https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ontario-government-moves-to-scrap-green-energy-act-1.4102549

"TORONTO -- Months after cancelling hundreds of renewable energy contracts, the Ontario government introduced legislation Thursday to scrap a law that aimed to bolster the province's green energy industry.

Premier Doug Ford promised during the spring election campaign to repeal the Green Energy Act, which was introduced by the previous Liberal government in 2009 in a bid to grow the province's solar and wind energy supply.

Critics of the act have said it resulted in an increase in electricity costs and saw the province overpay for power it did not need..."

The GEA was one of the worst piece of shit policies ever produced in Ontario. One of the contracts being cancelled is for a wind farm right by a town that voted 80% against the installation. Funny that too eh? All the lefturds pitching a bitch about Toronto City Council being shrunk yet they said not a word about the GEA stripping cities and townships of some of their power to make decisions that affected areas and residents within their borders.

So what you're saying is that the liberals were asshats for ignoring the wishes of that town. Is ford an ass hat for ignoring the wishes of Toronto?

Ontario's Economic Investment Outlook Dims With New Government Energy Actions


Ontario’s government framed its reversal of carbon pricing and clean energy programs as an attempt to “save the little guy” – but it may have inadvertently thrown its economy in reverse while losing jobs and costing consumers.

Under recently elected Premier Ford, the Ontario government’s decisions to withdraw from the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) carbon market, oppose federal carbon pricing plans, and cancel hundreds of planned clean energy projects seem short-sighted for an economy that was already humming along.

By backsliding on climate, Ontario may have just cost businesses billions, added millions in consumer costs, eschewed thousands of jobs and muddied its investment outlook.

Ontario’s Carbon Pricing Reversal Will Cost Billions

In 2016, Ontario established a cap-and-trade system in the province with the passage of the Climate Change Mitigation and Low-Carbon Economy Act with the first auction in March 2017, and linked the system with California and Quebec through the WCI carbon market in January 2018. Two joint auctions were successfully held, selling out all available allowances in February and in May 2018 – demonstrating a high level of future confidence in the system. All told, the individual and joint auctions generated over $2.8 billion for Ontario.

The province then sustained a dramatic reversal in policy in early June. Eschewing the agreements signed with California and Quebec, Premier Ford declined to provide the agreed upon one-year notice or wait, and instead announced an immediate end to the program. While the broader California and Quebec markets recovered quickly after a move by California to freeze trading, extensive uncertainty remains for entities that purchased and held allowances in Ontario and either are prevented from using these for compliance in the previously linked markets as planned, or are now stuck covering losses.

Ontario’s Minister of the Environment Rod Phillips, announced that out of more than $2.8 billion in allowances sold by the province, only roughly $5 million in compensation will be provided to market participants – leaving companies responsible for covering billions in lost allowance value. The government has said some of these costs are expected to be passed onto consumers. Simultaneously, the government has introduced legislation immunizing Ontario from civil legal action related to these losses – a dangerous precedent for a jurisdiction looking to build investor confidence.


Canceled Clean Energy Projects Will Cost Thousands Of Jobs

Ontario’s climate rollback wasn’t limited to the carbon market, however. The provincial government pulled out of more than 750 early-stage wind and solar energy contracts in early July, pledging that the move would save ratepayers nearly $800 million – but the move could have quite the opposite economic effect.

Solar and wind are emerging from a nascent stage in Canada, and Ontario has led the way with more than 90% of national solar capacity. But Canada’s Solar Industries Association (CanSEIA) estimates the cancellations will cost Ontario 6,000 jobs and around $500 million in expected investment, while the cancellation of just one approved wind farm could cost more than $100 million, which may be paid by power consumers across the province. Those jobs and investments may shift to other provinces – CanSEIA expects increased development interest in Alberta and Saskatchewan, both of which have 2030 renewable energy targets.

Renewable energy costs have fallen fast over the past decade, making them cheaper than new coal or nuclear and cost-competitive with natural gas globally as of 2017, and those cheaper costs can create savings for electricity consumers through new development. 90% of the cancelled Ontario contracts were distributed solar that would have benefited farmers, schools, cities, and Indigenous communities – and clean energy installations had already pushed down medical costs due to declining coal use and increased public health.


The government also cancelled a wide array of energy efficiency programs including support for high-efficiency window and door installations to reduce energy use and costs for homeowners and businesses —causing concerns for an industry valued at $1 billion across Ontario — as well as heat pumps and wood heating systems.

Ontario’s clean energy rollback could also hit the brakes on its budding electric vehicle (EV) industry and market, with the government’s cancellation of EV rebate programs, as well as a host of programs supporting electric school bus and commercial vehicle purchases.

Ontario is the heart of Canada’s auto manufacturing sector, but domestic and global markets are shifting toward clean transportation – EVs could reach 28% of global sales by 2030 – so Ontario automakers risk losing out on accelerating market growth if domestic demand declines while investments dry up.

Business Community Flags Risks Over Climate Policy Backslide

Canada’s federal government will implement a federal carbon pricing backstop on January 1, 2019, in all provinces that do not already have a carbon pricing system in place that complies with the minimum federal requirement. The backstop system combines a carbon price on fossil fuels paid by fuel producers or distributors with an output-based pricing system for emissions-intensive trade exposed sectors. This policy approach allows provinces and territories to design systems that work for their own unique circumstances, while ensuring that a carbon price is applied across the country.


The Ontario government has set aside $30 million for a legal challenge to the federal carbon plan but broad consensus, echoed in a legal opinion obtained by the Government of Manitoba, is that the federal government has a constitutional right to apply such a system. In addition to a costly legal fight, Ontario’s intransigence would cost it an estimated $316 million in discretionary funding it would have received from a federal Low-Carbon Economy Fund.

This leaves the business community understandably cautious about investing in Ontario at this point – with two key sources of uncertainty looming over future investment decisions.

First, the government’s action breaking contracts that companies made in good faith by purchasing allowances combined with legislated immunity sets a dangerous precedent. Potential investors have voiced concerns, from German and multinational companies to businesses across Canada – including John Manley, president of the Business Council of Canada, who flagged the recent decisions as a risk to Ontario’s “reputation for fair dealing and respect for the rule of law”.

Second, businesses find themselves in the difficult investment situation of facing uncertainty about future environmental regulation and costs. While cap-and-trade is clearly out, Ontario’s public has been clear in its desire for climate action, and the provincial government has provided few details about what a new climate plan might look like. Meanwhile, the federal government has been clear that provinces without a price on carbon will be covered by the federal carbon pricing backstop.


As a result, instead of taking the opportunity to design a carbon pricing system that is unique to Ontario’s economic realities, by default the provincial government is opting to have the federal backstop applied to its economy. Thus, companies considering investments might instead consider neighboring jurisdictions which have more clarity on policies and decarbonization support.

Ontario’s Major Economic Steps Backward

The decisions made by Ontario’s government risk missing out on long-term economic opportunities to transform the province’s energy consumption footprint, as well as to transition the economy into one that manufactures the products which are valued in a low-carbon future.

Moreover, a significant portion of the permits already purchased by businesses could be passed onto Ontarians, who may also be stuck with the legal fees for a challenge to federal plans with little chance of success.

In one fell swoop Ontario’s government has dramatically slashed a source of funding for clean transportation infrastructure to help consumers lower travel costs, erased hundreds of clean energy projects to help consumers reduce electricity costs, dimmed the prospects for jobs and economic growth from clean tech industries, and took a major step backwards in making the province an attractive climate for business and investment today – and into the future.

But one of its achievements that will probably be remembered well is the closure of the coal-fired power plants. There used to be dozens of “smog days” every year, peaking at 53 in 2005, but we haven’t had a single one in the province since the last coal plants were shut down 4 years ago . Not only that but coal ash is toxic waste and people need only look at the environmental disaster currently unfolding in the Carolinas as coal plants’ ash heaps have been breached by flooding from Hurricane Florence and are now contaminating local water sources (Unfortunately for Americans Trump has already repealed many environmental protections on water contamination on coal ash heaps specifically and also issed a new requirement that utilities buy coal powered electricity so disasters like this will be the new normal - but I digress).

I think you need to back up a little on this one as this is totally false.

Closing the coal power plants was NOT the reason for the lack of smog days. For example, in 2003 Ontario coal plants generated 37 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity and there were 19 days with smog advisories. In 2005 the coal plants generated 20 per cent less power—30 TWh—but there were 2.8 times as many smog days—53 days.

As another example, in 2012 the coal plants generated only 4.3 TWh of electricity and there were 30 days with smog advisories. So if we compare 2003 to 2012, we had 90 per cent less coal-fired power and 57 per cent more days with smog advisories.

The main reason for the lack of smog days were changes made in the US to their pollution controls.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/o ... -smog-days

Experts say Fraser Institute report on coal and clean air is "scientifically flawed"

By Elizabeth McSheffrey in News, Energy

February 22nd 2017

The Ontario government is fiercely disputing the validity of a recent Fraser Institute report claiming that phasing out coal-fired power plants across the province yielded only “small improvements” in air quality between Ottawa, Hamilton, and Toronto.

Scientists from the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) allege that the models used by the right-wing think tank are “overly simplistic” and too “scientifically and methodologically flawed” to support the conclusions published in its January report, Did the Coal Phase-out Reduce Ontario Air Pollution?

Non-government scientists support the government's criticism of the Fraser Institute report.

And Bruce Lourie, president of the Ivey Foundation and a director of the Ontario Power Authority, classified it as “one more poorly-written report that’s aimed at attacking anyone that’s trying to make the environment healthier for Canadians.”

The report analyzed data for three Ontario cities between 2002 and 2014 (coal-fired power plants were phased out between 2005 and 2014) and used statistical models to determine that overall, the reduction of air contaminants associated with declining coal use was “statistically insignificant.”

Provincial government researchers, however, say that the Fraser Institute omitted key air contaminant variables in its study, used inappropriate analytical methods, and would not pass a peer review process.

“The authors’ analysis does not consider the spatial and temporal variability of the parameters considered,” said an email statement from MOECC. “There are also no justifications for all the interpolations and manipulations that the authors have applied to their input variables as part of their assessment.”

....the Ontario government's criticism of the Fraser Institute report is backed by a team at the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) and an engineering professor at the Energy and Emissions Research Lab at Carleton University. The Fraser Institute study’s modeling was not predictive enough to claim that the phase-out had a negligible impact on air pollution, they both said in separate statements.

Same report, different conclusions

The Fraser Institute is known for sharp critiques of clean energy policies. Since 2008, the research organization has received more than $500,000 in funding from the billionaire American Koch brothers, whose affiliates have poured more than US$88 million into groups that have seeded doubt on climate change science since the late nineties.

In its report on the Ontario coal phase-out, the Fraser Institute asserts the government shuttered the plants to save $3 billion in annual health care costs.This was indeed, one of the province’s widely-cited reasons for closing down the plants, as was the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in dealing with the threat of climate change.

The report however, makes little mention of this second motivation. After it was published, McKitrick penned a commentary piece in the Financial Post claiming Ontario's entire coal phase-out plan has been "for nothing," and calling climate change a “red herring” in a discussion of costs and benefits associated coal reduction.

Since 2003 however, Ontario’s coal plan has eliminated more than 30 megatonnes of annual emissions (the equivalent of taking seven million vehicles off the road), and today, more than 90 per cent of the power generated in Ontario comes from clean energy sources. According to the Ontario government, the plan also helped reduce the number of smog days in Ontario from 53 in 2005 to zero in 2015; and last year, avoid more than 150,000 tonnes of smog-causing pollutants; and eliminate the release of 320 kilograms of mercury to air annually.

Sulphate and nitrate particulates, said the MOECC, decreased by as much as 77 per cent and 75 per cent, respectively, from 2007 to 2010 at several sites across the province — a decrease partially attributed to reduced emissions of SO2 and NOx from coal-fired power plants.

The government's conclusion that the Fraser Institute report was flawed is supported by outside scientist.

“The Fraser Institute report is a fairly simple, high-level analysis of a complex system, where they are attempting to analyze selected data for Ontario in isolation,” said Matthew Johnson, a research professor for Carleton University’s Energy and Emissions Research Lab, in an email. “A better approach might be to ask, how do today’s pollutant concentrations compare with what they would have been had the plants not been closed?”

Not considered in the report, he argued, are sulphur oxides (SOx), mercury, greenhouse gas emissions or reported smog days. Changing pollution levels from other non-coal sources, like vehicles, he added, or those wafting in from beyond Ontario were also not adequately distinguished or accounted for.

Allan Fogwill, president and CEO of the Calgary-based CERI and an energy sector executive with more than 25 years of experience, agreed.

“It’s very difficult to isolate — in fact, I would say it’s impossible — to isolate the impacts of coal NOx (nitrogen oxides) based on their model,” he told National Observer. “In our experience, the models are not predictive enough to make the conclusions that they’ve made.”

...None of the scientists from CERI or the Ontario government would speculate as to why the Fraser Institute chose to focus on the variables it did. But Lourie, the Ontario Power Authority director, said the think tank has a long history of suggesting environmental regulation are a bad thing.

“The report is making it sound like coal is a viable future source of electricity and I think that’s clearly not the case if you look at the evidence of coal use globally,” Lourie, the Ontario Power Authority director, told National Observer. “The Fraser Institute has a long history of writing reports that suggest environmental regulations are a bad thing… and I think what we saw in Ontario was very early leadership. I think you have to recognize that there are costs to being first and taking that kind of a leadership position.”

...

When you saw Fraser Institute you should have just kept googling they’re not considered credible. Basically they’re a right-wing propaganda outlet that conducts rigged research to support conservative positions. I mean even at face value obviously there are more factors to consider when comparing the number of smog days in one cherry-picked year to another than just how many units of electricity were generated...like - oh I don’t know - maybe THE WEATHER???

http://www.factsstillmatter.ca/fact/58c ... 59c5ca887f

And here:

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/the-p ... 7995777341

I could go on....

Your main article is one opinion against another opinion because the government and their team wouldn't dare fib to push their agenda forward, would they?

Everyone is cherry-picking specific parts of the data to serve their point. Nothing new here.

BTW, this is coming from the same government that said closing these plants would reduce health care spending by 10% (3 billion) due to the cost savings of closing these plants.

Our previous government was less than credible on almost all topics.




FWIW, I checked these first two from the bottom and neither debunked the Fraser report. I stopped reading beyond that.

For a non-biased piece of information:
https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/8197 ... 7-2014.pdf

IThe Liberals couldn't help themselves from conflating ALL fossil fuel power generation as innately evil, falsely making natural gas out to be as dangerous as thermal coal when in comes to emissions

made worse by getting rid of nuclear power (the other Big Evil in the enviro-nut scene) and then pretending that the upcoming green generation was going to be sufficient to replace both fossil AND nuke generation, at the same time, and at a "minimal" increase in cost to customers and to the taxpayer.

Oh well, it is what it is. Thing is that if the Liberals hadn't rushed headlong into creating a fiscal catastrophe for people simply trying to heat their homes and businesses then Ford wouldn't have the built-in excuse to get rid of the green incentives due to their inability to deliver practically any of the benefits the Liberals promised would have happened by now. And you can't say you're doing it for the benefit of "the future" by putting the screws to the present customers and get away with it forever. If their daily life gets crimped and they end up in hardship over a goddamn power bill they aren't going to fall for the hugs-and-cuddles propaganda from the green types.

I dunno.

Is the judge in the appeals court an ass hat for reversing judge Belobaba's decision?

Did Ford leave the City Council with zero legal recourse?

How many residents are for or against this move? City councilors not included.