Energy Probe

April Lindgren
Canada.com
January 31, 2007

If the federal government is serious about reducing greenhouse gases, it should put money into an east-west electricity grid that will reduce reliance on coal-fired power in Ontario and spur economic development in other provinces, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said Tuesday.

"They’re talking a good game on climate change, they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this is a great way to do it," Duncan told reporters after calling for the federal cash in a speech to power company executives from across the country. "It would allow us to get out of coal with more certainty."

Ontario’s Liberal government promised in the 2003 election to rid the province of the coal-fired electricity generation that makes up about one-third of all locally generated power. The dearth of replacement electricity, however, has delayed the initiative until at least 2014.

Noting that he has been calling for the creation of "the railway of the 21st century," Duncan said there has been lots of talk but little action.

"I am calling on the federal government to demonstrate its commitment to fighting climate change by working with us, and the other provinces, to build the transmission link that will secure our energy supply as a country, lead to the development of new clean energy projects, and bind our country as the railway did over 100 years ago," he said in his speech.

"It’s real, it’s there. It benefits Newfoundland. It benefits Quebec. It benefits Manitoba. It benefits Ontario."

Duncan said federal funding of a national grid is required because "it’s expensive and without federal participation (on) development of transmission, the economics of it are marginal."

Ontario has been negotiating with Manitoba to purchase power generated by the proposed northern Conawapa dam development. Transmitting the electricity through northern Ontario to points south where demand is the greatest, however, would cost between $700 million and $1.5 billion depending on the balance of line upgrades and new transmission line construction.

Duncan’s vision includes improved transmission links between hydro-electric projects in Labrador and the rest of Canada as well as improved connections between Manitoba’s hydro-electric resources and Alberta’s oilsands. He plans to pitch the idea once again tonight when he meets in Toronto with federal Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn and to his Newfoundland and Manitoba counterparts in the coming weeks.

Tom Adams, executive director of the watchdog group Energy Probe, was dismissive of Duncan’s call to national action.

"It’s always been a practice by provincial governments that get into trouble to try and get the federal government to bail them out," he said. "This is just window dressing for him as he looks for a way to pay for a totally uneconomic transmission system to bring power from remote areas into Ontario."

Adams questioned the efficiency of transmitting power over long distances.

"The equipment costs a vast amount of money – we’re talking a couple million dollars per kilometre," said Adams. "Secondly, power that is carried long distances fades over the distance and third, long spindly transmission connections create a reliability risk. All of which adds up to a good reason to make your power closer to home."

Ontario’s energy crunch has eased with the addition of 3,000 megawatts of new supply over the past three years; another 10,000 megawatts are in various stages of development.

The province’s ability to live within its means will require an aggressive conservation effort as well as the construction of two new nuclear power plants.

Antonella Artuso
The London Free Press
February 16, 2007

Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan is boasting about lowering coal-plant emissions even as he refuses to install more of the pollution control devices that contributed to the cleaner air, one energy expert says.

Duncan announced yesterday that greenhouse-gas emissions from Ontario’s coal-fired generation stations have dropped by 29 per cent since his Liberal government took office in 2003, bringing emissions below 1990 levels.

A government news release notes "acid rain and smog-causing" nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide emissions have dropped significantly over that same time period.

"By replacing coal-fired generation with conservation and cleaner, greener power sources, our government is demonstrating its strong commitment to fighting climate change and protecting the air we all breathe," Duncan said.

But Energy Probe executive director Tom Adams said conservation and green power sources such as wind have played only a small part in cutting emissions.

Ontario has reduced its reliance on coal because it has more nuclear power, which was being brought on line as the Liberals came to power, he said.

The most dramatic drop in emissions – a 46-per-cent plunge in nitrous oxide levels – is due to a decision made in the late 1990s to put pollution-control devices on the four most heavily used coal units in the province, Adams said.

"This has nothing to do with the Liberal government. It proves the value of putting pollution-control devices on these coal plants."

Duncan said it makes little sense to install more of the costly devices now because his government plans to phase out coal plants by 2011.

The ministry estimates coal plants would have to stay open until 2030 to warrant the expense of the scrubbers, he said.

The devices also do little to eliminate carbon dioxide, the key contributor to climate change, Duncan said.

Adams said the 2011 deadline is unrealistic. "And long-term, that means much dirtier air than we need to be exposed to," he said.

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
February 26, 2007

It could take $1.5 billion and four years to install anti-pollution equipment on all of Ontario’s coal-fired electricity stations but it wouldn’t make economic sense if the plants are closed by 2014 as planned, Ontario Power Generation CEO Jim Hankinson said today.

The giant utility already has scrubbers on two of four coal-burning units at its Lambton station and on two of eight units at the huge Nanticoke generating station – considered one of the worst sources of air pollution in North America.

The Liberal government was reluctant to install scrubbers when it originally promised in 2003 to close Ontario’s four remaining coal-fired stations by 2007, and even later when it pushed that deadline back to at least 2011.

The Ontario Power Authority has recommended the government keep the coal plants around on standby until 2014 before they can be permanently mothballed.

"Well, if you assume that they close down in 2014 as the legislation calls for, obviously the payback would not be very good from an economic point of view," Hankinson said after appearing before a legislative committee.

Hankinson admitted "emissions could be reduced very substantially" if the anti-pollution equipment was installed at the coal-burning plants but added that OPG makes a habit of using the worst polluting equipment as a last resort.

"Obviously we would run the units that have the (anti-pollution) equipment on them first and only in those circumstances where there’s need would we run the other ones."

NDP Leader Howard Hampton agreed scrubbers would be a waste of money and said the province should spend its cash on incentive programs for consumers to lower demand for electricity.

The coal plants were used less often last year because of Ontario’s mild weather and Hampton said they would be used even less in the future if homes and businesses were given help to become more energy efficient.

"Instead of spending billions of dollars on scrubbers we should have an incentive strategy for homeowners, for shop owners, for school boards and for industry to start retrofitting their operations so we actually provide the financial incentive to use less electricity," said Hampton.

"We’re better off to spend $1.5 billion to provide those kind of incentives . . . then to put money on scrubbers that may only be used for, say, 10 years."

The watchdog group Energy Probe said Ontario should be exploring the latest technologies to burn so-called clean coal to reduce emissions from the electricity plants.

"The technology for coal-fired utilization is making some rapid progress with intense public and industrial support in many parts of the world (including) the United States, Europe and Japan," said executive director Tom Adams.

"We can now with existing, off-the-shelf technology, virtually eliminate conventional pollutants from coal-fired generation."

A spokesman for Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said the government compares the installation of scrubbers on coal stacks to "putting filters on cigarettes," and said clean-coal technology is not ready yet.

"Reports from around the globe indicate so-called clean-coal technology – if it is proven able to fully capture CO2 emissions – wouldn’t be commercially viable until very late into the next decade," said Duncan’s communications advisor, Steve Erwin.

Rob Ferguson
Toronto Star
February 27, 2002

The payback for installing costly pollution-eating scrubbers at Ontario’s coal-fired electricity plants is "not very good" given their limited life span, the head of Ontario Power Generation says.

It would take "three or four years" to get scrubbers running and cost between $500 million and $1.5 billion at a time when the plants are expected to close within seven years, chief executive Jim Hankinson said.

The math doesn’t add up, Hankinson said after testifying before a legislative committee yesterday, acknowledging the decision is up to the provincial government and "not my call."

"If you assume that they close down in 2014 . . . obviously the payback would not be very good from an economic point of view," he told reporters.

Energy Minister Dwight Duncan is waiting for a recommendation from the Ontario Power Authority on whether to install more scrubbers on the coal-fired electricity plants at Lambton, near Sarnia, and Nanticoke, south of Hamilton.

That recommendation is expected this spring.

Duncan and the governing Liberals have come under fire from the opposition parties and environmental groups for breaking their promises to close the coal-fired plants, first in 2007 and then in 2009.

There are now scrubbers on two of the four smokestacks at Lambton and on two of eight stacks at the Nanticoke station.

The power authority has already recommended the coal-fired plants close in 2011 but be kept available for use until 2014 as a contingency plan in case increased nuclear, wind, natural gas and other power sources fall short of demand.

But Tom Adams of Energy Probe called those dates into question, saying he doubts they are realistic given that natural gas is now five times more expensive than coal.

That increases the likelihood coal plants will remain as a source of reasonably priced power and makes it "highly questionable" to operate coal-fired plants without more scrubbers.

"Not installing them just exposes us to more pollution that we don’t need," he said after appearing before the committee.

Hankinson told MPPs on the committee that more scrubbers on two coal-fired plants could "very significantly" reduce toxic emissions.

However, scrubbers do not limit the amount of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas blamed for global warming – that the coal plants produce, he noted.

And Hankinson suggested putting more scrubbers on the plants at Lambton and Nanticoke might not have a huge impact on air quality in Ontario.

"You have to bear in mind that 50 per cent of the smog in our air shed comes from the United States, 23 per cent comes from transportation, 7 per cent comes from OPG’s power production."

But if Duncan wants scrubbers on the remaining stacks, the government had better be prepared to help out financially because Crown-owned Ontario Power Generation, which had a profit of $490 million last year, can’t afford them on its own, Hankinson said.

"We would want to be compensated," he told the committee, noting that revenues from coal plants have been shrinking as the utility uses them less to produce power with more nuclear and other forms of power available.

The scrubbers on two stacks at the Lambton plant make them among the cleanest of the 475 coal-fired electricity plants in North America, but Ontario will lose that edge in the next five years or so as more U.S. coal-fired plants install and update scrubbers, Hankinson said.

"There’s a huge effort being made in the U.S. to clean up their coal plants," he told reporters.

"They get something like 50 per cent or more of their generation from coal and they intend that to be the way of the future, so they are moving aggressively to clean up their plants."

Ontario gets just over 25 per cent of its power from coal, down from 31 per cent in 2005.

Ian Urquhart
Toronto Star
February 28, 2007

The ongoing debate over the future of coal-fired power plants in Ontario is finally coming into focus, with the potential that voters will be offered some real choices on the issue in the coming provincial election.

In the 2003 election campaign, the Liberals promised to close the plants, which supply about 20 per cent of our electricity, by 2007.

"Our coal-burning plants are the worst polluters in Ontario," said the Liberals in their platform. "They create smog and threaten our health."

Once in office and faced with the reality of keeping the lights on, however, the Liberals began backtracking on that promise.

They shut down the Lakeview plant in Mississauga, which had already been slated for closing by the previous Conservative government. But last year they conceded that the remaining four plants − in Nanticoke, Lambton, Thunder Bay and Atikokan − will remain open at least until 2011, and maybe longer.

So if the coal-fired plants are to be kept in operation, shouldn’t they be retrofitted with the most up-to-date pollution control equipment to mitigate the damage they cause?

This question was pressed at a legislative committee at Queen’s Park on Monday by John Yakabuski, the Conservative energy critic.

Yakabuski noted, with some sarcasm, that the Liberals had earlier blamed the coal-fired plants for causing 668 premature deaths a year in the province and wondered how the government could countenance this toll for another four years (or longer).

Backing up Yakabuski was Energy Probe‘s Tom Adams, an ardent advocate of coal-fired power. "It’s mind-boggling that we don’t (spend the money on pollution controls)," said Adams.

Providing the answers was Jim Hankinson, president of Ontario Power Generation, the government-owned operator of the coal-fired plants. Hankinson noted that, while the installation of scrubbers and other pollution controls would remove most of the smog-producing sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides from the smokestacks of the coal-fired plants, it would do nothing for carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

Research is under way on methods to contain carbon dioxide emissions, noted Hankinson, "but we’re a number of years away from these kinds of initiatives . . . There really isn’t much that can be done today."

Outside the committee room, Hankinson threw more cold water on the idea of installing new pollution control equipment by pointing out that Ontario’s coal-fired power plants are responsible for just 7 per cent of our smog. Most of it can be attributed to airborne pollution from coal-fired plants in the United States and from cars, trucks and planes.

"It (installing pollution controls on the coal-fired plants) would not make a huge difference," remarked Hankinson.

Nonetheless, suggested Yakabuski, if it would save some lives, shouldn’t we be doing it?

Indeed, installing pollution controls at our coal-fired plants seems like a no-brainer. But, perhaps counter-intuitively, environmentalists are arguing against it.

The environmentalists worry that the high cost of installing the pollution control equipment on the coal-fired plants − up to $1.5 billion, according to Hankinson − would lock the government into coal and continuing greenhouse gas emissions.

"You’re more or less committing to keeping the plants going for another generation if you do that," says Mark Winfield of the Pembina Institute.

The environmentalists would prefer to accelerate the closing of the coal-fired plants and to spend the money elsewhere. The question is: On what? On converting coal-fired plants to natural gas, on renewables, on conservation, and on co-generation, say the environmentalists. Definitely not on more nuclear power.

The provincial New Democrats have more or less lined up with the environmentalists.

The Liberals, while officially awaiting a report on whether to install pollution controls on the coal-fired plants, are leaning heavily against such an investment. They, too, would prefer to close the coal-fired plants as soon as possible and to invest in conservation programs.

But the Liberals believe that, to keep the lights on, we will also need more nuclear power.

The Conservatives? When he was pressed outside Monday’s committee meeting on where his party stands, Yakabuski would say only that "all the options" are being reviewed. "A comprehensive policy will be released at the appropriate time," he added.

But if we follow the line of Yakabuski’s questions, the Conservatives will be saying that we should keep the coal-fired plants open and invest in pollution controls.

And the debate will begin.

Ian Urquhart’s provincial affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.

The Record.com (Waterloo)
March 12, 2007

After being in power almost four years, Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals should have a real plan in place to deal with Ontario’s energy needs and, in particular, the province’s coal-fired electricity plants.

But, for reasons that are not clear, the government seems to be stumbling along, not able to gets its energy file in order. The latest example of the confusion arose last week when the premier was discussing how his government would spend the $586 million the federal government has pledged to give Ontario for climate-change initiatives. McGuinty said the government would not use the money to clean up the province’s coal plants.

Well, fine, the government can use the money for other purposes – but when and how is it going to deal with the coal-fired plants?

Basically, the government has to choose one of three options: It may continue to use the pollution-producing plants; it could convert the plants so that they burn cleanly and do not emit harmful gases, or it could close them and rely upon other forms of electricity including, perhaps, nuclear power.

Nothing the premier said has shown the government is ready to make the hard choices that sooner or later will have to be made.

Tom Adams of Energy Probe, the energy research group, went to the heart of the problem when he said scrubbers to clean emission from the coal stations may not be a bad idea.

He said that getting rid of the coal-fired plants has been official government policy since the 1980s, but they are still around. If, in fact, the province can’t do without them, the government might as well acknowledge this reality and set its policy on a firm, realistic foundation.

McGuinty could hardly deny that his own party has not been as realistic as it should have been. During the 2003 election campaign, the Liberals pledged to close the coal stations by 2007. That’s this year. That’s a pledge they couldn’t keep. In 2005, they said they would not shut down the Nanticoke station until 2009, but they subsequently had to acknowledge that deadline was also too optimistic.

Unless this government can produce a clear plan quickly, the Liberals will go into the fall election campaign saddled with the allegation that they have not shown sufficient leadership on energy matters.

This won’t be good for the Liberals. More important, it won’t be good for Ontario.

The energy file needs more attention than the Liberals have given it so far.

Carmela Fragomeni
The Hamilton Spectator
March 23, 2007

It’s happening in Toronto and Energy Probe says it will eventually happen here and in the rest of Ontario.

"There is a long-term trend among gas and electricity consumers to conserve. That’s the good news," said Tom Adams of Energy Probe. The bad news is some utilities must charge more to recover revenues lost because they are selling less. Toronto’s hydro company wants to increase its distribution rates by 6.3 per cent on May 1, to cover a $10.4-million loss because of energy conservation programs.

Hamilton’s Green Venture EcoHouse manager Pete Wobschall acknowledges someone has to pay for such losses and it’s no doubt going to be the consumer. "Unfortunately, it’s a catch-22." Conserving energy, even if it costs you more, must remain a priority, he said. "We are not doing it to save bucks. We’re doing it to clean the air.

"Here in Hamilton, we have 100 people die from air pollution (a year) and some of that comes from burning coal for electricity."

Michael Buonaguro of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre said higher distribution rates, which are only one section of hydro bills, don’t automatically increase costs to consumers, if they continue to conserve. Higher distribution rates can be offset by lower usage, he said.

This doesn’t necessarily work for low-income families as they can’t afford new energy-efficient appliances and other energy-saving devices.

Hydro companies must find ways to economize to prevent the hikes, said Adams of Energy Probe. He said Union Gas is experiencing a decline in usage but hasn’t raised rates. That shows utilities can find efficiencies equal to revenue losses. "Most (hydro) utilities aren’t smart enough to figure it out yet, and the regulator doesn’t push them hard enough to do it."

The Ontario Energy Board, the rate regulator, is considering compensating utilities for such revenue losses.

Hamilton Hydro users have saved 29 million kilowatt-hours of electricity, enough to power 3,250 homes. Burlington users have cut 1 per cent to 2 per cent of overall consumption. But customers in both cities face little or no increase because of enough growth producing new customers to offset losses.

Tyler Hamilton
Toronto Star
April 4, 2007

Six of Ontario’s largest electric utilities say conservation programs saved enough power last year to take nearly 34,000 homes off the grid.

The utilities – Toronto Hydro, Hydro Ottawa, Horizon Utilities, Veridian Connections, PowerStream and Enersource Hydro Mississauga – represent 1.7 million customers in southern and eastern Ontario.

According to a conservation progress report released yesterday, the utilities collectively reduced power consumption by 302.5 million kilowatt-hours in 2006, a 274 per cent increase over savings achieved in 2005.

Over the past two years, the group has invested $62 million in conservation and demand-management programs, including the "Fridge & Freezer Bounty" developed by Hydro Ottawa and Toronto Hydro’s "Summer Challenge" rebate program and "Peaksaver" air-conditioner return program for residential and business customers.

Last year saw more than 8,000 old fridges and freezers unplugged, 12,671 energy-hogging air conditioners retired, and nearly 79,000 incandescent Christmas light strings replaced with energy-efficient LED lights.

Customers of the big-six utilities also obtained about 1.5 million compact fluorescent light bulbs through various coupon and promotion programs.

Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, called the electricity savings a "defining moment" that proves the potential payback of conservation programs if they are supported by political will and serious investment.

Overall, the kilowatt-hours saved only represent 0.2 per cent of the 158 billion kilowatt-hours Ontarians consumed in 2005.

But Tom Adams, executive direct of Energy Probe, said while the savings may not seem like much, simply halting growth in demand is a sign of progress.

"We’ve got a growing population, a growing economy, so achieving static electricity demand growth is demonstrating improvement in overall efficiency," he said.

Adams added that it’s still early days for many of the programs in place.

"There’s obviously more we can do and the extent to which utilities can take credit for this is a matter of some debate, but overall the trend is positive."

Nearly half of the energy savings last year came through Toronto Hydro.

Chief executive Dave O’Brien has vowed to use conservation as a way to hold the line on electricity demand in Toronto, which typically grows 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent a year.

April Lindgren
Canada.com
April 26, 2007

The installation of one million solar panels on 346 hectares of land near Sarnia will make Ontario home to one of the largest solar farms in the world, Energy Minister Dwight Duncan announced Thursday.

"The McGuinty government is committed to building a cleaner, greener energy future for Ontarians," Duncan told reporters at a news conference held to announce the investment by OptiSolar Farms Canada, a division of California-based OptiSolar Inc.

"This project alone will contribute 40 megawatts to the grid by 2010 – the next largest photovoltaic project in North America was announced on Monday and it is only 15 megawatts."

The project, which will cost an estimated $300 million, involves installation of the half-metre-by-one-metre solar panels on the equivalent of 419 Canadian football fields.

That said, the massive undertaking will still only produce enough power to sustain 6,000 homes.

The power will be expensive. Under the terms of the agreement signed with the Ontario government, OptiSolar will be paid 42 cents per kilowatt hour produced over the 20-year-term of the contract.

And the system will generate only 40 megawatts when the sun peaks in the sky on clear, sunny summer days: When nights, cloudy weather and short days are taken into account over the course of whole year, it will contribute only about eight megawatts of power per day on average to the Ontario grid.

Total system demand late Thursday afternoon was just under 18,000 megawatts; peak demand in the summer can soar to more than 27,000 megawatts.

OptiSolar vice-president Peter Carrie, who said Sarnia was chosen because it is one of Ontario’s sunniest areas, conceded solar power is expensive now but predicted its costs will decline as the technology improves.

"We’re at the stage with solar where over the next five to 10 years the cost will be dramatically lower than they are now," he said.

The McGuinty government’s electricity sustainability plan calls for 15,700 megawatts of installed renewable power by 2025. Currently, about 7,900 megawatts are already online through existing hydroelectric, wind and other projects and an additional 1,700 megawatts are either already being produced or in development.

Conservative Leader John Tory says solar power has to be part of the supply mix but it’s not the answer to Ontario’s electricity generating needs.

"We still need to look after the base load power, which is why I suggested we’re going to have to honest with people and say probably more nuclear is going to be necessary."

Tory has not indicated how many new nuclear stations he believes will be required. The Liberal plan calls for the construction of 1,000 megawatts of new nuclear generation – one or two units depending on their size – at an existing nuclear site.

NDP legislature member Peter Tabuns said that while he welcomes the announcement of the OptiSolar project "the thing people have to keep in mind is that ultimately this is a government that is going to go nuclear.

"It is going to make announcements about these smaller projects to make it look as though it is green."

The NDP argues additional construction of nuclear plants could be avoided if the government did more to encourage conservation and energy efficiency.

Tom Adams of the energy watchdog group Energy Probe, noted that even though 42 cent is as much as seven times higher than the current price of power (it has averaged 5.4 cents per kilowatt hour since January), the amount of power involved is so small relative to the total that it won’t have a huge impact on electricity bills in the short term.

"But when you add it to all of the other things that are going on, it’s very clear that this is setting us on the path toward substantially higher electricity prices," he said, noting government is paying 11 cents per kilowatt hour for wind generation and is committed to paying as much as 7.1 cents per kilowatt hour for power generated by the Bruce nuclear station. Electricity generated by existing coal, hydro and the nuclear power plants run by Ontario Power Generation are significantly less.

Focus Ontario
June 21, 2007

Liberal Government’s New Climate Change Initiatives

GUESTS:
Hon Laurel Broten, Environment Minister
Keith Stewart, WWF – Canada
Tom Adams, Energy Probe

HOST – SEAN MALLEN

Full transcript follows

Preamble

SEAN MALLEN: With apologies to Al Gore, it is ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ in Ontario. Even as our concern about climate change continues to grow, the industry that powers our provincial economy, auto manufacturing, is often accused of being one of the biggest culprits. Another inconvenient truth – we get a large portion of our electricity from coalfired generating plants, another principal source of greenhouse gases. The challenge for anyone seeking high office in this province is to balance those seemingly conflicting demands.

There’s no election platform yet from Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals, but given the sudden rush of big-ticket promises and plans on climate change, we strongly suspect that saving the planet will be a key element.

Premier Dalton McGuinty: The opportunity before us is a stronger economy with a much smaller environmental footprint. It really is the best of all worlds. But as his opponents enjoy pointing out, McGuinty has a record to overcome, such as a twice broken promise to close Ontario’s coal-fired generators.

Tim Hudak: He said he’d close the plant by 2007, he broke that promise. Then he said 2009, well he’s going to break that promise. Now we’re supposed to believe him for 2014. Come on!

SEAN MALLEN: The Premier is winning guarded praise from environmentalists for at least setting targets that are more ambitious than Ottawa’s.

Julia Langer, WWF – Canada: And the really important piece of this is that it is a sharp contrast, and a real kick at the federal government to get moving on action on climate change.

SEAN MALLEN: The question remains, can we get there from here with this plan.

From the Global News Room in Toronto, Focus Ontario with Sean Mallen.

SEAN MALLEN: Thanks for joining me again. Later in the program I’ll be joined by an environmentalist and an energy analyst for some other views of the Liberal government’s climate change plans. But first a reminder of some of the key elements – to reduce Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2014, that’s two years later than the Kyoto target – to close all the coal-fired generating plants by 2014; – a $650 million fund to encourage the development of green technologies, especially cars; – and a $17.5 billion initiative to improve public transit in the GTA. And with that quick overview I welcome my first guest, who is the Minister of the Environment, Laurel Broten. Good to have you back on the program, minister.

Hon Laurel Broten: Thank you very much.

SEAN MALLEN: As I indicated in the opening there, you’re getting some guarded praise from environmentalists about the overall targets, but some questions about how you’re going to reach some of those targets. The biggest question is about the coal plants. Tom Adams from Energy Probe, is going to be on in a couple of minutes, and he’s going to say it’s feasible to close the coal plants, but not without buying some pretty expensive power from elsewhere. Is that going to be a trade-off? Are our power rates going to go up?

Laurel Broten: Well, the question that you posed at the beginning of the program is can we get there from here. And I think the answer is a resounding yes, because we’ve been laying the groundwork that we need to be able to do that. We know that about fifty per cent of our 2014 commitment will come from the electricity sector of the greenhouse gas reductions.

SEAN MALLEN: From the coal plants specifically.

Laurel Broten: From the coal plants, but also from all of the work that we’re doing right now to conserve electricity, to put renewables in force, to have a new clean standard offering, a new renewable standard offering, so it’s a real transformation of that sector, and especially in the long term because we have really long term goals for 2020 and for 2050. By 2050, 80 per cent reduction. That really means we have to transform the way we live, and we’re well on our way to doing that.

SEAN MALLEN: To my question, does that translate into higher energy prices in the near future to cover the closure of those coal plants?

Laurel Broten: Well, we’ve seen that we’ve been able to come out with fixed price for solar, for wind. And we are seeing that we have moved from last to first in terms of renewables. The New York Times this week said Ontario is a beacon and a leader in terms of renewable energy. That’s what we need to do. It’s a many front approach, more renewable energy, closing down the coal plants, and at the same time helping Ontarians conserve electricity, and that’s why the incentives that we’ve put forward this week with respect to helping Ontarians in their own homes, reducing their consumption. If we reduce our consumption, that helps us close the coal plants even faster.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, you’re not the energy minister, you don’t want to speculate whether there’s higher prices coming up?

Laurel Broten: I’m certainly not going to speculate as to what we will see in the future, but we do know that coal is cheap because it’s dirty, and it puts out air pollutants, it causes smog, it frankly kills Ontarians, and it contributes to our greenhouse gases. So I have been a long time proponent of wanting to close those coal plants, primarily from a health focus.

SEAN MALLEN: You understand why the Liberals had a credibility issue on this though? I mean you made the promise twice to close them and missed both targets.

Laurel Broten: What we need to remember Sean, is that we’re the only jurisdiction that is doing this. Everyone else is building more, and we’re going the other direction. And when I travel around Canada and North America I have to say that people are really surprised that we’ve taken such a firm stand. They think it’s amazing that we’re doing that, and we are demonstrating that you can go a different route, and you can find alternate sources of electricity, and that you can keep your economy strong. Because you’re right, it is a balance. We want that green economy and those good jobs here and that’s also why we’re seeking to transform the automotive sector as well.

SEAN MALLEN: Well, you raised that and some of the critics suggest that is one of the holes, I mean one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases are the cars that we all drive, whether they be hybrids or not. But you’re not going down the route of tougher emission standards on autos. Can’t really do it in this province.

Laurel Broten: No, wait a minute. What we’re doing is again on all fronts, seeking to change the way we transport ourselves and our goods. So $17.5 billion to totally change and build 52 new projects over the next number of years.

SEAN MALLEN: But they don’t start until 2011. Do they have an impact in this short run, before 2011?

Laurel Broten: Well, they have an impact in terms of the more people we get on public transit, yes. And we’ve already been making significant investments in public transit. So this is building for the next generation. I think what we need to remember is there’s both short term and long term things that need to take place. We need to get the quick hit; we need to find ways to get people onto the buses and the systems that already exist. And so we’ve been doing that to make sure we can expand those programs. We are also entering into an agreement with California with respect to emissions, fuel standards.

SEAN MALLEN: Fuel standards, not emissions.

Laurel Broten: And the Premier has said, we want to see very tough North American continental-wide standards, because in Ontario we build cars for the rest of North America, and a lot of that pollution comes up here.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, I’ll stop you there, we’ll take a break; back in a moment with Laurel Broten.

* * *

SEAN MALLEN: And we’re back, talking climate change with Environment Minister Laurel Broten. The Premier said minister, that he still had $60 million allocated in the budget, unspent, for climate change programs. So what’s next?

Laurel Broten: Well, you’re going to have to wait and see what we’re doing next.

SEAN MALLEN: Give us a hint.

Laurel Broten: But let me focus on what we are trying to do. What we are doing as a province is really taking incredible leadership to get ourselves to where we need to be to live a sustainable existence. And I know you have a little one, I have two little ones, Keith Stewart has one –

SEAN MALLEN: He’s on the next segment in case you’re wondering.

Laurel Broten: – it really is all about changing the way we live. What we spent the last year doing was really figuring out – the last several years, laying the groundwork – where do our greenhouse gas emissions come from, and how are we going to make those changes. So one of the really important announcements that the premier made when you said he indicated the dollar amount, was putting $150 million of the $210 million that we set aside in the last budget, on the table for homeowners to help them make changes in their life.

SEAN MALLEN: Improve insulation, buy energy-efficient appliances.

Laurel Broten: That’s right, they can get ideas about what to do on gogreenontario.ca. That is really significant because it’s what Ontarians are asking about, they want to be part of it. There’s a part for us to play in the province, that’s take leadership; but in our own homes and in our own lives that’s really where our greenhouse gas emissions come from. So we need to make changes.

SEAN MALLEN: Let me ask you one specific element of that, which is a one-year provincial tax holiday on energy-efficient appliances starting in July. The Liberal government three years ago cancelled a tax credit on energy-efficient appliances that was brought in by the Conservative government. So can you understand why the Tories are saying what’s up, it’s election year, you’re bringing back a variant of a program that they could have kept going for three years?

Laurel Broten: Well, when we cancelled that program we put in place the bounty instead. What we learned was the structure that was in place and the frame of mind that Ontarians had, that what they were really doing was getting a second fridge and putting the old fridge in the basement. So it wasn’t saving us on greenhouse gases, in fact it was making it worse.

SEAN MALLEN: But how is this any different, you’re encouraging people to buy energy-efficient appliances.

Laurel Broten: Now we have a variety of different programs in place and frankly I think Ontarians’ awareness to the issues of the environment has skyrocketed in the last year. I think more than anybody as minister of environment, I really have an understanding of where we were a couple of years ago and where Ontarians are now. I think they understand their footprint. We didn’t even talk about that language a couple of years ago. They understand the impact of their decisions and I know that they are very anxious to participate in making sure that we have a sustainable province with a healthy and clean environment for our kids, and they’re going to do their part, just like the government is.

SEAN MALLEN: The opposition points out that the legislature was originally scheduled to be sitting until the end of this week. A lot of this could have been introduced in the legislature, and maybe even at least start the legislative process. Instead it’s rolled out now. No more sitting before the election, and it all looks like a Liberal election platform.

Laurel Broten: Well, governments keep governing until the end of their mandate, and frankly my constituents in Etobicoke-Lakeshore expect that, and I think most Ontarians do. What we’re doing right now is to roll out a variety of measures that we budgeted for in the budget. The budget was introduced in the legislature, as it should be, unlike the former government.

SEAN MALLEN: The budget put $17.5 million dollars in energy announcements.

Laurel Broten: With respect to the regulatory regime that we have to close the coal plants, the regulation to do that, we have the legislation in place; and let’s be clear how much legislation we passed – the Clean Water Act, the Species at Risk Act, sustaining and safeguarding our Water Act. A lot of legislation and everything that we committed to.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay fair enough, but this is important stuff, so why can’t this be introduced, at least begin the debate in the legislature, face questions about it in the legislature?

Laurel Broten: Well, we had completed what we said we would do in our mandate. We have been working on our climate change plan and I have been saying for many, many months it would be out in the spring, it would be out in June. We have always, since we’ve shared our summit three years in a row, done a lot of our work with respect to talking about our air quality and what we would do with respect to the environment, climate change, in the month of June. That’s when we’re doing it. I think that Ontarians will be very, very pleased about what we’re undertaking, and I am out every day talking to them and I’m having a chance to talk to you and to the critics as well. So they can be very transparent about it.

SEAN MALLEN: But all this is going to be in the Liberal platform.

Laurel Broten: It’s going to be part of our record, which is what I know that I’m going to be talking to my own constituents about, and frankly I’m very, very proud to be part of a government that has taken green steps since the very beginning of our mandate. We’re not going to stop until we complete the job.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, well you completed the job at Focus Ontario this week. We’ll have you on again.

Laurel Broten: Thank you very much.

SEAN MALLEN: Laurel Broten, Environment Minister. And when Focus returns, some expert commentary on the climate change plan.

* * *

SEAN MALLEN: And welcome back. My guests for this segment are Keith Stewart, who is the climate change campaign manager for WWF Canada; and Tom Adams, the executive director of Energy Probe. Good to see you both, thanks for coming on the program.

Guests: Thank you.

SEAN MALLEN: I want to ask both your opinions first, just an overall review of climate change plans to date. Start with you, Mr Stewart.

Keith Stewart: Well, we’re seeing something. The transit announcement was really impressive. We’ve seen lots of announcements of big funding for transit by many governments before. We’ve rarely actually seen them built, but you know, I think if the public sort of really keeps the pressure on it will get built and it will be a great thing. There are some real problems I think with their energy plan, about whether or not they are going to close the coal plants with the plan they have right now. We’re missing some stuff on the automobile side in terms of regulation, but you know this is a lot better than the federal plan. It’s up there with some of the better provincial climate plans we’ve seen, and I think it’s just going to keep getting better as the bidding in the election begins. And I think this is the base line and it’s going to go up from here between now and October 10th.

SEAN MALLEN: Mr Adams, what do you think?

Tom Adams: Well, the climate change plan itself is something of an excuse not to improve the quality of our air. They’re not investing in air pollution control equipment. It’s very cost effective, very environmentally effective.

SEAN MALLEN: On the coal plants you mean.

Tom Adams: On the coal plants. They say they’re going to close the coal plants in 2015 or 2014. The reasons that drove them to break the promises have not changed. The cost of natural gas is still through the roof. Building a big fleet of natural gas-fired generating stations, which Ontario is now in the midst of, is going to turn into very, very expensive power. The minister wasn’t keen on answering a question on that one. When you look at the rest of what they’re doing, I mean they’ve got announcements on what they’re doing on climate change, but at the same time they’re still subsidizing the pulp and paper sector. They’ve still got extensive subsidies in the auto sector. They’re building new freeways. A lot of their other commitments are really quite at odds with what they say they’re trying to achieve on the climate change file. So we’ve got a contradictory position here.

Keith Stewart: Yes, right now they’re spending more money building highways than on transit, and until you put those two around, you know you can’t be taken too seriously on the climate front.

SEAN MALLEN: Have we gotten enough to a tipping point for people to accept that? People still want the good roads, people still drive their cars.

Keith Stewart: Yes, I think people are. People are demanding action on climate change and I think people are becoming more and more aware of the changes we actually have to make to make that happen. And I think the overwhelming support we saw for those transit announcements, because frankly even if you drive your car, if we got 800 more people onto transit, that would be a good thing even for drivers.

SEAN MALLEN: I think you both may differ on coal plants, or not coal plants, but I think you’re somewhat on the same page on nuclear plants. There is a question about whether they can keep the lights on under the current plan, given with what’s going to be happening with the nuclear plants.

Keith Stewart: Well, I actually think they can keep the lights. The question is how much coal are they going to use to do that. Their energy plan is really a nuclear plan, it’s like most of the money is for nuclear plants and they don’t mention that in their climate announcement, and the current plan just assumes that all nuclear plants get better every year as they get older, which seems to me an unusual assumption. Those things don’t work as well as they get older. And it’s very slow to build nuclear plants. Soon we’re going to see an announcement that the Pickering B plant can’t all be refurbished, so that means we’re going to have to build more new nuclear plants. That’s going to take ten to fifteen years. So there is that gap, you fill that gap with coal. So we actually think they should be moving much more aggressively on the conservation and renewables front, and rather than putting the eggs in the nuclear basket.

SEAN MALLEN: Mr Adams, can we get there with more aggressive conservation?

Keith Stewart: We’ve been looking at the conservation programs that are out there. I think there’s reason to be a little skeptical about some of the numbers that are coming out, but there is some progress as well, like a lot of the conservation programs are moving in the right direction in a number of areas. Look at the portfolio of replacement power that’s coming in to deal with the fact that we’ve got all these aging generating stations and we’ve got the commitment to close the coal plants. You look at the portfolio of this new generation, one of the characteristics there is all the rate impacts are pushed off until after the election. And what we’re likely to see is, as soon as this election is over, and then the new government, whatever its stripe, is going to be coming out saying, oh, who knew, we’re in for these very steep increases. And I think that changes the debate. People are very concerned about improving the environment. They want to see progress. They’ve been promised a free lunch; when the bill for the lunch starts to show up, the debate changes.

SEAN MALLEN: I wonder Mr Stewart, if indeed energy prices do go up, whether that might be a good thing in a way, forced conservation.

Keith Stewart: Energy prices will go up because anything new we’re building now is going to be more expensive. This is another math, the price can go up, but if you’re using less, you could actually end up with a lower bill. So this is why I think the emphasis on conservation is the best place to be investing, to be regulating, to be putting in place tough rules.

SEAN MALLEN: I guess my question is, it doesn’t enforce conservation though.

Keith Stewart: And if prices go up, then it does give a real incentive for people to look for those savings even more. The thing is we actually are paying huge costs for power right now. It isn’t always on your electrical bill though. I mean you’ve got the Ontario Medical Association saying we’re spending billions a year trying to cure people for diseases caused by air pollution. And when you look at things like the Stern report that came out of the UK government in terms of the cost of climate change, if we put the cost on the greenhouse gases that are coming out of those coal plants, then you would be looking at the price of coal as far, far beyond anything else you can think of. The actual price of coal, when you look at the environmental health impact, it makes it the most expensive form of power. So we’re paying those costs now, they’re just not on your electrical bill. So I think in fairness we need to get those costs down as quickly as possible.

SEAN MALLEN: Let me talk about the transportation sector, our cars. Of course they’re probably the biggest contributor beyond the coal plants. Start with you, Mr Adams, is there any way the government of Ontario could come down hard on the automotive industry, given it’s one jurisdiction that empowers the economy?

Tom Adams: We’ve got to rethink our relationship with the automobile and the way we use our highways. We think that toll roads are a big part of the solution. You look at other jurisdictions, other parts of the world, that have been doing this.

SEAN MALLEN: Hard to get elected in Ontario, promoting toll roads.

Tom Adams: But what you do see, even Mayor Miller, who was campaigning against toll roads, now he’s starting to say gee, you know this could solve some problems. So the politics of toll roads are very tough, but the environmental benefit, the economic benefit, of having free-flowing roads so that emergency vehicles can get through, all that kind of stuff, there are a lot of up sides, but it takes a new thinking. Building more freeways is not going to solve our congestion problems.

SEAN MALLEN: Okay, and that’s the last word. So toll roads, I bet we don’t see it in anybody’s platform. Anyway, Keith Stewart, Tom Adams, thanks very much for coming on the program.

Guests: Thank you.

Taped Thursday, June 21, 2007 for Global TV
Air date – Saturday, June 23, 2007 – 1830
Encore Presentation Sunday, June 24, 2007 – 0700, 1130 and 2330

Focus Ontario’s website: www.globaltv.com/focusontario