In a speech from the throne that largely focused on plans to steer Canada through the COVID-19 pandemic’s immediate health and economic crises, the federal government said climate action will be an essential part of efforts to create new jobs and stimulate an economic recovery. 

The speech, delivered on Wednesday by Governor General Julie Payette, opened a new session of Parliament and laid out the government’s priorities as Canada faces rising COVID-19 cases, double-digit unemployment and the ever-pressing challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

“Climate action will be a cornerstone of our plan to support and create a million jobs across the country,” the speech said. 

“This is where the world is going. Global consumers and investors are demanding and rewarding climate action.”

Governor General Julie Payette arrives at the the Senate, before delivering the speech from the throne. Photo: Sergeant Johanie Maheu / Rideau Hall

The new and renewed commitments to climate action were welcomed by environmental organizations.   

“[They] acknowledged that this is where the world’s economies are going and that Canada needs to get in the game and stay in the game of producing low carbon and clean energy and clean technology solutions,” Clean Energy Canada executive director Merran Smith said. 

Smith said there were great signals in the throne speech and she will be watching to see how the government puts its commitments into action.

“The rubber hits the road when we see the budget update and when we see the climate plan,” she said.

The government promised a fiscal update this fall. Until then, here are some highlights from the Trudeau government’s throne speech commitments. 

A forthcoming plan to exceed 2030 climate targets

The federal government reiterated its commitment to exceed Canada’s 2030 climate targets, promising to “immediately” bring forward a plan. The government also promised to legislate its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and to continue pricing carbon pollution.

Canadians “know climate change threatens our health, way of life and planet. They want climate action now, and that is what the government will continue to deliver,” the speech said.

Under the Paris Agreement, the federal government committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. 

Projections released in December 2019 show Canada will miss its emissions target by 77 million tonnes — roughly the annual emissions of 16.6 million cars — based on existing measures or those under development.

Isabelle Turcotte, director of federal policy at the Pembina Institute, praised the government for amping up its climate commitments. 

“The most exciting and, I think, concrete example of that is that they have a new plan to meet and exceed the 2030 target, and we’re really looking forward to seeing it,” she said.

“We’re excited to see them reiterate that they’re going to create an accountability mechanism to make sure that Canada stops missing its climate targets,” she added.

The government reiterated a commitment to support investments in renewable energy and to move forward with the Clean Power Fund — a $5 billion fund to support electrification of industry — that the Liberals committed to in their election platform.

The speech also promised investments in transit, charging stations for electric cars and to make zero-emissions vehicles more affordable.

“No one was expecting a lot of details in the speech in terms of funding envelopes, specific programs, or details in terms of how we will achieve or move on these really key objects,” Turcotte said.

 “But the direction, the tone and the vision is that climate action is really a cornerstone of rebuilding a stronger economy and that’s really key.”  

The Governor General Julie Payette delivers the speech from the throne, which introduces the government’s direction and goals, and outlines how it will work to achieve them. Photo: Sergeant Johanie Maheu / Rideau Hall

A plan to create a million jobs and transition the economy 

Unemployment in Canada has been in the double-digits for much of this year. The number of people who don’t have enough work is substantially higher than it was before the pandemic.

“Women, racialized Canadians and young people have borne the brunt of job losses,” the speech said.

The government promised to do “whatever it takes” to support people and businesses through the economic crisis, pledging to create more than one million new jobs in an effort to restore employment to pre-pandemic levels.

“This throne speech recognized that tackling coronavirus inequality and climate inequality go hand-in-hand,” Jesse Firempong, a climate justice spokesperson for Greenpeace Canada, said in a statement. 

“To turn this into real change for impacted communities — including to ensure they benefit from the green jobs promised today — we need to see fully funded plans in the upcoming ministerial mandate letters and economic update,” Firempong said. 

“The women, Indigenous Peoples and racialized and low-income communities on the frontlines of both crises should be front and centre in an equitable, feminist, green recovery.” 

In the speech, the government pledged to create thousands of jobs in energy efficiency building retrofits.

It also committed to launching a new fund to attract investments in the manufacturing of zero-emissions products and to cut the corporate tax rate in half for green manufacturing companies.

“A good example of adapting to a carbon-neutral future is building zero-emissions vehicles and batteries,” the speech said.

“Canada has the resources — from nickel to copper — needed for these clean technologies. This — combined with Canadian expertise — is Canada’s competitive edge.”

Mining for copper isn’t without controversy in Canada, especially after a tailings dam burst in 2014 at the Mount Polley copper and gold mine, which sent 25 billion litres of contaminated materials into B.C. lakes and rivers. 

The speech from the throne promised charging stations for electric cars and to make zero-emissions vehicles more affordable. The speech also indicated Canada could play a role in building zero-emissions vehicles and batteries. Photo: mariordo59 / Flickr

Vince Gasparro, managing director of corporate development and clean energy finance at Vancity Community Investment Bank, called the government’s decision to cut the corporate tax in half for green companies a “big, big win.”

“It improves the profitability of these companies and allows them to expand their businesses…and it helps attract capital,” he said.

“The ability to attract private capital into the renewable energy market … was always a critical component,” he said, noting the federal government won’t be able to meet goals such as becoming carbon neutral by 2050 without the private sector’s help.

Protecting nature and investing in climate mitigation

The speech said the pandemic has reminded Canadians of the importance of nature. 

“The government will work with municipalities as part of a new commitment to expand urban parks, so that everyone has access to green space,” it said.

The government reiterated its promise to protect 25 per cent of Canada’s land and oceans in five years and to use “nature-based solutions to fight climate change.”

The speech included commitments to invest in measures to reduce the impact of floods, wildfires, and other climate related disasters. 

What’s an intact forest worth? The tricky task of quantifying Canada’s nature-based climate solutions

Modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act

The speech also committed to modernizing the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), a move welcomed by Ecojustice executive director Devon Page, who noted in a statement that the legislation hasn’t been updated for two decades.

The act “is no longer up to the task of protecting Canadians, especially those in vulnerable situations, from toxic substances and pollution,” he said.

“Crucially, a modernized CEPA must include the right to a healthy environment.”  

Page pointed to a September report from the UN Special Rapporteur on hazardous substances and wastes that highlights Canada’s ongoing failure to protect Indigenous and racialized communities — the same communities most impacted by COVID-19 — from the worst effects of rising greenhouse gas emissions. 

“The report explicitly calls for Canada to legislate the right to a healthy environment,” Page said.

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 International Energy Agency (IEA) has long been criticized for lowballing the potential for renewable power and overestimating future demand for oil and gas.

Such forecasts matter. After all, the Paris-based organization is made up of 29 OECD countries — including Canada and the United States — and regularly produces publications that help member countries plan and coordinate energy policies.

That’s why it was particularly shocking when the IEA concluded in its latest Energy Technology Perspectives report that almost 75 per cent of the emissions reductions needed for its “2°C Scenario” will come from energy efficiency and renewables.

The real superstar of the report was energy efficiency, which the authors estimated would account for 34 per cent of reductions, resulting in global net-zero emissions by 2060.

“It’s not the sexiest thing,” Pembina Institute analyst Julia-Maria Becker said in an interview. “People aren’t aware of its benefits.”

Triple-paned windows and improved insulations isn’t quite as riveting as, say, a wind farm or geothermal plant.

But according to the IEA, it could be the sector that saves the world from the worst effects of climate change.

Here are five things you need to know about energy efficiency.

1) Energy Efficiency Is Many Things

The key thing to understand about energy efficiency is it’s no one thing.

“Most of the energy efficiency measures are not rocket science. A whole bunch of little stuff is what energy efficiency is,” said Jesse Row, executive director of the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance.

The classic example is the LED light bulb, replacing its far less efficient incandescent cousin.

“Building automation” — a means of controlling an entire building’s heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) via one system — is another type of energy efficiency measure. Or consider the programmable thermostats, hot water pipe wraps and smart power strips.

Meet The Unsexy #Climate Solution That Cuts #Energy Bills, Creates Jobs and Saves Rivers #EnergyEfficiency https://t.co/Q2MMGRsg97

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 20, 2017

2) It’s About More Than Changing Light Bulbs

The kind of “deep” energy efficiency that the IEA is getting at won’t be attained via just switching out light bulbs (although that of course helps).

Rather than simply replacing a single appliance or system, the deep energy approach attempts to integrate a more holistic approach, recognizing that all systems work in tandem and require a complete overhaul to maximize opportunities.

“We can put ourselves in a little trap if we focus too much on picking the low-hanging fruit and end up investing in sub-optimal solutions or making it more challenging to package together a deep energy retrofit for a home or building,” said Bryan Purcell, director of policy and programs at The Atmospheric Fund.

The famous ‘London Gherkin’ has a bulbous design that minimizes surface area. The building uses about half the energy a similar tower conventionally construction would. Photo: Jopa Elleul via Flickr

3) In Canada, It’s About Heating

The measures that will really get Canada to where it needs to be concerns the building envelope, a jargony way of talking about insulating walls, basements and attics, installing thicker windows and making fundamental changes to heating.

That’s because home heating accounted for 63 per cent of residential energy use as of 2013.

“The dominant source of energy use in buildings in Canada is heating,” Purcell says. “Hands down: it’s much larger than anything else. Addressing it is really critical to reaching these kind of deep reductions.”

Purcell says getting to the long-term improvements in energy efficiency will likely require converting homes and buildings from gas-fired furnaces to air-source or ground-source (also known as geoexchange) heat pump for primary heating. When paired with passive solar designs — in which buildings are designed to maximize exposure to the sun and minimize heat loss — such measures can dramatically reduce heating consumption.

Row says that energy efficiency retrofits are always more challenging than starting from scratch.

That’s why he says one of the really exciting things with “new builds” is the opportunity to get to net-zero energy buildings, in which homes and businesses are producing as much (and) more energy that they need via small-scale solar. Eventually, that can lead to net-zero energy communities.

A passive house or passivhaus designed to maximize energy efficiency in Golden, Colorado. Photo: National Renewable Energy Labs via Flickr

4) Carbon Price Revenues Can Help Pay for Big Changes

But here’s the thing. Such investments cost quite a bit of money.

Purcell says Ontario has seen some ambitious commitments as part of their climate change action plan to recycle the cap-and-trade revenues into energy efficiency programs, including incentives and rebates.

Similarly, Alberta will be investing more than $500 million in the next three years into its newly established energy efficiency agency, something which Low says will get the province “from zero to the middle of the pack.”

Just last week, the federal government announced further details on its $2 billion Low Carbon Economy Fund, which will be distributed to provinces for projects including energy efficiency.

But experts agree that governments will have to dole out far more.

“Total spending on energy efficiency is still really an order of magnitude below where we need to drive it,” Purcell says.

Low agrees. “When you look at in the context of the IEA report, middle of the pack isn’t good enough for any of us. We all have to step up our game over the long-term.”

The gradual introduction of carbon pricing will help drive the business case for deeper energy efficiency cases.

5) Regulations Can Drive Change

Then there’s the regulations piece. That includes developing standards for appliances and equipment, new building codes for net-zero buildings and mandatory energy benchmarking, disclosures and audits.

The benefits of such policies go beyond massive emissions reductions.

For one, it cuts down on utility bills. Purcell says it also drives increased employment, both directly in home and building retrofits and indirectly via the usage of money that would otherwise be spent on utility bills. There’s also a lot of potential for health and wellness improvements.

“We spend 90 per cent of our time indoors in Canada so the indoor environment is really critical to our fiscal and mental health,” Purcell says. “A lot of what we can do with energy efficiency in green buildings is driving directly towards improving the air quality, lighting quality and thermal comfort in homes and buildings.”

It will also mean that Canada can preemptively reduce electricity demand and avoid significant investments in infrastructure that may not be required.

The opposite of this has been happening in B.C. where energy efficiency programs have quietly been waylaid to manufacture energy demand for the $9 billion Site C dam.

“These are technologies that are already out there and we just need to make sure we actually take advantage of them,” Becker concludes.

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.

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.

Thicker insulation may not be the first thing one imagines as a top solution to climate change (heck, it probably doesn’t even crack the top five list).

But a new collaboration of Canadian environmental organizations want to change that via the development of a national energy efficiency strategy that focuses on constructing and retrofitting buildings.

Earlier this week an open letter was sent to Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, signed by 11 groups including the Pembina Institute, Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance, the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, Environmental Defence and Architecture Canada.

New Standards Requested

The requests, all tied to meeting the 2030 emissions targets recently set in Paris, are certainly lofty.

Revamp the national building code. Conduct deep energy retrofits in the form of energy reduction (between 25 and 50 per cent) of 30 per cent of buildings. Create a vast system of rebates, financing and loan guarantees.

It doesn’t stop there: the collective also called for the proliferation of universal standards for appliances, making data more publicly available and understandable via consumer feedback systems, and ensuring that buildings owned by the federal government lead by example with retrofits of their own.

All up, there are dozens of recommendations. They’re not kidding around.

“Despite the complexity of the industry, it’s one of the easiest things to do,” says Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, a senior advisor for the Pembina Institute who specializes in building efficiency.

“We know how to do it, it puts money back into the pocket of homeowners and businessowners. And that money, because it tends to be redeployed locally, means the economic benefits of energy efficiency are important.”

Half of Toronto’s Emissions Come From Home and Buildings

To be sure, many organizations concerned with energy efficiency have long pushed for such goals. After all, a quarter of national emissions come from energy consumption in buildings, making it a very significant source of carbon dioxide. In Toronto, half the emissions come from homes and buildings; in Calgary, that number is pegged at 55 per cent.

But this particular combo of forces is notable, especially given the moves that both provincial and federal governments are attempting to make to meet emissions targets.

“The technology is ready,” says Frappé-Sénéclauze. “We have low-energy buildings from residential homes built to passive house standards — or net-zero even — all the way to more complex buildings to LEED certification and Living Building Challenge.

“We have a fair number of high-performance buildings: it’s just a question of bringing that savoir faire and that technology to the bulk of buildings worth building,” he says.

11 Organizations Call on Federal Government For New Energy Efficiency Standards https://t.co/GQS0mGowVS #bcpoli #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 12, 2016

Incentives Key to Retrofits

As indicated by Frappé-Sénéclauze, there are two distinct issues at play: constructing new buildings and retrofitting existing stock.

The latter is arguably the more difficult of the duo.

Bryan Purcell — director of policy at the Toronto Atmospheric Fund, an arm-length agency of the City of Toronto — says the municipality has a limited set of tools to address it, as existing buildings are privately owned and can’t legally require owners to act.

However, Purcell notes that governments can offer financial incentives and educational tools in an attempt to encourage action: for instance, energy audits of homes can be subsidized by governments, something the Alberta NDP is currently in the process of implementing.

“For most building owners — whether it’s a homeowner or a larger building — energy consumption and climate change is not a primary motivation for their actions,” he says.

“It’s very hard to get people to make the leap to all the work involved, putting aside the expense: just the effort to decide to do major improvements to home or building and plan out what those are, and procure and execute them.”

Federal Government Has Power to Standardize Many Household Appliances

Purcell says it’s a matter of figuring out what might motivate a resident or business owner: cost savings, climate change, corporate social responsibility or something else. And then acting on it.

Often the solution requires funding to counteract the high upfront costs and long paybacks required for deep efficiencies.

“The federal government’s really got the financial resources to do that more than any other level of government,” Purcell says.

There are other ways to approach the issue, too.

Frappé-Sénéclauze says that demands of household appliances, known in the industry as “plug loads,” can be addressed via universal standards. There could be an expectation, for instance, that every new fridge is 10 to 15 per cent more efficient than the last model.

For while it’s not something we probably spend much time thinking about, the federal government has been involved with equipment standards for almost every appliance in our home or workplace: boilers, air conditioning units, lights, fans, fridges and TVs.

There was a five- or six-year delay on that front under the previous federal government, Purcell says. That can change very quickly, he says, harnessing tools like the EnerGuide Rating System and Energy Star Portfolio Manager to ensure a base level of efficiency.

Information plays a great part of this. In many cases, it can be tricky for owners and other stakeholders just to get reliable data on everything from how much energy they use, to how that translates into carbon dioxide, to how much potential they have to reduce emissions. And thus, how to choose certain appliances or retrofits for their buildings.

That’s where a “national vision” comes in.

‘We Need All Of This To Happen Faster Than What We’ve Seen Before’

But such a vision must be accompanied by action on new buildings. Because whether municipalities choose to continue sprawling or rezone for infills, there will be new buildings as populations continue to rise.

Codes are ultimately interpreted by and written by the provinces. But the guiding material is written up by the federal government.

In some cases, the province can even extended a “stretch code” to allow local governments to mandate more energy efficiency than the base code. The Toronto Atmospheric Fund is currently in discussion with the city about a timeline for when it could drive the local standards to net zero (an agreement will likely come out in early 2017, Purcell says).

A move that requires new buildings to have nearly energy by 2030 would almost certainly need to come from Ottawa, representing a single, large push that helps proliferate a standard of passive homes and zero energy buildings.

“We’ve had energy efficiency improvements over the last few codes,” Frappé-Sénéclauze says. “It’s not something that’s new. What’s new is the pace of change. We need all of this to happen faster than what we’ve seen before, and that’s going to stress the system.”

There’s some pushback each time there’s a code change, he says. Part of it’s because many construction companies are small entities: in B.C., nine of every 10 have fewer than ten employees. Retraining may be required. Rapid change can be undesirable, to say the least.

Industry Can’t Be Blindsided

That’s why there has to be plenty of notice given prior to such a change, Frappé-Sénéclauze says. What annoys industry more than anything is “to be blindsided and to have things happen at the last minute in a rushed manner.”

Because it’s not just about the actual construction of the home or building. The industry is massively distributed and intensely complex, meaning that changing one thing (for instance, the standard of insulation or doors used) will send ripples down the chain of contractors and manufacturers.

“The supply chain gets ready if there’s clarity of where the codes are going,” he says. “And if the supply chain is there, the cost of components decrease and the cost of the improvement decreases. A lot of this is managing just the stress of change.”

Another key thing to remember is that codes were originally designed as representing the worst possible building that can be built, akin to the minimum wage of construction.

Frappé-Sénéclauze emphasizes they were never meant to drive innovation — just to safeguard against the potential dangers around accessibility, safety and fire protection.

Improving Energy Efficiency a Win-Win

In other words, a new national code won’t save the day. It has to be accompanied by “programs to support the leaders and a code to ratchet up to catch the laggards.”

And there are dozens of those kicking around. An Alberta-focused report published by the Pembina Institute in 2014 provided a long list of practices including mandatory building energy labelling, energy audit grants, energy efficiency financing paid via bills, home energy reports, real-time energy feedback and efficiency rebates.

Other jurisdictions provide inspiration too, with France working on energy positive buildings that include on-site generation. Europe’s aiming for nearly zero energy by 2020, Frappé-Sénéclauze says, with California and Washington State representing similar goals.

After all, Canada is at least in the preliminary phases of making many major moves on the climate change front. It would seem a bit of a waste to eventually generate so much electricity by solar, or wind, or geothermal, or biomass for it to only leak out of buildings that aren’t properly insulated or wasted by appliances that don’t feature state-of-the-art efficiency standards.

“I’m sure whatever they do won’t be perfect: there’s always room for improvement,” says Purcell, noting that other climate mitigation issues can result in a lot more divisive regional equity issues.

“But this is something the federal government can act on that benefits people in all areas of the country equally and can generate employment and economic benefits. There’s really no-one who loses out when we improve energy efficiency in buildings.”

Image: Earth Day green building tour in Vancouver. Photo: Pembina Institute via Flickr

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.

There’s a new kind of building going up in an old East Vancouver neighbourhood. An eight-storey, 85-unit rental housing development is nothing new for a city that is constantly being torn down and built higher, but an apartment here comes with a perk.

“You could technically heat that apartment with a hairdryer,” says Ed Kolic, the developer behind The Heights, the new Passive House-certified development. When completed, it will be the biggest of its kind in Canada; globally, second only to a new building in New York.

Low-energy houses like this could make a serious dent in Canada’s carbon emissions, cutting up to 2.7 per cent from the total, while simultaneously becoming an engine for economic growth.

“In all of the climate change literature globally, the quickest and fastest way to take action on climate change is to look at the energy use in buildings,” says Charley Beresford, director of the Columbia Institute.

The federal budget, released Tuesday, provides nearly $750 million for investments related to energy efficiency.

“It’s quite a refresher from a Harper budget,” says Karen Tam Wu, director of the Pembina Institute’s buildings and urban solutions program. “What we want to see is, how will the government take the dollars that have been allocated to energy efficiency in buildings and actually incentivize uptake of green buildings at an accelerated rate?”

The largest single pot of money to come out of the budget for these improvements is a $573 million commitment to improve the energy and water efficiency of social housing over the next two years.

“We’re going to have to scale this to major energy upgrades across the country, so by focusing on a social housing initiative, it’s a great way to pilot this idea at a smaller scale,” Tam Wu told DeSmog Canada.

The government has earmarked $128.8 million for Natural Resources Canada to ramp up its energy efficiency standards for products, buildings and vehicles.

A further $40 million will go towards improving the climate resiliency of buildings — meaning buildings like Kolic’s, with their insulation-focused design, may come into fashion in places that are facing intensified winter storms, such as Eastern Canada.

Provincial Governments Lag Behind in Regulations

But provincial governments, with a few exceptions, haven’t yet provided the mechanism that would allow municipalities to push their residents toward more efficient homes.

The Columbia Institute released a report last week calling for provinces to make it easier for municipalities to provide up-front cash for homeowners to retrofit their homes.

If home energy retrofits sound like an un-sexy way to fight climate change, wait until you hear the name of what could be the best shot at achieving that: Local Improvement Charge (LIC) enabling. Despite the name, though, it’s a powerful tool.

Basically what LIC means is that municipalities can loan homeowners the money to improve the insulation in their homes, then gradually make the money back through increased property taxes. It’s an existing system that local governments use to make other improvements, like fixing a sidewalk, then recouping the cost from the people who benefit.

In Halifax, where an LIC program has been piloted, 388 homeowners saved an average of about $14,000 over the lifespan of their new systems (about 25 years). A similar program in Nelson, B.C., (albeit with repayments going to the electrical bill rather than property taxes) resulted in 35 per cent less energy use for the retrofitted homes; nearly 40 per cent of them took advantage of loans to do it. And Manitoba Hydro claims to be on track to retrofit a whopping 86,992 homes by the end of the year under its 15 year-old Power Smart Residential Loan program.

Retrofit Investments Deliver Bang For Buck on Jobs

In return, the municipalities get to help meet their climate targets — but there’s evidence for another benefit to supporting green building projects. Depending on which study you read, for every million dollars invested in building retrofits, somewhere from between 13 and 17 jobs are created. That’s compared to about five jobs created for every million dollars invested in fossil fuel projects.

A report commissioned by Natural Resources Canada, Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth in Canada, found that savings on heating costs meant that for every dollar invested in energy efficiency, another $3 to $5 would be added to the economy. Overall, the report says, this could mean hundreds of thousands of new jobs in multiple sectors as the savings make their way through the supply chain.

There’s another way all levels of government can take advantage of efficiency gains, Tam Wu says.

“What all levels of government should be doing is leading by example,” she says. “And that’s what we want the provincial government to do, by setting a bold target for what level of emissions reductions we can achieve through our buildings.”

Municipalities Lead the Way on Efficiency

Regulations have been moving faster at the municipal level. Vancouver, for example, requires that to rezone a lot for a new development, the proponent has to build the new building to demanding LEED Gold or Passive House standards. Even remote Bella Bella, where most of the electricity comes from diesel generators, a new modular building Britco built in the Lower Mainland and shipped to the Central Coast community takes the energy equivalent of six light bulbs to heat.

“[Britco] had never done that before,” says Tam Wu. “That kind of energy savings just totally makes sense in remote communities.”

The private sector overall seems ready to respond to increased demand, and that demand has shown to be easily created by incentives from all levels of government.

In Brussels, which developer Kolic cites as inspiration for his Vancouver development, new EU regulations forced the city to get serious about efficiency. With new funding and the spin-off businesses that created, Brussels quickly went from hopelessly inefficient and outdated to having 5,000 new buildings meet the Passive House standard.

“It went from having the worst standard of energy efficient buildings to becoming a world success story within a period of ten years,” Tam Wu says.

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 days of infinite growth in Alberta’s oilsands are over with the Alberta government’s blockbuster climate change announcement on Sunday, which attracted broad support from industry and civil society.

“This is the day that we start to mobilize capital and resources to create green jobs, green energy, green infrastructure and a strong, environmentally responsible, sustainable and visionary Alberta energy industry with a great future,” Premier Rachel Notley said. “This is the day we stop denying there is an issue, and this is the day we do our part.”

Notley and Environment & Parks Minister Shannon Phillips released a 97-page climate change policy plan, which includes five key pillars.

1) Carbon will be priced economy-wide at $30/tonne by 2018.

2) Coal-fired power plants will be phased out by 2030.

3) Oilsands emissions will be capped at 100 megatonnes (Mt) per year (recent Environment Canada figures predicted a 2020 output of 103 Mt from the sector), which amounts to allowing current construction to go ahead, but that’s it. That means to expand production beyond current projects, per barrel emissions will need to be reduced.

4) Methane emissions from oil and gas operations will be cut by 45 per cent in 2025.

5) 30 per cent of all electricity will be generated by renewables by 2030.

It is a staggeringly significant proposal, one that far surpasses anything the former Progressive Conservative government imagined in the course of its 43-year reign. The announcement — delivered at Edmonton’s Telus World of Science — was benefitted by appearances from CEOs of Suncor, Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL), Shell and Cenovus, something far-right activist Ezra Levant dismissed by alleging the massive energy companies “don't represent the industry.”

Environmental groups such as the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada were also on stage. Getting all of those players in support of one climate strategy is a huge testament to the leadership of University of Alberta energy economist Andrew Leach, who chaired the climate change panel.

Climate Change Policy Plan Garners Broad Support

With the exception of the rabidly conservative Wildrose Party and former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk, it seemed every serious player in politics and industry celebrated the announcement. The NDP-affiliated Broadbent Institute, headquartered in Toronto, concluded: “On a public policy Richter scale, Alberta’s new Climate Leadership Plan is an 11.”

Shell Canada announced that “these measures provide predictability and certainty and will help ensure that producers can responsibly develop and grow this significant Canadian resource while also addressing global concerns about climate change.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau congratulated Notley in a tweet now favourited over 1,300 times as “a very positive step in the fight against climate change.”  Political blogger Dave Cournoyer accurately dubbed it a “pigs fly” situation.

All of this means a whole lot given the impending Paris Climate Change Conference (COP 21).

Canada ranks 15th out of 17th countries for greenhouse gas emissions according to the Conference Board of Canada, with Alberta contributing 36 per cent of national emissions in 2013 despite only accounting for 11 per cent of the country’s population.

The expected spike in oilsands expansion was widely expected to nullify all other sources of emissions reductions in the Canada. The fact that Alberta, and by extension Canada, is now going into COP 21 with a detailed plan to address the province’s largest source of emissions – oilsands development and coal-fired power plants – speaks volumes about the desire to be taken seriously on the world stage.

Climate Plan May Increase Social Licence for Oilsands Operations

Another component that ostensibly drove oil execs to hop on the green bandwagon was the need to accrue “social licence,” or the support required to build pipelines to export its products. The veto of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline represents what happens when such social licence isn’t secured.

By addressing runaway emissions, Alberta-based companies might actually stand a chance to build infrastructure like the Energy East pipeline, which would transport 1.1 million barrels of diluted bitumen from Alberta to Quebec and New Brunswick every day.

“The province’s climate strategy may allow our sector to invest more aggressively in technologies to further reduce per barrel emissions in our sector and do our part to tackle climate change,” said Tim McMillan, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ president and chief executive officer, in a statement.

“We encourage the province to follow a balanced approach, recognizing that our sector can only become a global supplier of responsibly produced oil and natural gas if we are competitive on the world stage.”

The fight over pipelines is unlikely to dissipate. While Sunday’s announcement was a giant step in the right direction, it’s still not enough to avoid catastrophic global warming, according to a statement from Greenpeace.

“These policies are important first steps, but much bigger emission reductions will be needed for Alberta to do its part to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius,” Alberta climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema said.

Hudema also noted that the province still has no short or long-term emission reduction targets.

“Targets give an important signal to business, let the world know where Alberta is headed, and help ensure that direction leads to the reductions that science and equity demand,” he said.

The Pembina Institute has historically supported a higher carbon tax than what was proposed on Sunday – with $40/tonne in 2016, $50/tonne in 2017 and $60/tonne in 2018 — but the plan is an indisputably major upgrade from the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER), which taxed Alberta’s largest emitters (103 at last count) at the equivalent of $1.80/tonne.

George Hoberg, professor in the forest department at the University of British Columbia, notes there’s still plenty of work to be done but that: “Today is a day for celebration. Alberta has bent its carbon emissions curve, and provided a lever to Canada to show real climate leadership.”

Ultimately, the future of Canada’s environmental reputation may rely on the work that Trudeau and Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna complete during and after the Paris conference. But Sunday’s announcement out of Alberta sets quite the standard.

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.

For more than two decades, Mark Jaccard has been penning “report cards” about Canada’s environmental track record. The results haven’t been pretty.

Jaccard, a veteran professor in Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management, notes his annual evaluations were harnessed in the mid-2000s by Stephen Harper (then serving as federal opposition leader) as arguments for why the Conservatives deserved a shot at governing the country.

Those report cards were used as “a way of saying ‘look how incompetent the Liberals are, they haven’t done anything on climate, we’re not going to achieve Kyoto but let us get into power and we will set a new target in 2020 and implement regulations immediately to achieve that target,’” Jaccard recalls.

The Conservatives eventually formed a minority government in 2006 and became the majority government after the 2011 election.

Jaccard’s latest report card, released on October 6, concludes the Conservative Party has since “implemented virtually no policies that would materially reduce emissions” despite making significant emissions pledges for 2020 and 2050.

The five-page report notes the Conservative government has scored a “failing grade” for neglecting to introduce easily realizable policies in the sectors of transportation, electricity generation, construction and industry. Jaccard concludes the absence of such actions shows “they must have had no intention” of dealing with climate change.

“I know there are a lot of people in the Conservative Party — because they talk to me — who are disgusted that the current leader is so against implementing policies that would have no political cost to him but would reduce emissions,” he says. “I don’t know what [Harper’s] issue is, I don’t try to guess what’s in his mind, but he could do so much more.”

Harper’s Climate Policies Insignificant

Of course, the Conservative government has consistently told a different tale, pointing to regulations on coal-fired power plants built after 2030 and vehicle energy efficiency rules as instances of action on the climate change front.

However, Jaccard notes there are no new coal plants planned in the near future and that vehicle efficiency standards introduced under Prime Minister Harper don’t have nearly the same impact as regulations introduced in jurisdictions like California.

In short: the policies that Harper has introduced technically exist but are by no means enough to get Canada as close as it needs to be to emissions targets.

“Any academic will give you the same answer I did,” Jaccard says. “It’s got nothing to do with partisanship.”

In the report, Jaccard outlines three primary reasons why politicians like Harper don’t act on environmental policy: the absence of compulsory policies such as carbon taxes or sector-by-sector regulations, the global nature of climate change (requiring far larger jurisdictions such as China to cut emissions before seeing obvious impacts) and the absence of an independent monitoring service that provides feedback about progress.

It’s the latter factor that Jaccard has attempted to change with the annual “report card.”

Canada’s 2020 Climate Target Now Unachievable

Jaccard also notes his conclusions aren’t born from a particular animosity towards conservative parties, pointing out that Gordon Campbell, long-time premier of British Columbia, introduced very effective climate change policies such as the Clean Energy Act while sharing similar ideological stances as Harper.

Canada’s 2020 target is now unachievable due to the country’s laggard approach, Jaccard writes.

The 2050 target, requiring a 65 per cent cut in emissions, would require “an almost complete transformation” of the economic system. As a result, every day counts.

If the country opted for an economy-wide carbon tax — a move favoured by many economists — Jaccard estimates it would need to be introduced at $50/tonne, increasing to $150/tonne by 2020 (for reference, B.C. taxes carbon at $30/tonne).

But for Jaccard, the technicalities of a future transition — whether it’s a carbon tax, cap-and-trade or sector-by-sector regulation — doesn’t matter so much as some sort of move being made. The longer the country waits, he warns, the more economically catastrophic such moves will be given the potential stranding of fossil fuel assets and compounding of climate change-related costs.

“If the Conservative Party had overthrown [Harper] in the last year, I would be saying ‘let’s see what they do,’” Jaccard concludes.

“But because they have not and given the idea of him continuing as prime minister, any of the other parties would be better.”

Image: Mark Jaccard via Running on Climate

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 article is authored by Binnu Jeyakumar and originally appeared on the Pembina Institute's blog.

“The days of denial are over,” said Environment Minister Shannon Phillips, kicking off the 2015 Alberta Climate Summit held last week in Edmonton. She was sending a message that Alberta’s attitude and commitments around climate change are changing.

The summit focused on exploring viable options for progress on climate change, with the participation of stakeholders from across the spectrum. More than 300 people filled the room, representing the oil and gas industry, the electricity sector, First Nations, unions, environmental groups, municipalities and the provincial government. The excitement was palpable as participants discussed both the reasons to take action and the opportunities now available.

The summit explored policy solutions in several areas, including carbon pricing, renewable electricity and energy efficiency. If you want more context on climate policy in Alberta, Pembina’s backgrounder from August is worth a look.

Carbon pricing

The morning included a discussion of British Columbia’s $30-per-tonne carbon tax, and the need for better communications about the success of carbon pricing. The panel emphasized the need for a better-informed conversation about what emissions sources could be covered and exempted, the effective price level, and the different ways to use the revenue that is generated.

On the topic of effective pricing, Nicholas Rivers of the University of Ottawa pointed to various studies that link price and impact, saying “We are looking at a $100-ish price on carbon by 2050.”

Of course, carbon emissions are not just carbon dioxide. Drew Nelson, of the Environmental Defense Fund, reminded attendees of the climate impact of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector. The United States has introduced cost-effective regulations that reduce methane leaks in the oil and gas sector, and enacting similar regulations in Alberta could result in significant reductions in emissions which total to well over 10 million tonnes of carbon emissions.

Coal phase-out and renewables

“What is our electricity system designed for?” was the question posed by Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association. He argued that to make sustainable reductions to carbon emissions, the entire electricity system — rather than just a few components — has to be reviewed. Alberta needs to evaluate the best ways to incentivize capital investment in renewables, learning from the experiences of other jurisdictions such as Ontario. Some options to consider include centralized procurement of electricity, or making retailers responsible for achieving a certain proportion of renewables in the generation mix.

There is also a need to manage the climate impacts, as well as the local environmental and health impacts, of Alberta’s existing coal-fired plants. The closure of TransAlta’s coal plant in Centralia, Washington, was discussed as a case study for how Alberta could negotiate an accelerated phase-out of coal.

Energy efficiency

When talking about cutting emissions, there’s a compelling case for energy efficiency. It’s the cheapest way to make more energy available, it creates jobs, it reduces operating expenses and it cuts down fossil fuel use. As Alberta adopts a new building code, the province should look to B.C. and Ontario — two provinces that are making huge strides in promoting building efficiency and sustainable urban development — for ideas on how to save energy.

There was no shortage of energy in the summit room, with people staying long after the end of the event to continue their discussions. That enthusiasm was perhaps driven by a sense of urgency, as the economic, health and environmental risks associated with the status quo become more and more evident. But it also speaks to a distinct sense of excitement in the province about the tangible actions that Alberta can and should take in the near future.

Presentations from the 2015 Alberta Climate Summit are available online here.

There are also a number of ways to get involved:

• Take the Alberta government’s climate change survey (open until September 18)
• Send your recommendations to the Climate Leadership Panel
• Stay tuned to the activities of the Energy Futures Lab, a platform to discuss, experiment and innovate in Alberta’s energy system.

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.

“Frankly, we need an army of carpenters, electricians and contractors going out to plug leaky buildings,” federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May said during the August 6 leaders debate. “Thirty per cent of carbon pollution comes from the energy we waste and the money we waste heating the outdoors in the winter and cooling it in the summer.”

The suggestion’s an awfully good one. Especially in Alberta.

For one, the thousands of contractors out of work due to the oil price slump could serve as potential soldiers in this so-called army.

There’s also enormous untapped energy-saving potential in Alberta: in fact, it’s the only province or state in North America that doesn’t sport a long-term energy efficiency program — that sure means something when 55 per cent of Calgary’s emissions can be attributed to electricity generation.

Plus, interest rates are extremely low, giving municipalities and provinces plenty of incentive to borrow for projects like energy audit grants and real-time energy feedback.

Jesse Row, executive director of Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance and director of the Pembina Institute's energy efficiency program in the province, called the idea “low-hanging fruit.”

“I think everybody should be interested in taking some [energy efficiency] action on and seeing action taken on,” he said. Alberta “stopped doing it so we never really had that success to build on as we move forward like a lot of other jurisdictions are doing.”

Alberta’s False Energy Efficiency Starts

Alberta had a government branch devoted to energy efficiency until Ralph Klein became premier in 1993 and eliminated it.

Since then, the province has introduced two short-term efficiency programs: the most recent ending in 2012 that gave out just over $50 million in the form of 173,000 purchase rebates for newer and more efficient clothes driers ($100), hot water systems ($300) and furnaces ($600).

Nothing has since replaced it. There was a lingering promise to renew energy efficiency programs from within Alberta’s Ministry of Environment, but that idea was perpetually deferred by former Premier Jim Prentice.

Alberta is the sole jurisdiction in North America without a devoted energy efficiency program. Source: Pembina Institute

Making matters worse, the province’s leading energy efficiency non-profit, Climate Change Central (C3), closed in 2014, unable to sustain its operations after the government pulled its funding in 2009.

C3 delivered 23 programs — many of which related to energy efficiency — and helped found, among other groups, the Alberta Energy Efficiency Alliance.

“We lost a lot of capacity when C3 shut down,” Row said. “It is capacity that needs to be rebuilt to get on board with what everyone else is doing and actually having some energy efficiency programs in this province.”

Row said the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which houses money from Alberta’s carbon levy program, could easily be tapped to finance such endeavours; around $100 million could successfully fund a middle-of-the-road program, saving money ($460 million per year), create jobs (some 3,800) and cut emissions (up to 27 megatonnes by 2020).

There is currently around $75 million waiting to be put to use cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Alberta. But the money requires projects.

The provincial government, under the former Progressive Conservatives, issued a request for new program proposals last August, but Premier Prentice delayed the effort for unknown reasons.

Row said the failed attempt to get money flowing to new pojects was “quite a disappointment.”

But because the request for proposals is only on hold — not cancelled — the newly elected NDP government could resurrect it at any point.

In June, Premier Rachel Notley told reporters: “there’s no question that energy efficiency efforts and initiatives will be a key pillar in [our climate change] strategy.”

Row took that as a good sign.

Building Efficiency Leading the Way

But Alberta has seen some important successes.

Tanya Doran, executive director of the Alberta Chapter of Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC), pointed out that Alberta certified the second-most square footage of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) construction in North America.

The City of Calgary was also the first municipality in Canada to implement a LEED building policy, Doran said.

“I like to think we’re getting to the point where we’re no longer talking about how much it costs if we do it, but how much it’s going to cost if we don’t,” she said.

“We’re seeing some of the large private firms start to recognize that if they’re looking for investors in their project, those investors are looking for the greening of that bricks and mortar infrastructure as well as if they see it as good, long-term investment.”

New national building code recommendations released in 2012 are only just now being adopted by Alberta. The province’s building standards haven’t been updated for three decades, so there is significant room for improvement (codes concerning large buildings will come into effect in November, while residential regulations will be implemented in May 2016).

Row said now is the time to be assessing what comes next: “looking at energy efficiency within our existing building stock, getting energy efficiency in industries and…future advancements in the building codes.”

Alberta already knows there is high provincial support for energy efficiency spending.

There are plenty of other jurisdictions to look to as role models: California, Ontario, Nova Scotia. The first step for Alberta, Row said, is simply to get started.

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.

It’s finally happening: after years of stalling by the Progressive Conservatives, Alberta’s new NDP government announced Thursday it will double the province’s meager carbon levy on large emitters by 2017.

Industry and environmentalists alike welcomed the decision, while also saying it doesn’t go far enough. 

Currently, any facility that emits more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases per year must reduce its emissions by 12 per cent below typical performance or pay $15 per tonne for emissions over the baseline. By 2017, the new framework will require companies to lower emissions by 20 per cent below typical performance, with a $30-per-tonne levy for emissions above that target.

“It’s not going to drive the meaningful reductions or give the market incentives that we need,” said Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Pembina Institute.

Pembina advocates for a $40-per-tonne levy with a 40 per cent emissions reduction target. Whittingham said the NDP had three options given the circumstances: let the regulation expire at the end of the month, kick the can down the road by renewing the current framework (as previous governments often did) or actually make some changes.

Dan Woynillowicz, director of policy at Clean Energy Canada, said the most impressive element of the announcement was its decisiveness.

“The previous government has been talking about changing the SGER, or changing the price, or changing the coverage for several years,” he said. “Within a matter of weeks, this government has come in and said: ‘We’re going to do that, we’re going to make that change.’ ”

Cenovus Wants Economy-Wide Carbon Price

Brett Harris, media lead at Cenovus Energy — which has historically supported a price on carbon — says the company is pleased the government has provided clarity on the issue. However, he says “in an ideal world” the company would like to see a pan-Canadian or pan-North American carbon pricing regime to create a “level playing field.”

Shell Canada also welcomed the new rules.

Despite support from energy companies, the concept of a carbon tax has consistently been ridiculed by Canada’s federal government.

Dale Beugin, director of research at Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, acknowledges a national or international carbon tax should be the end goal, but notes it’s a difficult thing to achieve and that reform must happen incrementally.

“It’s great that the big industrial emitters are priced by the SGER, but that’s not the only emissions in the economy: a good carbon pricing policy is going to be broad as well as stringent, Beugin said. “You want to make sure you’re going after the small emitters, the vehicles, the buildings, the process emissions from waste and agriculture.”

How Alberta’s Carbon Levy Works

There are 103 large emitters in Alberta. While most of the sites are gas plants, a great majority of emissions come from seven coal power plants and five oilsands mines/upgraders. Such companies have three options if they exceed the target: buy carbon offsets, use Alberta Emission Performance Credits (similar to carbon offsets but rewarded based on performance) or contribute to the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which funds climate change projects.

“What [this change] is going to do is drive more money into offsets in the tech fund,” Whittingham said. “There are some greenhouse gas savings or benefits to be had from that.”

Andrew Leach to Head Climate Change Panel

In addition to announcing changes to the carbon levy, Environment Minister Shannon Phillips reported the government is forming a climate change panel, chaired by Andrew Leach, the University of Alberta environmental economist.

"Andrew Leach is pretty much the first person I'd choose for that gig, so good job,” said Chris Turner, the author of The Geography of Hope and The Leap.

According to a feature Leach wrote for Maclean’s, the panel will examine a wide assortment of potential actions. It will deliver a report to the government in the fall, prior to Premier Rachel Notley’s trip to Paris in December to attend the United Nations climate change summit.

Many options will need to be considered. Whittingham says the province must find a way to phase out coal-fired electricity, ensure renewable energy fills a fair share of that void and implement energy efficiency programs, as well as deal with growing emissions from the oilsands.

Photo: Kris Krug via Flickr

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.