Way back in the good ole days of 2010, B.C. released the Clean Energy Act, a plan that required the province to conserve massive amounts of energy.

And, all in all, B.C. has been pretty good at that. But that all changed in 2013 when the B.C. government approved the Site C dam.

According to a new report released this week by the University of British Columbia’s Program on Water Governance, since 2013 B.C. has “moderated” energy conservation measures even though those measures would have reduced B.C.’s power demand, at a significantly cheaper cost than building Site C.

These measures include codes and standards for building efficiency, stepped rate structures to reduce energy consumption, and programs like low interests loans and tax breaks designed to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient technologies and practices.

Report co-author Karen Bakker told DeSmog Canada that B.C.’s decision to back away from energy conservation, known as demand side management, in effect forces B.C. Hydro ratepayers to consume more than they would otherwise.

“The decision to scale back on energy conservation right now is essentially designed to get people to consume more and, yeah, pay higher bills,” Bakker said.

“That makes sense if you consider the very large debt load that B.C. Hydro is taking on to pay for Site C.”

George Heyman, environment critic for the B.C. NDP, said the province needs an aggressive energy conservation program that incentivizes energy savings.

“We need to see change,” Heyman said Thursday during an online webinar hosted by the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.

“B.C. had a program that could have continued but B.C. Hydro was ordered by the government to scale back,” he said.

“We need to save energy, which will in turn save taxpayers money by not approving projects before they’re needed as we shift to electric vehicles and an electrification of the grid.”

Andrew Weaver, climate scientist and leader of the B.C. Greens, agreed.

“I agree with the importance of demand side management,” he said. “It’s the lowest hanging fruit.”

Site C is planned to generate 1,100 megawatts of capacity and 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity per year, starting in 2024. The UBC report calculated B.C. Hydro’s own energy conservation plan from 2013 would have amounted to the freeing up of 600 megawatts and 3,000 gigawatt hours per year — about half of what Site C will provide.

However B.C. Hydro has incrementally scaled down that conservation program, and, according to its own reporting, plans for zero new conservation efforts by 2021, creating the saddest energy conservation graph known to man:

This graph shows how B.C. Hydro estimates demand side management or energy conservation will decline after 2021 without the introduction of new programs and fizzle out completely by 2036. Source: UBC report, Reassessing the Need for Site C, page 84.

“The unfortunate side of this is that energy conservation is a lot cheaper than Site C,” Bakker said. “Energy conservation only costs about a third as much as building Site C.”

The report found that by scaling back energy conservation programs, B.C. Hydro enjoyed short-term savings to the tune of between $50 to $150 million per year. It is worth noting that B.C. Hydro failed to meet even the reduced energy conservation targets it set for itself.

Yet those savings are lost to the extremely high costs of building a large-scale hydroelectric dam. The report estimates the losses, when you factor in the need to sell Site C’s surplus energy, to be between $800 million and $2 billion. Overall, Site C electricity costs about three times as much as reducing demand through energy conservation.

The authors of the report conclude the decision to scrap conservation programs and drive up energy consumption was made “to make [Site C] continue to appear necessary and cost-effective.”

B.C. Hydro did not respond to a request for comment.

B.C. Scales Down Energy-Saving Measures to Manufacture Demand for #SiteC: UBC Report https://t.co/js47S84X72 #bcpoli #energyefficiency

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 20, 2017

Bakker and her co-authors conclude construction of the Site C dam should be immediately halted.

“We’ve met all of our energy needs for the past several years through energy conservation and our analysis suggests we could meet our energy needs for the next decade, approximately, through conservation,” she said.

“It would cost us a lot less and in the meantime it would allow us to explore other cheaper and less environmentally damaging renewables.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by David Suzuki.

Brothers Charles and David Koch run Koch Industries, the second-largest privately owned company in the U.S., behind Cargill. They’ve given close to US$70 million to climate change denial front groups, some of which they helped start, including Americans for Prosperity, founded by David Koch and a major force behind the Tea Party movement.

Through their companies, the Kochs are the largest U.S. leaseholder in the Alberta oilsands. They’ve provided funding to Canada’s pro-oil Fraser Institute and are known to fuel the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory, which claims a 1992 UN non-binding sustainable development proposal is a plot to remove property rights and other freedoms.

Researchers reveal they’re also behind many anti-transit initiatives in the U.S., in cities and states including Nashville, Indianapolis, Boston, Virginia, Florida and Los Angeles. They spend large amounts of money on campaigns to discredit climate science and the need to reduce greenhouse gases, and they fund sympathetic politicians.

In late January, 50 U.S. anti-government and pro-oil groups — including some tied to the Kochs and the pro-oil, pro-tobacco Heartland Institute — sent Congress a letter opposing a gas tax increase that would help fund public transit, in part because “Washington continues to spend federal dollars on projects that have nothing to do with roads like bike paths and transit.”

The letter says “transportation infrastructure has a spending problem, not a revenue problem,” an argument similar to one used by opponents of the transportation plan Metro Vancouver residents are currently voting on. Vancouver’s anti-transit campaign is led by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation — a group that doesn’t reveal its funding sources and is on record as denying the existence of human-caused climate change — along with Hamish Marshall, a conservative strategist with ties to Ethical Oil.

American and Canadian transit opponents paint themselves as populist supporters of the common people, a tactic also used against carbon pricing. Marshall told Business in Vancouver, “I love the idea of working on a campaign where we can stand up for the little guy.” The U.S. letter claims the gas tax increase “would disproportionately hurt lower income Americans already hurt by trying times in our economy.” Both fail to note that poor and middle class families will benefit most from public transit and other sustainable transportation options.

Although many organizations that promote the fossil fuel industry and reject the need to address climate change — including the Heartland Institute, International Climate Science Coalition, Ethical Oil and Friends of Science — are secretive about their funding sources, a bit of digging often turns up oil, gas and coal money, often from the Kochs in the U.S. And most of their claims are easily debunked. In the case of the U.S. Heartland Institute, arguments stray into the absurd, like comparing climate researchers and those who accept the science to terrorists and murderers like the Unabomber and Charles Manson!

In some ways, it’s understandable why fossil fuel advocates would reject clean energy, conservation and sustainable transportation. Business people protect their interests — which isn’t necessarily bad. But anything that encourages people to drive less and conserve energy cuts into the fossil fuel industry’s massive profits. It’s unfortunate that greed trumps the ethical need to reduce pollution, limit climate change and conserve non-renewable resources.

It’s also poor economic strategy on a societal level. Besides contributing to pollution and global warming, fossil fuels are becoming increasingly difficult, dangerous and expensive to exploit as easily accessible sources are depleted — and markets are volatile, as we’ve recently seen. It’s crazy to go on wastefully burning these precious resources when they can be used more wisely, and when we have better options. Clean energy technology, transit improvements and conservation also create more jobs and economic activity and contribute to greater well-being and a more stable economy than fossil fuel industries.

To reduce pollution and address global warming, we must do everything we can, from conserving energy to shifting to cleaner energy sources. Improving transportation and transit infrastructure is one of the easiest ways to do so while providing more options for people to get around.

Those who profit from our continued reliance on fossil fuels will do what they can to convince us to stay on their expensive, destructive road. It’s up to all of us to help change course.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Investing in wind, and solar power is not the main cause of rising costs of electrical bills in Ontario, as many in the province tend to believe. According to a study released last week, the cost of green energy – renewables, and bioenergy – is a mere 9% of an average household power bill in the province.

“As the new kid on the block, renewable energy is all too often blamed for rising electricity costs. The truth is renewables play a fairly small role in Ontarians’ electricity bills today,” said Gillian McEachern of Environmental Defence. “But they have significant health and environmental benefits that aren’t reflected in our monthly bills.”

The study conducted by Power Advisory LLC, an independent energy consultancy firm, found the costs for wind, solar, biomass and energy conservation was only $15 on an average monthly household power bill ($137) in Ontario. The costs of nuclear power and maintaining the electrical transmission network were found to be $37 and $46 respectively on an average bill. 

“Energy provided by the wind and the sun will always be free. The same can’t be said for other sources of energy,” reads the study titled Your Home Electricity Bill.

Coal power plants are estimated to have cost Ontario an estimated $4.4 billion in health care and environmental and financial impacts. Upgrading Ontario’s long neglected electricity delivery network over the last ten years and phasing the province off of coal-fired power plants account mostly for the price of power bills going up, concludes the report which was published by Environmental Defence.

The last coal plant in Ontario is scheduled to shut down this year. Ontario currently has cheaper electricity rates than provinces dependent on coal for most of their electrical needs such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia.

Average power bills in major North American cities.

Shifting from coal to renewables has cost the province money. Environmental Defence argues the cost would have been the same if not more had Ontario decided to make up for the electricity shortfall with nuclear or natural gas.

“The Ontario government estimates that new gas generation costs between $85-$296 per Megawatt hour (MWh) and new nuclear generation costs between $87-$143/MWh, while wind energy costs $115/MWh,” states the report. Wind produces most of Ontario’s non-hydro renewable energy.

Last December the government of Ontario released its long-term energy plan and predicted power bills will rise 42% by 2018. Environmental Defence believes one of the best ways to avoid this price hike is through energy conservation.

According to the report, “if Ontario households increase energy conservation and energy efficiency, Ontario bills in 10 years could ultimately return to current levels." The report cities estimates from the Ontario Power Authority that if Ontarians use 20% less electricity the price of power bill today would be the same in ten years. 

Average power bill in Ontario according to the "Your Home Electricity Bill" report.

Retrofitting houses, more stringent energy efficiency standards for household appliances, energy audits of homes and financial assistance for low-income households with their bills are the report’s recommendations for decreasing the cost of electricity and improving energy conservation in Ontario.

Comparing electrical bill prices with and without energy conservation measures. 

Ontario’s long-term energy plan calls for some investments in energy conservation and refurbishing nuclear power plants to keep power costs from jumping up even more. Critics argue this may not be effective. Nuclear projects in Ontario almost always run two and half times over budget.

The rising costs of electricity in Ontario has been pinned on renewable energy by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario – the official opposition – and blamed for scaring away business and pinching the pockets of Ontarians. The Progressive Conservatives have vowed to scrap subsidies for renewables and Ontario’s Green Energy Act if they win the next election. Ontario could face its next election as early as this spring. 

Image Credit: Government of Ontario, Environmental Defence

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Ontario Energy Board’s approval of three natural gas projects last week puts the province’s plans to significantly reduce Ontario’s carbon footprint in jeopardy.

The ruling also gives Ontario the green light to import controversial shale gas from the U.S. This type of gas is trapped in rock-like shale and is extracted using a process called hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, which involves pumping a chemical mix underground at high temperatures to break apart the rock and free the gas. The practice has caused controversy worldwide due to fracking chemicals and methane contaminating drinking water.

“So often we see approvals given to pipeline and fossil fuel projects without a real understanding of the broader and long-term impacts on climate, water and public health,” says Emma Lui, a water campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

The interdependent projects — two by Union Gas and one from Enbridge Gas — will expand the natural gas supply and delivery network in southern Ontario. Consuming more natural gas, particularly a more polluting form of natural gas, are direct contradictions with the province’s strong greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.

“Energy conservation is the lowest cost method to keep our homes warm. It creates jobs and reduces our greenhouse gas emissions and energy bills,” Jack Gibbons, director of the Ontario Clear Air Alliance, told DeSmog Canada in an interview.

Burning natural gas to heat homes and produce electricity accounts for 35 per cent of Ontario’s energy-related carbon footprint. Ontario plans to achieve a 15 per cent reduction in the province’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and a reduction of 80 per cent by 2050 (based on 1990 levels).

“Buildings are the third largest source of greenhouse gas pollution in the province, making it important to save as much energy in heating them as possible,” Gillian McEachern, campaigns director of Environmental Defence, told DeSmog Canada. “Conservation needs to be a requirement before companies are given approval to expand infrastructure."

Environmental Defence, Council of Canadians and the Ontario Clean Air Alliance all found the Ontario Energy Boards’s decision a “disappointment.” They also disputed the need for the project because the alternatives were not properly considered.

The energy board criticized Enbridge Gas for only taking a “cursory” look at energy conservation as an alternative to its project, known as the GTA project. In the future, the board “expects applicants to provide a more rigorous examination of demand side alternatives, including rate options, in all gas leave to construct applications.”

Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates Ontario could save $1.4 billion over 10 years if spending on energy conservation is increased. Installing more insulation and high-efficiency windows in homes, replacing aging furnaces with new models and switching to geothermal energy for space and water heating are just some of the ways of achieving these savings.

Ontario Needs To Increase Incentives For Energy Conservation

Ontario provides financial incentives for Enbridge Gas and Union Gas — Ontario’s main natural gas distributors — to invest in energy conservation, but only to a point.

The Ontario Energy Board has put a cap on gas companies surpassing their energy conservation targets — meaning the financial rewards stop once a company exceeds its conservation targets by more than 50 per cent.

The caps on financial rewards for energy conservation are “penny wise and pound foolish” and do not benefit Ontario according to Ontario Clean Air Alliance. The organization recommends the energy board remove the caps “subject to the constraint that this must not lead to undue rate increases” for Ontarians.

Pinning Ontario’s Energy Future on Fracked Gas Is Precarious At Best

During the public hearings on the gas projects, the Council of Canadians, one of Canada’s leading water advocacy groups, argued pinning Ontario’s energy future on U.S. shale gas was precarious at best.

Three reports from U.S. experts provided by the Council of Canadians indicated upcoming bans and moratoriums on fracking and gas wells nearing the end of their lives will make importing fracked gas less economical for Ontario in the future. This could increase energy costs for Ontarians in the end.

“While the image of tap water on fire has become iconic about the risks of fracking shale gas, the climate impacts are less understood,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, a climate and energy campaigner with the Council of Canadians.

Fracking wells leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. The world’s leading scientific body on climate issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, estimates methane has 84 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide.

The Ontario Energy Board appeared unmoved by the argument against using fracked shale gas:

“There are currently no regulations in Ontario or at the Canadian federal level which prohibit shale gas production or transportation.”

Quebec, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have all placed moratoriums on fracking.

Ontario Energy Board Decision Clears A Hurdle for Energy East Oil Pipeline

TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline proposal could benefit from Ontario’s decision to import large quantities of U.S. shale gas.

Part of the pipeline project to ship western Canadian oil to New Brunswick involves converting a natural gas pipeline running from Alberta to Ontario. Ontario receives almost half its natural gas through this particular pipeline system at the moment.

The prospect of Ontario losing a source of natural gas prompted the Ontario government to announce an assessment of the Energy East project on its costs and benefits for Ontarians. 

Now that Ontario will be able to tap into the booming shale gas industry of the U.S. the provincial government’s scrutiny of Energy East may not be that severe.

“The OEB decision helps lay the groundwork for Energy East,” Harden-Donahue told DeSmog Canada. “This is bad news all around for the region which could have the biggest tarsands pipeline snacking through it and be increasingly reliant on socially and environmentally damaging fracked gas imports."

Image Credit: Allen York, OCAA, OEB, Fracking Resources

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.