B.C. consultation on “Clean Growth” policies for transportation, industry, and the built environment

Flag_of_British_Columbia.svgWhile British Columbia is understandably preoccupied with the devastating wildfires raging across the entire province, an engagement process called Towards a Clean Growth Future in B.C.  was launched on July 20, with a short, summertime deadline of August 24.

Three brief Intentions Papers have been published to solicit public input : Clean Transportation ,which discusses policies to incentivize Zero Emissions Vehicles – including the possibility of a ban the sale of new gasoline and diesel light duty vehicles by 2040;  Clean, Efficient Buildings,  which proposes five steps to cleaner buildings, including Energy efficiency labeling information, financial incentives, and additional training for workers in energy efficient retrofitting and in the new-build Energy Step code; and A Clean Growth Program for Industry , which includes the province’s Industrial Incentive under the carbon tax regime and addresses the potential dangers of “carbon leakage”.

Public Submissions are available online  and to date have been submitted by: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), written by Marc Lee ; Closer Commutes ;   The Wilderness Committee ; and  The Pembina Institute , which at 37 pages is extremely detailed, and includes 5 recommendations relating to Training and Certification for Clean Buildings,  including  a call for “a construction labour strategy that addresses skilled labour gaps and equity issues in the building industry. Integrate with emerging technology and innovation strategy to foster greater use of automation and prefabrication.”

The West Coast Environmental Law Association (WCEL)  also posted a thorough discussion of the Clean Growth proposals on its own website on August 16.  “BC’s decade-delayed climate strategies show why we need legal accountability” by Andrew Gage notes that the intentions papers are largely built on existing proposals (some dating back to the 2008 Climate Action Team  Report ), and that they are not complete, as the government is also developing proposals through its  Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council  and the newly appointed Emerging Economy Task Force .  (The Wilderness Committee calls the proposals “underwhelming”). Whatever the final policies that flow from these consultations, WCEL emphasizes the importance of demanding accountability, and like Marc Lee in his submission, points to the success of the U.K.’s Climate Accountability Act (2008). WCEL has previously critiqued  Bill 34, B.C.’s  Climate Change Accountability Act which received Royal Assent on  May 31 2018.

Another commentary, appearing in the National Observer (July 27) addresses the weakness of the transportation proposals.  “B.C.’s climate plan needs a push – from you”  refers to the author’s more detailed report, Transportation Transformation: Building complete communities and a zero-emission transportation system in BC , which was published by the CCPA in 2011.

The CCPA also published an article on August 2, 2018 in Policy Note:  “The Problem with B.C.’s Clean Growth climate rhetoric” . Author Marc Lee reviews the history of the term “clean growth” and offers his critique, noting that clean growth “promises change without fundamentally disrupting the existing economic and social order.”

Individuals have until August 24 to can email their input to clean.growth@gov.bc.ca .

Job losses feared as Ontario government cancels renewable energy contracts

On  July 13, the Province of Ontario announced the immediate cancellation of 758 renewable energy projects, calling them “unnecessary and wasteful” .  In “Inside Ontario’s clean energy contract cancellations”  by GreenTech Media  (July 26), the CEO of the Canadian Solar Industry Association estimates that  Ontario will lose 6,000 jobs and half a billion dollars of investment as a result, although the general tone of the article displays confidence in the unstoppable momentum of clean energy.  The decision, however, has thrown the industry into confusion, disappointed some consumers, and is seen as a blow to Ontario’s reputation amongst investors.

A sampling of reaction:  “Green shift to green slump: How trade decisions and electoral politics are crippling the vision of a clean Canadian power play”    in the Globe and Mail (Aug. 3)

Solar companies may exit Ontario for Alberta after Doug Ford kills rebate program”    from CBC News

Renewable Energy stocks slide as Ontario vows to scrap clean- power projects” in the Globe and Mail  (July 13)

Clean power advocates disappointed by defiant in the face of Ford’s sweeping cuts”   (July 17) in the National Observer

Cancellation of Energy Contracts Punishes Famers, School Boards, Municipalities and First Nations”   a press release from the Canadian Solar Industries Association.  CanWEA also responded to the announcements with a disjointed compilation of links about the benefits of wind energy  (July 13) .

wind turbine and cowsOne high profile  example of the cancelled projects:  the White Pines wind project in Prince Edward County, owned by German company WPD ,  which was first approved in 2010 and was weeks away from completion when it was cancelled by Bill 2, The Urgent Priorities Act.  Local reaction appeared in  The Picton Gazette , and the National Observer published an extensive four part report, “Inside one Ontario town’s  decade long wind war”  .    CBC News published  “Ford government’s plan to cancel wind project could cost taxpayers over $100M, company warns”  , and even the conservative National Post published “John Ivison: Wind turbine decision says Doug Ford’s Ontario is closed for business”   (July 23), calling it a “bone-headed”decision.  Activist group Leadnow.ca has posted on online petition, “Save the White Pines project”  .

 

 

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.”

British Columbia sets new GHG reduction targets, reviews environmental assessment process

Amidst the noise and fury of the B.C.-Alberta feud over the Kinder Morgan TransMountain pipeline,  the province of British Columbia is moving forward with reform of its climate change policies. On April 25, the  B.C. Climate Solutions and Clean Growth Advisory Council released a detailed letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy , describing the Council’s principles, supporting much of the government’s current direction, and making recommendations, based on the 2015 recommendations of the province’s Climate Leadership Team. Shortly thereafter, on May 7, a government press release  committed to  a new provincial climate action strategy to be released in autumn 2018, including plans for GHG emission reduction  for buildings and communities, industry and transportation sectors.

With that same press release, the government announced Bill 34, the Climate Change Accountability Act,  which amends the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act (2007), repealing the emissions reduction target for 2020 (generally deemed unachievable)  and sets new targets: reduction of GHG’s by 40% from 2007 levels by 2030, 60% by 2040, and 80% by 2050.  Accountability looms large in the responses to Bill 34.  The Pembina Institute  notes the failure of recent GHG emissions reductions, and calls for “a robust accountability mechanism to ensure history doesn’t repeat itself ”. In addition, Pembina notes that any development of emissions-intensive industries, such as liquefied natural gas, would jeopardize the province’s climate progress.

In “Looking for accountability in BC’s Climate Change Accountability Act”,  West Coast Environment Law reviews B.C.’s emissions reduction progress , summarizes responses by other environmental groups to Bill 34, and recommends how the government can incorporate principles of accountability and transparency in its new policies.  Similar concerns are discussed in “A Carbon Budget Framework for BC: Achieving accountability and oversight”  by Marc Lee, in CCPA’s Policy Notes (May 22).

Another policy issue under review in B.C. is environmental assessment, with a 12-member advisory committee appointed in March 2018, a public discussion paper promised for May, and reforms to come in Fall.  The government portal to the “Revitalization” process is here ;  “B.C. Moves Ahead With Review of Controversial Environmental Assessment Process”  (Mar 8) summarizes the situation.   On May 9,  twenty-three environmental, legal, social justice and community organizations released  Achieving Sustainability: A Vision for Next-Generation Environmental Assessment in British Columbia , which calls for an independent environmental assessment body which will involve the public, and require decision-makers to demonstrate that their decisions are based on science and Indigenous knowledge. A summary, with links to more detailed discussion  is provided by West Coast Environmental Law.  Analysis and practical examples are provided by Sarah Cox in  “Time For a Fix: B.C. Looks at Overhaul of Reviews for Mines, Dams and Pipelines”, which  appeared in April in the newly-named newsletter from DeSmog Canada, The Narwhal.

New evidence supports benefits of cap and trade policies – an important issue for Ontario voters

With a June 2018 election approaching in Ontario,  climate change policies and the cap and trade program are already emerging as  key issues.  Several relevant reports have been published since the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario addressed these issues in her audit report,  Ontario’s Climate Act: From Plan to Progress  in January 2018.

The government’s own progress report on the 5-year Climate Change Action Plan was released on March 14  , and includes an evaluation of the policies and projects funded through Ontario’s cap and trade program. One such program is the “Low Carbon Building Skills” initiative announced in August 2017 under the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, which  aims to improve training for low carbon building projects –  including retrofits, green construction and building operations.  Other highlighted initiatives relate to hospital energy efficiency; building and school retrofits; social housing; research into climate change impacts on  building codes.

clean economy alliance progress report ontario year 1A more independent view comes in   A Progress Report on Ontario’s Cap-and-Trade Program and Climate Change Action Plan: Year One ,  published by the Clean Economy Alliance – an alliance of Ontario’s  businesses, clean technology firms, industry associations, labour unions, farmers, health advocates and environmental organizations.   In answering its key question, “Is there any evidence that cap-and-trade has hurt Ontario’s economy or cost jobs?” the report concludes that “Rather than shedding jobs, Ontario added 155,000 jobs between January 2017 and December 2017 – the first year of cap-and-trade. Gains were driven by employment growth in wholesale and retail trade, professional services and manufacturing. Cap-and-trade doesn’t appear to have hurt economic growth either. 2017 marked a 7-year high in Ontario’s GDP growth. Forecasters including RBC, TD Bank and the Conference Board of Canada agree that in 2018, economic growth will slow slightly, but will remain strong.” The report card evaluates impact on emissions reduction, as well as implementation rates by policy area (transportation, buildings and homes, land use planning, and “others”) . It concludes with a brief case study of the incentives for electric vehicles – noting that 2017 was the first year that  more electric vehicles (EVs) were sold in Ontario than in any other province.

On  April 10, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario released another relevant report: the 2018 Energy Conservation Progress report, Making Connections: Straight Talk about Electricity in Ontario.  In this statistically-dense report, she acknowledges that the province’s electricity  system was 96 per cent emission-free in 2017, but warns that the province will fall short of its 2030 carbon reduction target unless consumer behaviour changes:  “Looking ahead, much more conservation and low-carbon electricity will be needed to displace fossil fuels as the climate crisis continues to worsen. Ontario is not yet preparing seriously for this future.”

With the explicit purpose of informing the policy discussion before and after the Ontario election in June 2018, Ontario 360  has been established at the University of Toronto’s School of Public Policy and Governance, as an “ independent, non-partisan, and fact-based” resource.  On April 18, their first briefing on Climate Policy was published, written by Trevor Tombe, associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary. The briefing reviews the cap-and-trade system and the various initiatives which have been funded by its proceeds, and provides a top-level explanation of the merits of carbon pricing in general, with a comparison of cap and trade and carbon taxes. His conclusion: “while the evidence finds that pricing should be the backbone of any credible climate policy in Ontario, it is not a magic wand. There are areas where it may not be administratively feasible, and therefore narrow complementary policies should also be on the table. And even where pricing is appropriate, reasonable people will disagree over the appropriate price level and coverage. But whatever path forward future governments choose, they should strive for transparency in costs and benefits, clarity in the goals a policy is trying to achieve, and flexibility as new evidence emerges.”

Finally, a related report from the United States was released on April 17, evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of the cap and trade markets of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative ( RGGI) in the U.S. from 2015-2017 .  The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on Nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States   found that the nine states which form the network  gained $1.4 billion in economic benefits over the past three years because of the way they invested proceeds, with the biggest payoffs (including in new jobs) coming from investments in energy efficiency programs.  In the same period, there has been no damage to the reliability of the electricity grid, nor a net increase in electricity bills.    The Economic Impacts of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative on Nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States  was produced by The Analysis Group , who also were responsible for two previous evaluations since the RGGI launched in 2009, available here .