Ontario Court of Appeal rules against the provincial challenge to the federal carbon price – Seven provinces will intervene in the Supreme Court appeal

doug ford scrap the taxOn June 28, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued their Decision , 4 to 1 in favour of the federal government’s right to impose a system of carbon pricing across Canada, under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.   Some important excerpts from the majority decision:

“Parliament has determined that atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases causes climate changes that pose an existential threat to human civilization and the global ecosystem ….The need for a collective approach to a matter of national concern, and the risk of non-participation by one or more provinces, permits Canada to adopt minimum national standards to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions…

The Act does this and no more. It leaves ample scope for provincial legislation in relation to the environment, climate change, and GHGs, while narrowly constraining federal jurisdiction to address the risk of provincial inaction.

The charges imposed by the Act are themselves constitutional. They are regulatory in nature and connected to the purposes of the Act. They are not taxes.

The Act is the product of extensive efforts – efforts originally endorsed by almost all provinces, including Ontario – to develop a pan-Canadian approach to reducing GHG emissions and mitigating climate change. This, too, reflects the fact that minimum national standards to reduce GHG emissions are of concern to Canada as a whole. The failure of those efforts reflects the reality that one or more dissenting provinces can defeat a national solution to a matter of national concern”

The Ontario government immediately announced that it will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.  The Premier of Alberta, part of the Canada-wide Conservative opposition to the federal carbon tax, said that Alberta is reviewing the decision in his press release.  Saskatchewan, which lost its own court challenge to the GGPPA  in May 2019, has already filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, scheduled for December 5 2019 – notably after the coming federal election, in which climate change issues are widely expected to be a top priority for voters.

For a thorough discussion of the decision and compilation of reactions, read: “Doug Ford loses carbon tax battle with Trudeau” in the National Observer .  “Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Federal Carbon Tax” appeared in The Energy Mix on July 2 and also compiles reaction from many sources. “Federal Carbon Pricing Regime Now Two-for-Two” (July 2) in Lexology offers a more lawyerly perspective.   And for the mood in Ontario, read “Doug Ford’s $30 million carbon tax fight is money down the drain but it keeps his brand afloat” in the Toronto Star (July 3) or in the Globe and Mail, The real carbon tax is the money provinces are spending on lawyers.”

Provinces line up to participate in Supreme Court appeal: ( Updated as of July 10):  As of July 8, seven provinces are  registered as intervenors in the Saskatchewan challenge to the carbon tax, scheduled to be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in December 2019.  On July 8, CBC reported that  New Brunswick Premier Blaine  Higgs  abandons  planned carbon tax court fight , stating that the province will not waste taxpayers’ money on their own carbon tax court case, but will act as an intervenor in the Saskatchewan’s appeal.  Prince Edward Island is also intervening, as explained in  P.E.I. intervening in Saskatchewan’s carbon tax court challenge” (July 5).  The Premier of PEI states they are “absolutely not” joining the fight against a carbon tax, but are intervening as a way to reserve the right to participate in future. Even more surprisingly, “Quebec intervenes in Saskatchewan’s challenge of carbon tax“, as reported in the Montreal Gazette on July 8.  Quebec has joined the case to ensure its provincial rights are upheld in any court decision, and to protect Quebec’s existing cap and trade system. 

stampede ford 2019Aaron Wherry of CBC posted an analysis of the Conservative premiers’ positions against the federal carbon price in Premiers say they want a ‘co-operative’ approach to climate policy. Are they serious? (July 10).  It discusses the differences amongst  Alberta’s Jason Kenney, Ontario’s Doug Ford, Saskatchewan’s Scott Moe, New Brunswick’s Blaine Higgs and Bob McLeod of the Northwest Territories, who are meeting separately, in advance of the formal Council of the Federation meeting in Saskatoon, July 9 to 11.

 

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal rules for federal carbon tax program

With implications across the country, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal handed down a 3-2 decision  on May 3, ruling that the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act (GGPPA) falls within federal government’s “National Concern” constitutional power. The Saskatchewan Association for Environmental Law has compiled all the legal submission documents here ; the EcoFiscal Commission provides a summary of the 155-page Decision here  .

Local coverage and reaction appeared in the Regina Leader Post (May 3) in “Court of Appeal: Saskatchewan government loses carbon tax challenge , and the Premier of Saskatchewan immediately declared that the province will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which it must do within 30 days.  As the Globe and Mail points out,  “Saskatchewan court rules federal carbon tax constitutional in first of several legal challenges” .  According to a CBC report, the Premier of New Brunswick  is still considering his options, but newly-elected Premier Jason Kenny of Alberta will join the Saskatchewan Supreme Court action. The Premier of Manitoba announced that his government will not abandon its own court challenge, which it launched on April 3. In Ontario, the Ford government is aggressively promoting its own battle over the carbon tax: four days of hearings ended on April 18th, and the Ontario Court of Appeal is expected to render its own decision on the constitutionality of the carbon tax in several months – possibly not until after the federal election in October 2019.

The political significance of the Saskatchewan decision:  Aaron Wherry at CBC  summarizes the general situation in  “The carbon tax survived Saskatchewan. That was the easy part”  (May 4).  The Globe and Mail states what is a widely accepted opinion in its editorial,  “Why conservatives secretly love the carbon tax”: “Round One goes to Ottawa. But the courtroom war against the federal carbon tax continues – waged by a fraternity of conservative provincial governments with more of an eye on immediate political returns than ultimate legal outcomes.”

Update:  Three law professors- Jason MacLean (University of Saskatchewan), Nathalie Chalifour ( University of Ottawa) and Sharon Mascher (University of Calgary)  published a reaction to the Saskatchewan Court’s decision on May 7 in The Conversation“Work on Climate not weaponizing the constitution”   takes issue with some of the finer legal points of the decision, but welcomes the Court’s recognition of the urgency and scale  of the climate emergency, and concludes: “We have to stop weaponizing the Constitution and start working together, across party lines at all levels of government, on urgent and ambitious climate action.”

Canada: the year past and the battle over carbon pricing in the year ahead

The Energy Mix Yearbook Review for 2018 is undoubtedly the most thorough and informed review of 2018 climate issues for Canadians.  It compiles its newsletter coverage of 2018 stories and adds context and analysis, as well as a multitude of links to further reading.  The sections of exceptional interest include “Jobs and Just Transition: Renewables and Efficiency Jobs Surge while Fossil Employment Sags “; “Fossils go for Broke”  and “Canada’s Contradiction: Low-Carbon Leader or Perpetual Petro-State?”  .  Other, briefer overviews for Canada include “State of Play 2018”  from EcoJustice, highlighting legal issues;  “ 10 wins for Canadian energy and climate action in 2018: Year in review” with a positive slant from the Pembina Institute (Dec. 20) ; and from the Council of Canadians 2018 in Review: Offshore drilling (December 21),  a chronology from Atlantic Canada.

On December 20, easily overlooked because of the holiday season,  Environment and Climate Change Canada published five separate review reports.  Clean Canada:  Protecting the Environment and Growing our Economy   is a snapshot of Canada’s federal climate action policies and expenditures, and seems intended for a wide popular audience.  Second Annual Synthesis Report regarding the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Action   (French version here )  is a more detailed accounting of the policies and programs by the federal and provincial governments in 2018, organized in chapters relating to carbon pricing, complementary measures (buildings, transportation, electricity, agriculture, etc.); adaptation and resilience; clean technology and innovation and jobs; reporting and oversight; federal engagement and partnership with Indigenous people .  2018 Canada’s Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollutant Emissions Projections Report  (French version here ) provides, again,  a policy overview but its main purpose is to continue the series of annual reports (since 2011) of detailed emissions data for economic sector and  geographic region. It also includes emissions projections to 2030 under two different scenarios – (spoiler alert: oil and gas will be Canada’s leading source of emissions, followed by transportation and heavy industry).

Other substantial reports published on December 20 will form the basis for consultations in 2019.  The new draft for the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy 2019 to 2022 will inform a public consultation until April 2, 2019. (The companion 2018 Progress Report on the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy  evaluates the 2016 to 2019 strategy goals and the activities of  41 federal departments and agencies.)

The final Clean Fuel Standard Regulatory Design Paper focuses on the liquid fuels regulations, with comments requested by February 1, 2019. The draft regulation is scheduled to be published in 2019 and a final regulation by 2020, bringing to an end a complex consultation process that began in 2016 (summarized by WCR  in January 2018).  The Clean Fuel Standard will apply to the full life cycle of all fuels, gasoline and diesel, aviation fuel, natural gas for heating, and metallurgical coal, and has been called the single most important policy tool to achieve Canada’s emissions reductions target for 2030.

And finally, a regulatory proposal relating to the most publicized issue for 2019: carbon pricing.  Next Steps in Implementing the Federal Pollution Pricing System for Large Industry (the “Output Based Pricing System”)  was released on December 20, and carries  a deadline for public comments of February 15, 2019. The Output Based Pricing System registration system went live on November 1, 2018, with reporting and verification requirements starting on January 1, 2019.

The coming battles over Carbon tax in 2019:   As Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced in late October 2018,  the federal government has not backed down on its determination to impose a carbon pricing policy across all Canadian jurisdictions in 2019, despite resistance and constitutional challenges led by the premiers of Saskatchewan and Ontario.  In some provinces – British Columbia , Alberta , Quebec  – established carbon pricing systems continue; in Nova Scotia , Prince Edward Island , Newfoundland and Labrador –  newly approved systems which meet the government’s benchmarks under the Pan-Canadian Framework will begin.   In the other provinces who have opposed the federal plan – Manitoba , Saskatchewan , New Brunswick and Ontario  –  the federal backstop fuel charge will be imposed starting in April 2019, sweetened by a “Climate Action Incentive”,  whereby all carbon revenue collected by the federal government will go directly back to people in the provinces from which it was generated.  The Annex of the Second Annual Synthesis Report of the Pan-Canadian Framework  provides up to date summaries for the situation in each province.

Public opinion supports the government’s carbon tax actions, though barely, according to polling made public by Global News on January 3 . Based on a November 9 internal poll conducted for the Liberal party, 46 per cent supported and 44 per cent opposed the plan  in Saskatchewan and Manitoba ; in Ontario, 43 per cent were in support and 32 per cent opposed. Nationally, support was at 47 per cent and opposition was at 29 per cent, with women more supportive than men.

Recently, one article appeared in the labour press, supporting carbon pricing:  “Pricing carbon first step to tackling climate change” in CUPE’s Economy at Work newsletter (Jan. 2).  The mainstream press has been far more active, with general support for a carbon tax: for example,  an editorial in  the Globe and Mail newspaper is titled: “ Do you want a carbon tax, or do you want to be lied to? “(Dec. 26) . The editorial is critical of the Ontario government’s Ontario Carbon Trust proposal, about which it states:  “One emerging conservative alternative to carbon pricing is working with business to spur the development of green technology. What that usually means is taxpayers giving subsidies to business.… “Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives ….say they will dish out $400-million on a “Carbon Trust” that will collaborate with industry on emissions cuts. They can rail against carbon pricing all they want; spending taxpayer money has the same effect on pocketbooks as asking consumers to pay more.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce was also widely cited as supporting a carbon tax, to the extent that they issued a press release on December 17 2018, clarifying their position:  “While some of the [media] coverage notes the Chamber’s support for carbon pricing, it neglects to include that the support is contingent upon significant caveats. The report calls for government to take concrete steps to reduce the overall regulatory burden on businesses in Canada, and to return the revenues from the carbon tax to business to help them lower their carbon emissions and their energy costs.”  The report referred to, outlining the full arguments, is   A Competitive Transition: How smarter climate policy can help Canada lead the way to a low carbon economy, which was published in December 2018.

Take it to the Courts!  Saskatchewan filed its challenge to the constitutionality of the federal price on carbon pollution in April 2018; the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal announced that it will hear the case in February 13 and 14, 2019, and released the lengthly list of intervenors which it has allowed to appear.  Intervenors include the provinces  of Ontario and New Brunswick on the side of Saskatchewan, and the province of British Columbia on the side of the federal government; other intervenors include the Canadian Public Health AssociationEcoJustice, representing the David Suzuki Foundation and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation; and the Council of Canadians , as part of a  group of seven other civil society groups, including the National Farmers Union and  Climate Justice Saskatoon.

A separate case  was filed by the Government of Ontario and will be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in April 2019.  The full list of intervenors, as well as the court filings by the Ontario government, appear at the Court of Appeal website here . British Columbia and New Brunswick have also applied for intervenor status in this case.

How will the courts decide?   “Courts should not have to decide climate change policy” appeared on December 21  in Policy Options,  with a discussion of the carbon pricing cases as well as the recent litigation by Quebec’s ENvironnement JEUnesse . Co-authors Nathalie Chalifour and Jason Maclean  argue that “only a collaborative  approach to policy-making is capable of delivering the kinds of rapid, forward-looking and systemic changes in how industries and societies function that are necessary to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of climate change. Litigation, by contrast, is necessarily reactive and typically divisive, time-consuming and influenced by the incremental development of legal precedent.”  Regarding the provincial carbon tax challenges, they state that “the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is an example par excellence of cooperative federalism.”…. “There’s little doubt that the courts will confirm the federal government’s jurisdictional authority to regulate GHG emissions. They may even decide that the Constitution obliges the government to take more serious climate action.”

A complex road is ahead, as indicated by a C.D. Howe Institute Memo published in October 2018:   “Federal carbon-pricing backstop is new constitutional territory”.

 

Updating the political battle of carbon pricing in Canada

Justin TrudeauOn October 23,  Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the federal government will hold its resolve to impose a carbon pricing policy across all Canadian jurisdictions in 2019 – see the press release, “Government of Canada Putting a price on pollution”   (Oct. 23).  Key to the plan: the Climate Action Incentive, whereby all carbon revenue will go directly back to people in the provinces from which it was generated.  David Roberts of Vox hits the nail on the head with  “Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is betting his reelection on a carbon tax” (Oct. 24) , stating,  “It’s a thoughtful plan, remarkably simple, transparent, and economically sound for something cooked up in a politically fraught context. If it’s put into place (and stays in place), it would vault Canada to the head of the international pack on climate policy.”

Reaction from the Canadian mainstream media: From the Globe and Mail, an Editorial:  “For the Liberals, a spoonful of sugar helps the carbon tax go down” ;  “Arguments against the carbon tax boil down to a desire to do nothing” (Oct. 24)   by Campbell Clark ; “Carbon tax vs. climate change will be an epic contest” by John Ibbitson  and “Trudeau’s carbon tax rebate is smart – but complicated”  by Chris Ragan of the Ecofiscal Commission . From Andrew Coyne in the National Post: “Liberals’ carbon tax plan has its faults — but who has a better option?”  and from Chris Hall of the CBC, “How the Liberals hope to escape the ‘Green Shift’ curse in 2019”  (Oct.23)  .

The National Observer provides some detail to the complex calculations of the backstop rebates of the Climate Action Incentive, but the detail is at the government’s webpage, Pricing Pollution: How it will work  which provides links to individual explainers for each province and territory.

Other Responses: Rabble.ca Elizabeth May of the Green Party of Canada ;  Canadians for Clean Prosperity ;  and the Smart Prosperity Institute , which also provides a compilation of reaction and reports .

There seems to be general agreement that it is politics, not economics, which will determine support for the carbon plan.  Ontario Premier Doug Ford has been making the rounds with other Conservative politicians in Canada to coordinate their messaging and opposition to the federal carbon tax – culminating in the introduction of Bill No. 132—The Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Amendment Act , 2018 in Saskatchewan on October 30, and on October 31, passage of Ontario’s Bill 4, The Cap and Trade Cancellation Act.  The National Observer describes the events of October 31 and summarizes the recent  political dance in “Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer play fast and loose with facts about carbon tax”  . Other press coverage: from the CBC:   “‘The worst tax ever’: Doug Ford and Jason Kenney hold campaign-style rally against carbon levy”  on Oct. 5 ;   “Doug Ford attacks ‘terrible tax’ on carbon alongside Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe” on Oct. 29; and  “Doug Ford meets Andrew Scheer as carbon tax war heats up”  on October 30, describing their meeting in Toronto.  The gist of their arguments:  the carbon tax is a money-grab which will “drive up the price of heating your home”, with Doug Ford stating “It’s just another Trudeau Liberal tax grab. It’s a job-killing, family-hurting tax. ”  After the rebate details were announced on October 23, Ford has added that the promised rebates are “a complete scam”, “trying to buy Canadians with their own money.”   But as iPolitics reported on October 26, “Ford gets his facts wrong while bashing federal carbon tax”  and  “Ford doubles down on falsehoods about federal carbon tax”  .  iPolitics cites the independent analysis of the carbon tax’s impact by  Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer, Ontario financial office cap and tradewhich supports the federal government’s numbers, and differs from Premier Ford’s public statements.  Meanwhile, the Ontario government promises to release their climate plan in November,  according to the Toronto Star   (Oct. 29), and Andrew Scheer also promises a climate plan “in 183 days”.

Research and opinion support a carbon tax for Canada

Carbon taxes continue to be a hot topic in Canada for many reasons, including the October Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report , the Nobel Prize in Economics  to William Nordhaus, and the report from Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer on October 16, which estimates that the cancelling the province’s cap and trade program will drive the provincial deficit up by $3 billion, ($841 million in the first fiscal year alone).  And as provinces rebel against the federal carbon pricing plans, the January 1 2019 deadline approaches, by which the federal government will impose its “backstop” carbon pricing on any province without it own equivalent carbon pricing regime in place.

In response to these developments, there are many responses.  Recent articles emphasize William Nordhaus’ work: for example, “Nordhaus Nobel Recognizes What We’ve Long Known: Carbon pricing works” by Scott Vaughan at the IISD ;  “Nobel award recognizes how economic forces can fight climate change” in The Conversation Canada (Oct. 9); “Hurricanes, hog manure and the dire need for carbon pricing” in The Conversation Canada (Oct. 14);  and “Opinion: To avoid catastrophic climate change we need carbon pricing” from the Ecofiscal Commission , one of Canada’s strongest proponents of carbon pricing.  From the horse’s mouth: “After Nobel in Economics, William Nordhaus Talks About Who’s Getting His Pollution-Tax Ideas Right”  (New York Times, Oct. 13),  in which William Nordhaus is interviewed by Coral Davenport and states:  “…. I think the model is British Columbia. .. It would have the right economic effects but politically not be so toxic. … British Columbia is not only well designed but has been politically successful.”

CARBON DIVIDENDS:  The issue of political acceptability of carbon taxes generated an academic discussion  in “Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes” by Carattini  , Carvalho and  Fankhauser  in  WiRES Climate Change  in June 2018.  In Canada, a change in vocabulary in taking hold. “Carbon Dividends could save carbon pricing – and create a new national climate consensus”  say Mark Cameron (from Canadians for Clean Prosperity) and David McLaughlin (from the International Institute of Sustainable Development) in the Globe and Mail .   The commissioned studies released by   Canadians for Clean Prosperity in September showed  that most  households, regardless of income level, would receive more money in the form of carbon dividend cheques than they would pay in carbon taxes under the backstop plan.  They have produced estimates for Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and New Brunswick, and maintain an online petition at a website called  Canadians for Carbon Dividends  .

rocky road tableIn  “The Rocky Road to Canada-wide Carbon Pricing,”  released by the C.D. Howe Institute on October 17,  author Tracy Snoddon from Wilfred Laurier University offers recommendations on how the revenues should be distributed after January 1, 2019, when the minimum carbon price backstop comes into force.  The author estimates carbon revenues of $ 2.8 billion in 2019 if the backstop was implemented in Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. She recommends that the federal government should impose the backstop price and return the revenues as an equal per-capita rebate to residents- with the justification that such an approach minimizes intrusion in provincial fiscal matters, reinforces the environmental goals  rather than revenue generation, and is most progressive in its  distributional impacts.  A summary appears in the C.D. Howe press release  and in  “C.D. Howe Institute throws its weight behind federal carbon tax” in the Globe and Mail (Oct. 19).

put a price on itFinally, a new organization launched in October. Put A Price On It Canada promotes carbon pricing as a solution to climate change – and asks “why does Canada need another group fighting for carbon pricing?”  The difference: it aspires to be a national network to empower students on university campuses – currently at Simon Fraser University, the University of Ottawa, University of Waterloo, and Carleton University.

So in response to the  National Observer Opinion piece on October 18, asking  “Is it time to torch the carbon tax debate?” , the answer seems to be a strong “no”.

Manitoba cancels its carbon tax, joining Ontario and Saskatchewan in opposition

On October 3, Manitoba’s Premier joined the Premiers of Ontario and Saskatchewan in opposing carbon taxes.  In  ” ‘We say no’: Manitoba defies Ottawa by killing its carbon tax plan” , the CBC reports that the government will introduce amending legislation in the week of October 8;  Its previous legislation, The Climate and Green Plan Implementation Act  (March 2018)  had set a carbon price of $25 per ton, and followed the Made-in-Manitoba Green Plan  submitted to fulfill the federal Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change agreement .  “The Drilldown: Carbon tax clash intensifies as Manitoba joins resistance”   in iPolitics  explains the Premier’s reasons;  “Feds on track to impose carbon price on growing number of provinces on Jan. 1“, also from iPolitics, gives more detail.

Activists force consultation re Ontario’s cap and trade policy as Environment Commissioner pans government’s actions to date

Ontario commissioner Report-Cover-In the annual Greenhouse Gas Reduction Progress Report for 2018, titled Climate Action in Ontario: what’s next? , the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has published a blunt critique of the Conservative government’s actions to date.

As was widely reported, the  government in Ontario (among other actions) tried to dismantle the province’s cap and trade program after its election, introducing  Bill 4, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act, 2018  on July 25 .  The Environmental Commissioner wrote:

 “Unfortunately, cap and trade was both complex and poorly communicated; for some, its costs were more obvious than its benefits. Today, cap and trade, the low-carbon programs that it funded, and 752 renewable energy projects have all been swept away, with nothing in their place. The government’s proposed replacement, the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act (Bill 4), currently lacks most of the features of a good climate law.…. There is no perfect answer, but the best international model for long-term consistency is the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Act. The U.K. Parliament sets legally binding long-term emission limits, plus five-year carbon budgets 12 years in advance, based on non-partisan, expert advice and reporting. Ontario should do the same.”

The Commissioner’s report includes appendices, including Appendix B: Revenue from cap and trade: What was it used for?

On September 11, environmental activists filed a lawsuit against Bill 4, alleging that it violates the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights because no public consultations were held on the  matter.  On the same day, a notice appeared in the Environmental Registry,  allowing  for comments online or in writing, until October 11.    EcoJustice, one of the groups behind the lawsuit, (along with Greenpeace  and the University of Ottawa) has posted a summary of all these developments on September 25 in “Let Premier Ford know where you stand on climate action”, urging comments.

Jumping in to this debate:  Canadians for Clean Prosperity, which commissioned a study to examine the costs and benefits of carbon “costs” (e.g. fuel and household heating) in Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, in the event that the federal carbon price backstop is triggered in 2019.  The author, Dave Sawyer of EnviroEconomics, concludes that most households, regardless of income, would receive more money through rebates than they would pay out through a carbon price, assuming that all fees are rebated to consumers.   The report summary is here ; the formal report is  Federal Carbon Price Impacts on Households in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario  .  An economist’s (Brendan Frank) explanation of the EnviroEconomics report appears in an  EcoFiscal Commission blog “How carbon dividends affect incentives (hint: they don’t)”  (Sept. 26).

Expert Panel proposes 54 measures for climate adaptation

The Expert Panel on Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience Results was commissioned  by the federal government in August 2017, and on June 26, the Panel released its report,  Measuring Progress on Adaptation and Climate Resilience.   The press release is here , the French version is here .

The mandate of the Expert Panel was to propose indicators to the Government of Canada to measure the overall progress on adaptation and climate resilience, aligned with the thematic pillars of the   Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. Accordingly, the Panel winnowed down their recommendations to 54 indicators, presented in five themes/chapters: Protecting and Improving Human Health and Well-Being; Supporting Particularly Vulnerable Regions; Reducing Climate-Related Hazards and Disaster Risks; Building Climate Resilience through Infrastructure; and Translating Scientific Information and Indigenous Knowledge into Action.   “It’s essential that Canadians act now’ on climate change: federal report” appeared in the National Observer as a summary.

Stepping briefly beyond the adaptation mandate, the report also states: “While the focus for this report is on monitoring and evaluating progress on climate change adaptation, the Expert Panel stresses the importance of Canada’s role in mitigating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and advocates for resilience measures that reflect the transition to a low carbon society.”

The Chair of the Expert Panel was Dr. Blair Feltmate, Head of the Intact Centre on Climate Adaptation at the University of Waterloo, Ontario.   The Panel members, listed here,    were drawn  from academia, Indigenous organizations and governments, the private sector, municipal government, NGO’s and the youth organization Starfish Canada .

Doug Ford has begun to dismantle Ontario’s climate leadership – Step 1, exit the cap-and-trade agreement

Doug FordAs a result of the provincial election on June 7, Progressive Conservative leader Doug Ford will take power as the premier of Ontario on  June 29, 2018.  Even before that hand-over date, he has begun to make the changes many feared –  announcing on June 15 that Ontario will exit the cap and trade market of the Western Climate Initiative (which includes California and Quebec)  and on June 19,  cancelling the $377-million Green Ontario Fund,  financed by the proceeds of cap-and-trade auctions and which provided consumer incentives for energy efficiency improvements.  On June 21, he committed to keep the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station in operation until 2024  –  in the name of protecting 4,500 local jobs and an additional 3,000 jobs province-wide.  Some general articles about the Ford government appeared in The Tyee  “Green hopes, NDP fears, and PC Dreams: The challenges that await Ontario in Ford Nation” (June 15);  “What does a Doug Ford victory mean for the climate?”  in The Narwhal (by DeSmog Canada),  and “Doug Ford’s Environmental policies light on details, advocates say” on CBC News (June 13).

Ford’s decision to end the cap and trade market has many implications – the possibility of lawsuits from investors and companies who had bought carbon credits, as well as a direct confrontation with the federal government, which requires all provinces to enact carbon pricing by 2019, under the Pan-Canadian Framework for Clean Energy and Climate Change.  Additionally, the federal government  just passed Bill C-74, which includes Part 5: The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act on June 14 , the day before Ford’s announcement.  For discussion of the carbon pricing issue, see  “Ontario’s Doug Ford says the province is abandoning its price on carbon pollution” in the National Observer (June 15) ;  “PC’s will end Ontario cap and trade program, Ford vows” in the Globe and Mail (June 15).  An official reaction from Environmental Defence is here , with more detail in their blog, “What you need to know about Ontario’s carbon pricing drama” . From the Ecofiscal Commission, “Tread Carefully: Ontario’s cap-and-trade system meets a fork in the road” (June 8) , and “Can Ontario hits its targets without carbon pricing?”  (June 21) , which discusses the two remaining options for reducing emissions: regulations and incentives.  Finally,  the arguments are summed up in the Unifor press release, “Unifor urges Premier-designate Doug Ford to maintain the cap and trade system” : “Workers in Ontario need forward-looking policies with the intention to build a green economy, but instead Ford announced his intention to cancel a successful program and pick an unnecessary fight with the federal government…. Workers accept that climate change is real and need our government to lead with a real, predictable plan to reduce emissions and grow green jobs.”

Energy efficiency programs can create 118,000 jobs per year in Canada, says new report

Less is more jobs map_20180501_TMA new report from a new organization:  on May 3, Clean Energy Canada announced that it had partnered with a new national policy organization, Efficiency Canada, to  publish a study of the economic impacts of energy efficiency for Canada.  The report’s title tells the story:   Less is More: A win for the economy, jobs, consumers, and our climate: energy efficiency is Canada’s unsung hero  .

There are two scenarios reported: The first, modelling energy efficiency programs in the Pan-Canadian Framework (“PCF”) , estimates that every $1 spent on energy efficiency programs generates $7 of GDP,  and an average of 118,000 jobs per year will be created between 2017 and 2030.  Jobs would be spread across the country and the economy, with about half of new jobs produced in  the construction, trade and manufacturing sectors, peaking in 2027 and 2028.  The  overall economic impact is largely driven by energy cost savings – for  consumers,  $1.4 billion per year (which  translates into $114 per year per household).  For business, industry and institutions, the savings are estimated at  $3.2 billion each year.  Importantly, the PCF energy efficiency programs could  reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by approximately 52 Mt by 2030, or 25% of Canada’s Paris commitments.

For the second, more ambitious policy scenario, “PCF+”, the net increase in GDP grows to $595 billion, employment gains are  over 2,443,500 job-years in total from 2017 to 2030, and  greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by 79 Mt, or 39% of Canada’s Paris commitment.

Less is More is only 8 pages long.  The detailed results, as well as explanation of the modelling assumptions, are found in the Technical Report ,  produced by Dunsky Energy Consulting of Montreal, commissioned by Clean Energy Canada and Efficiency Canada.  The technical report  modelled the net economic impacts of energy efficiency measures related to  homes, buildings and industry (not included: the transportation sector, nor  electrification and fuel switching in the building sector). Modelling was done for two scenarios: implementation of programs in  the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change (PCF), and a PCF+ scenario, which includes all the PCF programs plus  “best in class” efficiency efforts , derived from exemplary programs across North America.

Efficiency Canada , the national policy organization launched on May 3, is  based at Carleton University in Ottawa and is the new incarnation of the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance.  From the new website: “Efficiency Canada advocates to make our country a global leader in energy efficiency. We convene people from across Canada’s economy to work together to advance policies required to take full advantage of energy efficiency. And we communicate the best research out there to build a more productive economy, sustainable environment, and socially just Canada.”   To read their full story, go to their webpage, Who is Efficiency Canada ?

Even before the Kinder Morgan fight, Canada is falling short on its climate goals

As we have noted in previous posts in the WCR  , many voices have warned that Canada’s progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is falling short of its commitments under the Paris Agreement.  Three recent reports provide more evidence.

On March 27,  Perspectives on Climate Change Action in Canada—A Collaborative Report from Auditors General—March 2018  was released by the federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development and for the first time ever, compiles the findings of the federal and provincial Auditors –General, with the exception of Quebec, which did not participate.  The results are presented for each province, and summarized as: Seven out of 12 provincial and territorial governments did not have overall targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions; governments have different targets from each other, and of those that have targets, only two (New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) are on track to meet their targets. Most governments had not fully assessed climate change risks, and their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions consist of high-level goals, with little guidance on how to implement actions.  At the federal level, the report states: “ even though Environment and Climate Change Canada was the federal lead on climate change, the Department did not provide the leadership, guidance, and tools to other departments and agencies to help them assess their risks and adapt to climate change. Moreover, only 5 federal departments and agencies of the 19 examined undertook comprehensive assessments of the climate change risks to their mandates.”  There was limited coordination of climate change action within most governments. Some governments were not reporting on progress in a regular and timely manner.

The second analysis is from the Pembina Institute, which partnered with the Energy Innovation of San Francisco to develop the Energy Policy Simulator (EPS), an economic modelling tool to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of  energy and climate policies for Canada. Enhancing Canada’s Climate Commitments: Building on the Pan-Canadian Framework applies the Energy Policy Simulator to three different policy scenarios, including the Pan-Canadian Framework for Clean Growth and Climate Change   , and concludes “ that even if the PCF is fully implemented, 2030 emissions will exceed Canada’s goal by 161 million metric tons (MMT), a gap 3.7 times larger than the 44 MMT shortfall predicted by Canada’s government. Extending and strengthening PCF policies would allow Canada to come much closer to its target, save money, and save human lives.”  The Energy Policy Simulator is offered here  as a free, open-source app available for other researchers to use.

Finally, the devil is in the details when author Barry Saxifrage of the National Observer took a close look at the federal government’s report to the UNFCC in December 2017, the 7th National Communications report. In “Canada’s climate gap twice as big as claimed – 59 million tonne carbon snafu” (March 27)  , the author contends that “The Trudeau government says its proposed climate policies will get Canada to within 66 million tonnes of our 2030 climate target. That’s already a big gap, but the federal accounting also assumes we can subtract a huge chunk of Canada’s emissions.”  That “huge chunk” refers to a further 59 MtCO2 of carbon emissions which the government omits to tally as part of our Canadian emissions, presuming that offsets will be purchased by Ontario and Quebec through their participation in the cap and trade market of the Western Climate Initiative with California. So far, the U.S. has not agreed to such an arrangement.

On a more optimistic note, a new report states:  “Canada can reach its 2030 target if the federal, provincial and territorial governments implement climate policies in a timely and rigorous way. The Pan-Canadian Framework has the policy tools needed to achieve the target but measures will have to be ratcheted up to fill the 66 million tonne gap.” In  Canada’s Climate Change Commitments: Deep Enough?  ,authors Dave Sawyer and Chris Bataille use economic modelling to show that Canada could honour its Paris GHG reduction commitment (30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030) and still achieve GDP growth of at least 38 per cent. They compare this to a GDP growth of 39% if Canada took no action to reduce greenhouse gases.   The report calls for transformation changes, specifically: Building exclusively net-zero energy homes, i.e. buildings that generate as much energy as they consume. • The electrification of transportation, so that cars, trucks and trains can be powered by renewable energy rather than oil, which contributes to climate change. • Wholesale shifts away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. • Driving down energy needs by making industry, buildings and vehicles more energy efficient. • Embracing the full potential of energy storage to maximize the use of renewable electricity and building infrastructure to trade  that electricity between jurisdictions.

Canada’s Climate Change Commitments: Deep Enough?  was released on April 12 jointly by four environmental advocacy organizations: Environmental Defence, Climate Action Network, The Pembina Institute, and the Conservation Council Of New Brunswick.

 

Federal budget gets high marks for conservation initiatives but disappoints on green economy spending

Budget 2018, Equality + Growth: A Strong Middle Class   was tabled by the federal government on February 27.  The Globe and Mail published a concise overview in  “Federal budget highlights: Twelve things you need to know” .  A compilation of reaction and analysis from the Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis is here , including statements from CCPA partner organizations such as the United Steelworkers   and the Canadian Labour Congress.

budget_analysis 2018The section of the Budget which relates most to a low carbon economy is in Chapter 4: Advancement .  The Budget commits an unprecedented $1.3 billion over 5 years for conservation partnerships and the protection of lands, waters, and species at risk – prompting the Pew Trust in the U.S. to call the biodiversity targets “an example to the world” in  “With earth in peril, Canada steps up” .  Responses from the 19 environmental advocacy members of the Green Budget Coalition are compiled here , applauding the  “historic” and “landmark” investments in the Budget.  DeSmog Canada summarizes the provisions, which aim to protect 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans by 2020 under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, and commit to recognizing  Indigenous leadership.

But on the climate change front?

The National Observer writes: “Budget delivers new conservation fund but avoids climate commitments” (Feb. 27) , highlighting the Budget allocations announced for the  the  $2.6 Billion Low Carbon Economy Fund  (announced in 2016) : $420 million will go to Ontario, for retrofitting houses and reducing emissions from farms;  $260 million will go to  Quebec for farming and forestry best practices, as well as energy retrofitting, and incentives for industry;  $162 million will go to British Columbia, partly for reforestation of public forests; $150 million will go to Alberta for energy efficiency programs for farmers and ranchers, for  renewable energy in Indigenous communities, and for restoring forests after wildfires;  $51 million is going to New Brunswick and $56 million to Nova Scotia for energy retrofitting. Allocations for Manitoba will be announced later, and for Saskatchewan if it signs on to the Pan-Canadian Framework.

The Pembina Institute reaction is also fairly positive in  “Budget 2018 builds on last year’s commitment to climate change” . “We are pleased to see that Budget 2018 allocates $109 million over five years to develop, implement, administer, and enforce the federal carbon pollution pricing system. …Another $20 million over five years is allocated to fulfill the PCF’s (Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change) commitment to assess the effectiveness of its measures and identify best practices. ”

Less positive reaction:  “Council of Canadians disappointed by Trudeau government’s budget 2018” (Feb.27), which  points out that the government has allocated $600 million to host the G7 summit in June 2018 in Quebec,  yet the Budget fails to phase out subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, as it committed to at the G20 meetings and in the October 2015 election.  Elizabeth May of the Green Party also “laments squandered opportunities” and points out that “Budget 2018 does not touch subsidies to fossil fuels in the oil patch and for fracked natural gas”.

In advance of Budget 2018, the Canadian Labour Congress published “What Canada’s unions would like to see in the federal budget” – a broad perspective which included a call for “a  bold green economic program of targeted investments over the next five years for renewable energy development and infrastructure” … and “ the establishment of Just Transition training and adjustment funds for workers affected by climate change and the transition to a low-carbon economy, automation, the digitisation of work, and job losses caused by trade agreements like CETA.” The CLC response  to the actual Budget emphasizes the positive  developments on issues like pharmacare and pay equity, but is silent on the green economy issues. Canadian Union of Public Employees’ reaction is similar.

 

Manitoba joins the Pan-Canadian Framework, leaving Saskatchewan the odd-man-out

Facing a deadline of February 28 to qualify for approximately $67 million in federal funding through the  Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the province of Manitoba announced on February 23 that it will sign on to the Framework agreement.  However, the province will not compromise on its flat $25-a-tonne carbon price, as outlined in its Made-in-Manitoba climate policy document (October 2017).  Manitoba’s letter announcing its adoption of the Pan-Canadian Framework is here .  The federal government’s letter welcoming  Manitoba is here , stating that Manitoba will only be in compliance with the carbon pricing provisions until 2019. Ottawa has stated that it will review each province’s carbon price plan every year starting in 2019, thus postponing until then any further conflict over the federal standard of a $50 per tonne carbon price . Details of the $2Billion Low Carbon Economy Fund, for which Manitoba now qualifies,are here.

According to a CBC report (Feb. 26), Saskatchewan is now the only province not part of the Pan-Canadian Framework, and the federal government is “just waiting” and hoping that they will commit.  New Premier Scott Moe, so far, is holding to the policies outlined in Prairie Resilience: A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy, released in December 2017 under previous Premier Brad Wall – a strong opponent of a carbon tax.

Federal government releases detailed proposals for Canada’s carbon pricing system, including output-based pricing for industrial emitters

On January 15, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Finance issued a press release  announcing the full draft legislative proposals relating to the carbon pricing system. Public comment will be accepted until February 12, 2018.   The full text of  Legislative and Regulatory Proposals Relating to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and Explanatory Notes are in English  and French versions . Comment on the legislative proposals will be accepted until April 9, 2018, with “structured engagement” and consultation with provinces and territories, Indigenous Peoples, environmental non-governmental organizations, industry, and business promised over the Winter/Spring of 2018.

Minister McKenna also released for comment the proposed regulatory framework for carbon pricing for large industrial facilities – an Output-based Pricing System (OBPS), with the aim “to minimize competitiveness risks for emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industrial facilities, while retaining the carbon price signal and incentive to reduce GHG emissions.   Emission sources covered by OBPS will include fuel combustion, industrial process, flaring, and some venting and fugitive sources – but notably, “Methane venting and methane fugitive emissions from oil and gas facilities will not be subject to pricing under the OBPS.”  The system will include emissions of all seven of the UNFCCC-designated greenhouse gases, “to the extent practicable” – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. Details are  in Carbon pricing: regulatory framework for the output-based pricing system  (French version here) , and  build on the Technical Paper : Federal Carbon Pricing Backstop (French version here) , released in May 2017.

Leading up to the January release, the federal government had released clarification about the timing of  the planned backstop carbon pricing mechanism on December 20, 2017 – it  will come into effect by January 2019, bringing the carbon price to $20 per tonne in any jurisdiction that doesn’t meet the federal benchmark.  Full details are set out in:  Supplemental Benchmark GuidanceTimelines , and the Letter to Ministers . Generally positive reaction followed, from the Pembina Institute  and  Clean Energy Canada.

Initial reaction/summary of the proposed legislation released on January 15:  “Ottawa’s new carbon pricing plan will reward clean companies” from CBC,  and from the Globe and Mail, “Ottawa prepares to relax carbon-pricing measures to aid industry competitiveness” .  More substantive comment comes from the National Observer, in  “Trudeau government explains how it will make polluters pay” (Jan. 15).  Reaction from Environmental Defence came from Keith Brooks , who calls the proposed plan “an effective and fair pan-Canadian carbon pricing system.”  Reaction from  Clean Energy Canada is similar.

Meanwhile, in Alberta: Note also that the province of Alberta released their new Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation (CCIR) for large industrial emitters in December 2017, also based on an output-based allocation system.  Carbon Competitiveness Incentive regulations replaced the current Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) on Jan 1, 2018, and will be phased in over 3 years.  It’s expected to cut emissions by 20 million tonnes by 2020, and 50 million tonnes by 2030.  Favourable testimonials from the oil and gas, wind energy, and cement industry are quoted in the government press release on December 6.

To explain output-based carbon pricing, the Ecofiscal Commission published Output-Based Pricing: Theory and Practice in the Canadian context , by Dave Sawyer and Seton Stiebert of EnviroEconomics in early December.  The highlights of the paper are summarized here, with a discussion of the pros and cons and challenges of implementation, with special attention to Alberta’s provisions.

Canada’s progress on emissions reduction: New reports from OECD, UNFCCC , and policy discussion

An excellent overview article about Canada’s  “staggering challenge” and policy options to meet its emissions reduction targets appeared in The Conversation on January  11, 2018),  written by Warren Mabee, Director of the  Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen’s University and a Co-Investigator in  the Adapting Canadian Work and Workplaces to Respond to Climate Change (  ACW) project.   “How your online shopping is impeding Canada’s emissions targets”  outlines  the issues of clean electricity, transportation emissions (where your online shopping can make a difference), greener homes,  and rethinking fossil resources, and concludes that  “If we’re to succeed, Canada will need an integrated, holistic suite of policies – and we need them to be in place soon.”

oecd-environmental-performance-reviews-canada-2017_9789264279612-enOther recent publications take stock of Canada’s emissions reductions in greater detail.  In its  3rd Environmental Performance Review for Canada released on December 19, the OECD warns that  “Without a drastic decrease in the emissions intensity of the oilsands industry, the projected increase in oil production may seriously risk the achievement of Canada’s climate mitigation targets… …“Canada is the fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the OECD [in absolute terms], and emissions show no sign of falling yet.”  Canada’s emissions actually did decrease since the last report was issued in 2004, but only by 1.5 per cent compared to reduction of 4.7 per cent by the OECD as a whole.  In addition to the impact of oil sands production, the OECD singles out a regime of poor tax incentives: “Petrol and diesel taxes for road use are among the lowest in the OECD, fossil fuels used for electricity and heating remain untaxed or taxed at low rates in most jurisdictions, and the federal excise tax on fuel-inefficient vehicles is an ineffective incentive to purchase low-emission vehicles.”

The OECD analysis finds support in a report from two researchers from the University of Toronto, in “How the oil sands make our GHG targets unachievable”   in Policy Options.  They state: “… only with a complete phase-out of oil production from the oil sands, elimination of coal for electricity generation, significant replacement of natural-gas-fuelled electricity generation with electricity from carbon-free sources, and stringent efficiency measures in all other sectors of the economy could Canada plausibly meet its 30 percent target.” The authors recommend a  gradual (12-to-15-year) phase-out of oil sands operations, with workers and capital redeployed to emerging sectors  such as renewable energy and building retrofits, and contend that  the importance of oil sands production is overstated. “….  the direct contribution of the entire oil, gas and mining sector to Alberta’s 2016 GDP was 16.4 percent, of which oil sands mining and processing was likely about one-third (or 5 to 6 percent of total provincial GDP)” ….and oil sands oil production is estimated to account for only 2 percent of Canadian GDP.”

Yet the federal government continues the difficult balancing act of a  “have-it-all” approach – for example, in a speech by Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr  in November 2017, in which he defended the approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline with: “We need to prepare for the future, but we must deal with the present …..That means continuing to support our oil and gas resources even as we develop alternatives – including solar, wind and tidal…. new pipelines will diversify our markets, be built with improved environmental safety and create thousands of good middle-class jobs, including in Indigenous communities. They were the right decisions then and they are the right ones now. ” A recent blog by Patrick DeRochie of Environmental Defence, “Trudeau Thinks We Can Expand Oil And Still Reduce Carbon. Let’s Put That To A Test” , challenges this view .

On December 29, Canada issued a press release announcing that it has submitted its Seventh National Communication and Third Biennial Report to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , required by the UNFCCC to document progress towards its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 30% reduction from 2005 levels.  The title of the government press release, “Canada’s Climate action is Working, Report to United Nations Confirms” is justified by including estimates of the effects of policies still under development in a “with additional measures scenario”. Under that scenario, the government forecasts an emissions decline across all economic sectors,  equivalent to approximately a third of Canada’s emissions in 2015 by 2030… ”

Meanwhile, the federal government has released a number of announcements and legislative proposals in December 2017 and January 2018. Regarding  the planned carbon pricing backstop under the Pan-Canadian Framework, which will come into effect by January 2019:  Details are set out in:  Supplemental Benchmark Guidance   Timelines ,  and the Letter to Ministers in December, and on January 15, the  proposed carbon backstop  legislative framework was released as Legislative and Regulatory Proposals Relating to the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and Explanatory Notes (French version here) .  Also on January 15, the federal government released for comment the proposed regulatory framework for  carbon pricing for large industrial facilities – an Output-based Pricing System (OBPS) described in more detail in a separate WCR post here.

On December 12, the  Clean Fuel Standard Regulatory Framework was released for comment.  The government has also committed to developing a national strategy for zero emission vehicles in 2018 to increase the supply of zero-emission vehicles.

Also on December 12, and capping six months of consultation under the banner Generation Energy,  the Minister of Natural Resources announced the creation of a 14-member Generation Energy Council to be co-chaired by Merran Smith,  Executive Director of Clean Energy Canada, and Linda Coady, Chief Sustainability Officer at Enbridge. (Bios of all members are here ). The council is tasked with preparing a  report to advise the government on an “ energy policy that ensures meaningful engagement with Indigenous peoples; aligns with Canada’s Paris Agreement commitments and the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change; and complements the work being done by the provinces and territories, building on the shared priorities identified at the Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Meeting at the Forum.”

 

 

 

 

New Brunswick’s new Climate Change Act unlikely to meet the federal carbon pricing benchmark

The government of New Brunswick introduced its Climate Change Act on December 14, 2017. According to the government press release ,   the province will adopt the federal government’s intensity targets for the 10 large industrial emitters in the province,  and  will redirect existing taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel – but not heating fuel –  to a new Climate Change Fund.  It forecasts that in 2018, 2.33 cents per litre of existing gasoline taxes and 2.76 cents per litre of existing diesel fuel taxes will be transferred to the Climate Change Fund, amounting to about $37 million, to be invested in infrastructure adaptation and energy efficiency improvements for homes, business, industry and transportation.  For details, see the government Backgrounder  and see the CBC analysis “Liberals’ sleight-of-hand carbon tax formally proposed in climate bill “(Dec. 14) for summary and reaction.  In  “Legislation misses mark on protecting families and communities from worst of climate change impacts in N.B.” , the Conservation Council of New Brunswick calls the government plan “an uninspiring follow-up to last December’s climate change action plan , which was a smart road map for climate action and job creation that was among the best in the country…. we have legislation that largely maintains the status quo and sets us on a race to the bottom when it comes to protecting the health and safety of New Brunswickers and taking advantage of the economic opportunities that come with ambitious climate action.”

The National Observer summarizes the reaction from the federal government  in “New Brunswick defends climate plan against McKenna’s concerns”, quoting the Minister’s  Facebook post which reiterated the federal position that it will impose a carbon tax on any jurisdiction which falls short of federal carbon pricing benchmarks under the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.  In a separate statement on December 15 , the Minister extended the deadline for provincial compliance till the end of 2018.

First year progress report on the Pan-Canadian Framework lacks any mention of Just Transition

pan-canadian framework on clean growth coverOn December 9th, the Governments of Canada and British Columbia jointly announced the first annual progress report on the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change – officially titled,  the First Annual Synthesis Report on the Status of Implementation – December 2017 (English version)  and Premier rapport annuel du cadre pancanadien sur la croissance propre et les changements climatiques (French version).     The report summarizes the year’s policy developments at the federal and provincial/territorial  level – under the headings pricing carbon pollution ; complementary actions to reduce emissions;  adaptation and climate change resilience ; clean technology, innovation and jobs; reporting and oversight; and looking ahead.  It is striking that the report is up to date enough to include mention of the Saskatchewan climate change strategy, released on December 4, as well as the Powering Past Coal global alliance launched by Canada and Great Britain in November at the Bonn climate talks – yet in the section on “Looking Ahead”, there is no mention of another important outcome of the Bonn talks: a Just Transition Task Force in Canada.  As reported by the Canadian Labour Congress in “Unions applaud Canada’s commitment to a just transition for coal workers”,  “Minister McKenna also announced her government’s intention to work directly with the Canadian Labour Congress to launch a task force that will develop a national framework on Just Transition for workers affected by the coal phase-out. The work of this task force is slated to begin early in the new year.”  No  mention of that, nor in fact, any use of the term “Just Transition” anywhere in the government’s progress report.

Environment Canada touts ‘good progress’ on climate after scathing audit” appeared in the National Oberserver (Dec. 11), summarizing some of the progress report highlights and pointing out that not everyone agrees with the government’s self-assessment that “While good progress has been made to date, much work remains”. Recent criticism has come from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in her October report ; from Marc Lee at the Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis in “Canada is still a rogue state on climate change”  (Dec.11) ; and from the Pembina Institute in  State of the Framework: Tracking implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change .  The Pembina Institute report calls on the federal government to speed up on all policy fronts, with specific recommendations including: “extend the pan-Canadian carbon price up to $130 per tonne of pollution by 2030, implement Canada-wide zero emission vehicle legislation, ban the sale of internal combustion engines, and establish long-term energy efficiency targets.”

Saskatchewan’s new Climate Strategy maintains old positions: No to carbon tax, yes to Carbon Capture and Storage

Prairie Resilience: A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy was released by the government of Saskatchewan on December 4,  maintaining the province’s  position outside the Pan-Canadian Framework  agreement  with this introductory statement:    “A federal carbon tax is ineffective and will impair Saskatchewan’s ability to respond to climate change.”  A summary of all the strategy commitments appears as  a “Backgrounder” from this link.  An Opinion column in the Regina Leader Post newspaper summarizes it as  a “repackaging” of past policies, and “oil over the environment”.

The provincial government defends their plan as “broader and bolder than a single policy such as a carbon tax and will achieve better and more meaningful outcomes over the long term” by encouraging innovation and investment – and yes, that Prairie spirit of independent resilience.  The strategy includes provisions re protecting communities through physical infrastructure investment,  water system management, energy efficiency for buildings and freight, and disaster management.   It commits to “maintain and enhance partnerships with First Nations and Métis communities to address and adapt to a changing climate through actions that are guided by traditional ecological knowledge.”   In the electricity sector, which at 19% is the third largest source of emissions, it proposes  to introduce regulations governing emissions from electricity generation by SaskPower and Independent Power Producers; meet a previous commitment of up to 50 per cent electricity capacity from renewables; and “determine the viability of extending carbon capture use and storage technology to remaining coal power plants while continuing to work with partners on the potential application for  CCUS technology globally.”    The Strategy is still open to consultation on the regulatory standards and implementation details, with a goal of implementation on January 1, 2019.  Consultation is likely to reflect the state of public opinion on climate change issues as revealed by the Corporate Mapping Project  in Climate Politics in the Patch: Engaging Saskatchewan’s Oil-Producing Communities on Climate Change Issues. The participants in that  study “were largely dismissive over concerns about climate change, were antagonistic towards people they understood as urban environmentalists and Eastern politicians, and believed that the oil industry was already a leader in terms of adopting environmentally sound practices.”      The oil and gas industry is Saskatchewan’s largest emitter, at 32% of emissions in 2015.  For an informed reaction, see Brett Dolter’s article in Policy Options, “How Saskatchewan’s Climate Change Strategy falls short”  (December 11).

sask-power-boundary-damOn the issue of carbon capture and storage:  The Climate Strategy document released on December 4 states a commitment to:  “determine the viability of extending carbon capture use and storage technology to remaining coal power plants while continuing to work with partners on the potential application for  CCUS technology globally.” On December 1, CBC reported that Saskatchewan had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Montana, North Dakota, and Wyoming  to “share knowledge, policy and regulatory expertise in carbon dioxide capture, transportation, storage and applications such as enhanced oil recovery.”  By late 2017 or early 2018, SaskPower is required to make its recommendation on whether  two units at the Boundary Dam will be retired, or retrofitted to capture carbon and storage (CCS) by 2020.  As reported by the CBC , the research of economist Brett Dolter at the University of Regina has found  that conversion to natural gas power generation would cost about 16% of the cost of continuing with CCS ($2.7 billion to replace all remaining coal-fired plants with natural gas plants, compared to  $17 billion to retrofit all coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage.)  The final decision will need to  consider the economic implications for approximately 1,100 Saskatchewan coal workers, and isn’t expected until a replacement for Premier Brad Wall  has been chosen after his retirement in late January 2018.

For more details:  “Saskatchewan, 3 U.S. states sign agreement on carbon capture, storage” at CBC News (Dec. 1) ; “SaskPower’s carbon capture future hangs in the balance” at CBC News (Nov 23)  , and  “Saskatchewan Faces Tough Decision on Costly Boundary Dam CCS Plant” in The Energy Mix (Nov. 28).

Canadian government is falling short of GHG emissions targets, needs a plan to phase out fossil fuel subsidies

On October 3, Canada’s  Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development tabled highly critical audit reports in the House of Commons.  From the  Commissioner’s press release  : “the government’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have fallen short of its target and that overall, it is not preparing to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Only five of 19 government organizations had fully assessed their climate change risks and acted to address them.” … “Many departments have an incomplete picture of their own risks, and the federal government as a whole does not have a full picture of its climate change risks. If Canada is to adapt to a changing climate, stronger leadership is needed from Environment and Climate Change Canada, along with increased initiative from individual departments.”   The Commissioner also criticized the Department of Finance and Environment and Climate Change Canada for a “disconcerting lack of real results” towards meeting  Canada’s G20 commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

The CBC reports on reaction and press conference remarks; the National Observer ran two articles, “Watchdog finds Canada ‘nowhere near’ ready for climate risks” and  “Parliamentary watchdogs conducting nationwide climate audits“, which reports that, for the first time, Auditors General are conducting climate change audits of all federal, provincial and territorial governments, working together to develop reports for their respective jurisdictions and a summary report of national performance on mitigation and adaptation.

The October 2017 federal  audit reports are all available in English and in French. The relevant reports are: Progress on Reducing Greenhouse Gases—Environment and Climate Change Canada ; Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change; Funding Clean Energy Technologies; and  Departmental Progress in Implementing Sustainable Development Strategies. The archive of previous reports is here .

Nova Scotia introduces Cap-and-Trade legislation

A press release on September 29  announced that the Nova Scotia government has introduced amendments to the Environment Act, enabling regulations to set caps on GHG emissions, distribute and enable trading of emission allowances within the province, and set a province-wide greenhouse gas emission target for 2030.  The province will create a Green Fund to support climate change initiatives and innovations, and  money from emissions sales and fines will be deposited there.  Next steps include “developing greenhouse gas reporting regulations this fall and consulting with stakeholders on them”.

The amending legislation, Bill 15, received first Reading in the Legislature on September 29 as a means to satisfy the requirement of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.   However, reaction from the Ecology Action Centre in Halifax urges the federal government to reject the plan, stating that “A carbon pricing system that doesn’t actually put a price on carbon, support low-income people, or incentivize clean growth truly misses the point.” The EAC also warns of the risks of extreme volatility since the plan is structured to create a carbon market within Nova Scotia alone – covering a population of under a million people and about 20 businesses. In  “Time for Ottawa to cry foul over Nova Scotia cap-and-trade proposal” published in the Hill Times and reposted at Pembina (Nov. 2) , the verdict is similarly negative: “Nova Scotia’s cap-and-trade system could cause the province to lose its foothold on climate leadership. In order to secure a clean, prosperous economy into the future, the provincial government should consider other approaches.”

The Ecology Action website has compiled documents and submissions from the provincial consultations leading up to the September announcement. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Nova Scotia Office published a Backgrounder in May 2017 which outlines its proposals for a stronger cap-and-trade policy.

$2 Billion Low-Carbon Economy Fund announced, but Saskatchewan headed in a different direction

On June 15, Canada’s  Federal Environment and Climate Minister announced  details of the  government’s five-year, $2-billion Low Carbon Economy Fund , to support the goals of  the  Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.  The Low Carbon Economy Fund consists of two parts: the larger, Leadership Fund of  $1.4 billion, for projects proposed by  provinces and territories that have signed on  Pan-Canadian Framework , and the Low Carbon Economy Challenge, which  will be launched in fall 2017,  to support projects submitted by all provinces and territories, municipalities, Indigenous governments and organizations, businesses and both not-for-profit and for-profit organizations.  As described in “’Only fair’: McKenna on excluding Saskatchewan, Manitoba from $2B carbon fund” , Manitoba and Saskatchewan must sign on to the Pan-Canadian Framework by December 2017 to be eligible to receive any funding .

geothermalA CBC report summarizes the response by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall – who states, “”If this fund, which Saskatchewan taxpayers have helped create, is really about reducing carbon emissions, how does withholding those funds for green initiatives in Saskatchewan help that objective?”  Saskatchewan objects to the carbon tax mandate of the Pan-Canadian Framework, and has directed its climate change fight to carbon capture and storage, and more recently, Canada’s first geothermal power plant.  The press release from SaskPower regarding the geothermal power purchase agreement is here. Read  this article from DeSmog blog for a wide-ranging description of Saskatchewan’s energy policy and the announcement of its geothermal plant.

Federal government releases “Backstop” policies for provinces not already pricing carbon – Comment period open till June 30

As part of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the federal government had outlined the  Pan-Canadian Approach to Pricing Carbon Pollution,  a national carbon pricing system with mandatory benchmarks for each province.  Most provinces, representing 97% of the population, already have, or are in the process of designing, their own systems – British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia (in process).   On May 18, the Government of Canada addressed the remaining 3%  – most notably in the province of Saskatchewan –  with the release of its Technical Paper on the Federal Carbon Pricing Backstop .

The “Backstop” refers to the fact that the policies  will only apply to provinces that do not have a carbon pricing system of their own  in place by 2018.  The proposal is composed of two parts:  a levy on fossil fuels, and a cap and trade system,  patterned after Alberta’s output-based allocation system, to price pollution from industry.  The levy system would include solid, liquid and gaseous fossil fuels: gasoline, diesel fuel, natural gas, coal and coke – and notably, aviation fuel.  Rates would initially be set for 2018 to 2022, progressing with $10 per tonne increments annually from $10 per tonne of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) in 2018 to $50 per tonne in 2022.  The federal commits to  return direct revenues from the carbon levy to the jurisdiction of origin, but there is flexibility about how the provinces can redirect that revenue.

UPDATE:  The EcoFiscal Commission released a helpful blog post on May 24: Explaining Output-Based Allocations (OBAs),  with a promise of a further explainer about the pitfalls of OBAs, to be released soon.

Public comments about the proposals are accepted until June 30, 2017, at Carbonpricing-tarificationcarbone@canada.ca and will be used to design the final carbon system and enabling legislation and regulations.  A sampling of reaction (below)  gives the government high marks for protecting Canadian competitiveness while reducing emissions.

“Is Canada’s carbon-pricing policy striking the right balance?” (May 18) in the Globe and Mail is a general affirmation of the federal proposals by three experts from varied points of view: Christopher Ragan (Chair of the Ecofiscal Commission), Peter Robinson (CEO of the David Suzuki Foundation), and  Steve Williams ( CEO of Suncor Energy).  A business response, in a press release from  TD Economics, covers similar ground: “ Feds Stick to their carbon- pricing guns” (May 18).  It states: “Botton Line: Carbon pricing is the most efficient way of reducing emissions, and today’s announcement should help Canada achieve meaningful emissions reductions. However, follow-through post-2022 will be crucial to achieving the 2030 target. The details of the carbon pricing backstop strike a good balance, providing clear incentives for emissions reduction while taking competitiveness issues into account, recognizing that a large industrial base cannot be “turned on a dime” and will continue to face competition from non-carbon priced jurisdictions.”

From environmental advocacy groups : In “Five things to know about Ottawa’s carbon pricing plan” , Clean Energy Canada highlights the similarities of the Alberta and Saskatchewan economies, and commends the output-based credit system, saying “there’s no question that a made-in-Alberta approach will also fit Saskatchewan’s economy very well.”  Clean Energy notes that the open question of distribution of revenues will cause much future debate, as will working out the details of the allocations for heavy industry, due by 2019.

The Pembina Institute response, “Ottawa taking carbon pricing cues from provinces”  also commends the output-based allocation system, and concludes:  “It’s worth taking a moment to celebrate how far we’ve come as a country – in large part due to the vision and ambition of provincial premiers – and to reflect on how to maintain this momentum despite choppy international waters.”

The elephant is the room that everyone is talking about is the anticipated court challenge from the government of Saskatchewan, whose Premier Brad Wall has stated that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to enact a federal carbon price, and who likened  the Technical paper to “a ransom note.”   The Globe and Mail summarizes the tension in “Ottawa, Saskatchewan brace for battle over carbon pricing” .  The Pembina Institute has published a  Q& A interview with Professor Nathalie Chalifour of the University of Ottawa, who also wrote  “The feds have every legal right to set a carbon price” in October 2016 in iPolitics .

Saskatchewan’s preferred route to emissions reduction was clearly laid out in its White Paper on Climate Change released in October 2016, which states: “We should be focusing our efforts on innovation and adaptation, not taxation” – “innovation” largely meaning Saskatchewan’s investment in carbon capture and storage.  And while CBC reports  that Saskatchewan environmental groups are backing the federal Technical paper, there is widespread support for the Premier’s opposition.  According to a CBC report in March, the  Saskatchewan Taxpayers Federation,  the Saskatchewan Heavy Construction Association, and the United Steelworkers Local 5890, sent Prime Minister Trudeau a  joint letter outlining how a federal carbon tax would hurt Western Canada.  In  a CBC report on May 19, ‘You can’t buy a Prius and move dirt’: Critics say carbon tax will punish industry , those two industry groups make the case that  “there aren’t green alternatives for building roads, hauling trailers and working with heavy machinery.”

 

 

Carbon pricing in Canada: Recent research, and implementation in Alberta and Ontario

Research about carbon pricing continues in the effort to implement the Pan-Canadian Framework.   In November,  Carbon Pricing and Intergovernmental Relations in Canada was released by the Institute for Research on Public Policy,  evaluating  the federal government’s national carbon pricing plan to that point (i.e. before the announcement of the Pan-Canadian Framework ), with an emphasis on the flexibility required for provincial differences. It then discusses the intergovernmental coordination in other policy fields in Canada ( income taxes, goods and services taxes, and environmental standards) as a possible model for carbon pricing.

As part of the Pan-Canadian Framework in December , the comprehensive  Final Report of the Working Group on Carbon Pricing Mechanisms  was released, providing an overview of Canadian and international practice, as well as a discussion of principles for design and implementation.

Finally, a report about British Columbia, the home of Canada’s first carbon tax. A  December report modelled the impact of the 2016 provincial Climate Leadership Plan and a federal carbon price on GHG emissions. It concludes that even  if all provincial policies were implemented,  B.C.’s emissions will exceed the targets for 2020 and for 2050. The report provides a breakdown of emissions by sector and forecasts that the largest single source of emissions in 2050 will be from shale gas operations and liquefied natural gas projects.  Modelling the Impact of the Climate Leadership Plan and Federal Carbon Price on British Columbia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions  was commissioned by Clean Energy Canada,  the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and the Pembina Institute, with analysis by Navius Research.

In the meantime, two provinces have moved ahead with previously announced policies. Alberta’s carbon levy came into effect on January 1, 2017, cushioned by the government press release of  December 31  titled  “Carbon levy supports diverse, green economy and jobs”  which summarized the details. The levy will be charged on transportation and heating fuels  – diesel, gasoline, natural gas and propane – at a rate of $20 per tonne, increasing to  $30 per tonne in 2018.  As further explained on a government website  , farmers and First Nations are generally exempt; a 33 per cent small business tax rate cut will help offset costs for small businesses, and the direct and indirect costs to consumers  are estimated. Rebates started flowing for a majority of Alberta households on January 5, with a payment  of $200 per year for a single adult earning up to $47,500 per year , and $300 for a couple earning up to $95,000 per year.   In addition to the government explanation, see “What you need to know about Alberta’s Carbon Levy”   from the Pembina Institute ,  or a CBC  interview with Andrew Leach , generally considered the architect of Alberta’s climate plan . “The Cost of Carbon Pricing in Alberta and Ontario”, by professors Trevor Tombe and Nic Rivers, appeared in Maclean’s magazine (Jan. 4). It explains the differences in the two approaches and explains the methodology for their estimate that  “Overall, for the average Alberta and Ontario household in 2017, direct costs will likely be on the order of $150 to $200 annually and indirect costs will add an additional $80 to $100 or so.”  The conclusion:  “heated political rhetoric that suggests carbon pricing will lead to skyrocketing price increases throughout the economy is misplaced at best and misleading at worst.”

Media rhetoric seems to have been directed at Alberta, rather than Ontario, where the cap and trade system, a cornerstone of the Climate Action Plan , also took effect on January 1, 2017.  The government’s Explainer is here , and estimates that “it will cost the average Ontario household about $13 more per month to fuel a car and heat a home in 2017”.  The government also estimates  proceeds of $1.9 billion per year , which must be re-invested to reduce GHG emissions, such as social housing retrofits, public  transit, and electric vehicle incentives.  See details of the related Green Investment Fund here.  The 2016 Annual Greenhouse Gas Progress Report  (November 2016) of Ontario’s Commissioner of the Environment  offers an explanation of how the system works, and discusses pitfalls, solutions, the need for transparency, and the likelihood that the system will deliver the scale of GHG reductions promised.