-Op Environment Fund
What is it: The MEC Environment Fund supports Canadian-based environmental groups doing
activities concerned with environmental conservation and wilderness protection. The aim of
the Environment Fund is to help preserve the environment and educate the public about
environmentally responsible use of natural areas.
Eligibility: Non-profit, non-governmental organizations are eligible to apply.
Opportunity: This opportunity could be an interesting one for Eden Mills and the Going Carbon
Neutral Group, as it could provide an opportunity to purchase tracts of land to increase
sequestration capacity. Alternatively, if forming a co-op was pursued it could be used as a way
to acquire land for conservation means. There is a maximum of $100,000 available for land
acquisitions and a maximum of $10,000 for all other projects.
Process: Application submission deadlines are March 10th
and September 10th
. Approval
notification typically takes up to ten weeks.

48. 44
For more information:
http://www.mec.ca/Main/content_text.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302883364
Or contact: envirofund@mec.ca

49. 45
5.0 Crowdsourcing
This section serves as a reference and guide to 3 of the crowd-sourcing / crowd-funding
opportunities that are available for green initiatives in Ontario. There are numerous crowd-
sourcing/crowd-funding options available. This section will expand on the three funding options
that are most suitable in terms of locality, cost, and the type of initiatives they support.
5.1 Small Change Fund
What is it – The Small Change Fund was founded on a simple principle; the grassroot
movement in Canada is a powerful force to solve the environmental problems our country
faces. There tends to be insufficient funds and opportunities to support passionate leaders
who wish to create change. Micro-grants provided in a timely manner can help spark action,
engage communities and provide essential tools to grassroots in crucial stages of change.
Eligibility – The Crowd-Funding Platform would provide the best opportunity for the Eden Mills
Going Carbon Neutral team (EMGCM). Eligibility consists of three criteria. First, the initiative
must be a grassroots organization operating in Canada. Second, the project must be compatible
with the guiding principles of SmallChangeFund.org. EMGCN meet these qualifications. Third,
the group must be a Canadian registered charity, ‘qualified donee’ or have a partner which is a
registered charity/qualified donor; to receive funding.
Opportunity - Crowd-funding allows an initiative to connect with a global audience and raise
donations. Crowd-funding can be highly personal, allowing a donor to directly invest in you
initiative. The donor may provide compensation, after being educated about the initiative, if
they believe the mission statement is important and they believe the team is able to reach their
goal.
SmallChangeFund.org has found that projects that are diligent in the development of
social media campaigns have greater success in crowd-funding. The money an initiative can
raise is dependent on how many donors are willing to support the project. Therefore, if this
crowd-sourcing method is to be perused, it is essential that Eden Mills expand their presence
on popular social media platforms.
Process – There is a seven step process outlined on SmallChangeFund.org.
1. Apply using the online application.
2. Your project will then be vetted by SCF expert advisors (1-3 weeks)
3. If you are approved, you will receive an approval contract and SCF will set you up on
their crowd-funding platform.
4. Crowd-fund! Time to get people to your site to donate to your project (you have a
maximum of 4 months). You promote your project link to your network of supporters
and undertake various initiatives to get supporters to visit your site.

50. 46
5. Time’s up – your project comes down and they send you a funding contract to sign and
send back.
6. Get funded! You receive payment.
7. Report back to SCF and let them know how your project went. Reports help them keep
the legacy of your project alive on their website so you can keep being discovered.
It is important to note that the SCF has a 15% fee on any and all donations. This helps
cover the costs of sourcing projects across the country, hosting the website, and paying for
credit card / pay pal processing fees.
For more information visit: http://smallchangefund.org/
5.2 Motherland Fund
What is it – The motherland Fund is an international online crowd-funding website in which
individuals, groups and organizations have the common goal of raising money for various
causes and projects.
Eligibility – There are various causes and projects which qualify for Motherland Fund and the
EMGCN team could shape a project to be eligible for this particular option.
Opportunity – The motherland Fund offers a flexible “Keep-it-all” campaign strategy in which
you set a fundraising goal/. At the end of the campaign all of the raised funds are kept, whether
or not the goal has been met. Even if the goal is exceeded, all profits raised are payable to the
initiative. There are no contracts ,the service can be used without charge.
Process – The process appears simple. In order to begin you must first log on and create your
campaign page which will simply tell a clear story about what the fundraising cause is. After this
you will need to share your crowdfunding page with the world via social media, email, twitter,
etc. It is recommended that you link your Motherland Fund page to your social media pages /
professional pages in order to build trust through transparency. Once the campaign is live you
will begin to receive donations. All donations will be deposited at the end of the campaign time.
Important to note is that the Motherland Fund has a flat processing fee of 8.5% which covers
the PayPal processing fees of 2.9% plus .30 cents or 3.9% plus .30 cents for international
transactions. Technically, at the end of the day Motherland Fund keeps between 4-5%. This fee
is taken out automatically so when your funding is received you do not owe Motherland Fund
anything extra.
For more information visit: http://www.motherlandfund.com/

51. 47
5.3 Ideavibes
What is it - Ideavibes s in 2010 with a mission to provide a simple and affordable platform for
cities, brands, and organizations to engage their crowd (be it citizens, customers, prospects,
members, etc.). This service fosters innovation and change in an open and accessible format.
Ideavibes is driven by social media. The service aids with; the empowerment of communities,
prioritization of funding for projects, the development if policies for sustainability, designing
features for new products, solving problems in communities, improving the interactions
between organizations and their members, etc.
Eligibility – To assess the eligibility of a project/initiative, organizations are asked to contact the
service directly. Contact information can be found on the web address listed below.
Opportunity – Ideavibes has a free trial platform, which allows a campaign to run for 45 days.
The free trial is set up with the service’s end-goal being a monthly subscription of $899/month.
The opportunity for funding appears to be vast and the offered services may prove beneficial.
Ideavibes offers an option to create a poll to analyze which actions will generate the most
support.
Process - The Ideavibes process is initiated by contacting them to discuss the idea/project in
question. They will then help form a campaign platform and promote it through their various
methods.
For more information visit: http://ideavibes.com/

52. 48
6.0 References
Alpi, L., Herzog, I., Hope, E., Jones, T. and Susz, M. 2012. Measuring the Carbon Footprint of
Eden Mills, Ontario for the 2011 Year. Informally published manuscript, Faculty of
Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON.
Canadian Co-operative Association. 2009. Car Sharing Co-operatives in Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.coopscanada.coop/assets/firefly/files/files/Microsoft_Word_-
_CAR_SHARING_REPORT_FINAL.pdf
[CBC] The Conference Board of Canada. 2013. Greenhouse gas (GHC) emissions. Retrieved from
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment/greenhouse-gas-
emissions.aspx#_ftn3
[CEPP] 2010. Grant Funding Streams. Community Energy Partnerships Program. Retrieved from
http://www.communityenergyprogram.ca/Project_Grants/GrantsFundingStreams.aspx
Cameron, P. What Is a Coop? The Ontario Co-operative Association. Retrieved from:
http://www.ontario.coop/all_about_cooperatives/what_is_a_coop
Christianson, R. 2012. Coop Comparisons: Legal Characteristics of Co-operative, Private and
Not-for-Profit Corporations. The Ontario Co-operative Association. Retrieved from:
http://www.ontario.coop/cms/documents/1/Co-
op_Biz_Comparisons_and_legal_combined_April2012.pdf
Dalby, S. 2013. Climate Change: New Dimensions of Environmental Security. The RUSI Journal
158.3: 34 – 43.
[DTI] (2000). Community involvement in renewable energy projects. Department of Trade and
Industry, UK. Retrieved from http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file48402.pdf

53. 49
Environment Canada. 2012. The Green Source Funding Database - Home Energy Savings
Program. Retrieved from http://www.ec.gc.ca/financement-funding/sv-
gs/search_results_e.cfm?action=details&id=327&start_row=51&Name=&keyword=&Nat=1&PY
R=0&PNR=0&Ont=1&Que=0&Atl=0&Federal=&Provincial=&NonProfit=&PrivateSector=&Found
ation=&funding_amount=
Going Carbon Neutral. 2011. Join our electric car club. Retrieved from
http://www.goingcarbonneutral.co.uk/home/2011/7/4/join-our-electric-car-club.html
Lipp, J. (2012). Renewable Energy Co-op Review: Scan of Models & Regulatory Issues. TREC
Renewable Energy Co-operative. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/eMsCqo
MacArthur, J. 2010. Best Practices in Social Economy and Community Wind. Retrieved from:
http://www.ontario.coop/cms/documents/1/Co-
op_Biz_Comparisons_and_legal_combined_April2012.pdf
Mattoo, A. and Subramanian, A. 2012. Equity in Climate Change: An Analytical Review. World
Development 40.6: 1083 – 1097.
Okvat, A. H. and Zautra, J. A. 2011. Community Gardening: A Parsimonious Path to Individual,
Community and Environmental Resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology 47: 374-
387.
Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Hammer, S. and Mehrotra, S. 2010. Cities lead the way in climate-
change action: scientists should do the research to help mayors prepare for a warming world.
Nature 467.7318: 909 – 911.

54. 50
[SolarShare] Solar Share- Investing in a Brighter Future. Retrieved from:
http://www.solarbonds.ca/
[Timmins Times] (2009, March 25). Harnessing Wind and Solar Energy at Gillies Lake. Timmins
Times. Retrieved from: http://www.timminstimes.com/2009/03/25/harnessing-wind-and-solar-
energy-at-gillies-lake
U.S Department of Energy. 2012. Storm Windows. Retrieved from
http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/storm-windows
Walker, G. (2008). What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned means of energy
production and use? Energy Policy 36: 4401-4405.
Wisener, L. and Sword, L. 2012. Eden Mills Going Carbon Neutral – Quantitative evaluation of
village CO2 emissions in 2011. Retrieved from:
http://www.goingcarbonneutral.ca/docs2/Survey2011Report.pdf
Basu, B. and Pick, F. 1997. Phytoplankton and zooplankton development in a lowland,
temperate river. Journal of Plankton Research. 19(2):237-253.
Kepkay, P., Niven, E. and Jellett, J. 1997. Respiration and the carbon-to-nitrogen ratio of a
phytoplankton bloom. MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS. 150:249-261.
Redalje, D. 1983. Phytoplankton carbon biomass and specific growth rates determined with the
labeled chlorophyll a technique. MARINE ECOLOGY. 11:217-225.
Jones, C., Rosenbaur, R., Goldensmith, J. and Oze C. 2010. Carbonate contro of H2 and CH4
production in serpentinization systems at elevated P-Ts. Geophysical Research. 37:1-6.
Nadim, A., El-Halwagi, M., Mahalec, V. and Pokoo-Aikins, G. 2010. Design and analysis of
biodiesel production from algae grown though carbon sequestration. Environmental Policy.
12:239-254.

55. 51
DaCosta, H., Fan, M., Kwon, S. and Russell, A. 2011. Factors affecting the direct mineralization
of CO2 with olivine. Journal of Environmental Sciences. 23(8):1233-1239.
Galinato, S., Granatstein, D. and Yoder J. 2011. The economic value of biochar in crop
production and carbon sequestration. Energy Policy. 39:6344-6350.
Heilmann, S., Davis, H., Jadar, L., Lefebvre, P., Sadowsky, M., Schendel, F., Keitz, M. and
Vaentas, K. 2010. Hydrothermal carbonization of microalgae. Biomass and Bioenergy. 34:875-
882.
Lal, R. 2013. Carbon sequestration. The Biological Society. 363:815-830.
Rosenbaur, R., Thomas, B., Bischoff, J. and Palandri, J. 2012. Carbon sequestration via reaction
with basaltic rocks: Geochemical modeling and experimental results. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta. 89:116-133.
Kelemen, P. and Matter, J. 2008. In situ carbonation of peridotite for CO2 storage. University of
Columbia. 45:17295-17300.
Aydin, G., Aydiner, K. and Karakurt, I. 2010. Evaluation of geologic storage options of CO2:
Applicability, cost, storage capacity and safety. Energy Policy. 38:5072-5080.
Socolofsky, S. and Bhaumik, T. 2008. Dissolution if direct ocean carbon sequestration plumes
using n integral model approach. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 134:733-9429.
Gerdemann, S., O’Connor, W., Dahlin, D., Penner, L. and Rush, H. 2007. Ex situ aqueous mineral
carbonation. Environmental Science and Technology. 47(7):2587-2593.
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W. 2013. Carbon sequestration in two created riverine wetlands in the
Midwestern United States. Journal of Environmental Quality. 42:1236-1244.
Giammar, D., Bruant, R. and Peters, C. 2005. Frosterite dissolution and magnesite precipitation
at conditions relevant for deep saline aquifer storage and sequestration of carbon dioxide.
Chemical Geology. 217:257-276.

56. 52
Manning, D., Renforth, P. and Washbourne, C. 2012. Investigating carbonate formation in urban
soils as a method for capture and storage of atmospheric carbon. Science of the Total
Environment. 431:166-175.
Bernal, B. and Mitsch, W. 2012. Comparing carbon sequestration in temperate freshwater
wetland communities. Global Change Biology. 18:1636-1647.
Sayre, R. 2010. Microalgae: The potential for carbon capture. Bioscience. 60(9):722-727.