A Healthy, Happy, Prosperous Ontario: Why We Need More Energy Conservation
By: David Hampson
Tags: Canada, Business, Policy, Energy, Climate Change

Last week, the Ford government cancelled and reduced funds for “proven, effective conservation programs” designed to save energy in buildings. Now why would they do that when they ran on a platform to reduce energy costs for everyone putting money back in the pockets of the people? Most likely, because the incumbent policies were implemented by the Liberals and not them, but I digress…

The Progressive Conservatives took a successful cap-and-trade program, sold it as a “tax” to place fear of less money for the people of Ontario. Then once elected, publicly ended C&T and quietly cancelled the Green Ontario Fund (a $377 million fund set aside from the $2.9 billion raised through C&T) which would have gone towards energy efficiency and therefore helping the people to SAVE money.

The latest cancellations had no bearing on climate change action in Ontario, according to a spokesperson for Energy Minister Greg Rickford, stating that:

“Ontario’s electricity system is 95 per cent emissions free. With an electricity system that’s so clean, cleaner than California, or Germany — changes to conservation programs have little to no effect on the environment. It’s actually something Ontario should be proud of, thanks to our reliance on Nuclear.”

The problem with this statement is this… It is wrong.

On Wednesday, Dinne Saxe, Ontario’s last independent environment commissioner released her last report “A Healthy, Happy, Prosperous Ontario: Why we need more energy conservation” painting a grim picture and a reality check for those thinking the PC government are helping the environment and their constituents who voted for them.

Below, I will try to summarise the report with regards to energy consumption and electricity. The report does go in depth into the realm of urban planning, which would be a whole new story in itself and maybe future articles.

The Progressive Conservative government is increasing energy bills, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions through policies that promote the use of fossil fuels, Saxe told reporters.

While renewable energy use has grown over the past decade (mostly in part from the Green Energy and Economy Act’s Feed-in Tariff Program), Ontario’s economy is still 75% dependent on fossil fuels, mostly petroleum products and natural gas.

This is not good for our economy, for our climate, for our health or for our well-being and will not be sustainable as climate change gathers speed. The world’s leading climate scientists have shown why the whole world must dramatically slash its use of fossil fuels before 2030, and Ontario had the means to do that.

The key is much more energy conservation (including efficiency), plus switching from fossil fuel use to Ontario’s clean electricity, geothermal, biomass and other renewables. It has been a top priority for the province in each Long Term Energy Plan published by the Ministry of Energy since 2011. Energy conservation has tremendous potential to save money, reduce Ontario’s heavy dependence on imported fossil fuels, create jobs, improve public health and reduce pollution of our air and climate.

Over the last decade, electricity and natural gas utilities operate successful conservation programs that have helped make the air cleaner and cost of energy cheaper. Without these programs, the cost of electricity and natural gas would be roughly 7% higher, and the province would be kicking out approximately 6 megatonnes (Mt) CO₂e higher.

Best of all and without sounding like an television commercial “but wait! there’s more”, we as a province can do better. Let us consider the following example:

Ontario currently spends $16 to $24 billion every year to import fossil fuels; through conservation, a reduction of 10% in consuming such fuels would result in savings ranging between $1.6 — $2.4 billion. This can be returned to the pockets of Ontario families and businesses. A reduction of 10% in consuming such fuels would result in savings ranging between $1.6 - $2.4 billion or around between $450 - $650 per household annually.

To get there, the government’s Environment Plan drafted in November 2018 counts on the expansions of natural gas conservation programs a the utilities level, which will bring annual greenhouse gas emissions down by 3.2 Mt by 2030. On an environmental front, this sounds quite positive, however, it won’t be cheap and the rate payer will be the ones footing the bill.

Electricity conservation programs however can and should produce more economic, climate, and environmental benefits. Ontario burns fossil fuels to make electricity during times of high demand. This creates a problem with the government cancelling the conservation programs designed to conserve electricity consumption, to the point of an annual emissions increase by 2 Mt by 2030 or 63% of what the natural gas program aims to offset.

Electricity conservation programs save money as shown in the table above. It helps keep the lights on and reduce the chance of black outs (anyone still remember 2003?) during peak summer and winter months, and will ensure a reliable grid system. The development of renewables which thrive in these peak times will help alleviate the pressures too by producing electricity right at or near sources of high demand.

To further the cause for conservation is to retrofit older homes that waste energy through older technologies and building methods. It is estimated that 85% of Ontario homes built before 2005 use at least twice as much energy as those of the same size built today.

To address this, a lot of conservation programs have been successful and additional programs were penciled in to be launched last summer (prior to the provincial elections). With a focus on lighting, furnaces, and air conditioning units, efficiencies have grown over the last decade. That said, these programs have been more “band-aid” fixes to a wider issue.

To use the analogy of a boat filling up with water and instead of addressing the hole in the boat, you just use a bucket and scoop the water out. Sure, you can use a bigger bucket, but your boat is still sinking. The same can be said for your home or office. If the envelop of the building is not tight, it’ll leak. In the winter months, the hot air will escape and you’re spending more money and energy heating air. If you insulate the building, it’ll require less energy and therefore cost less to heat.

Some recommendations are made in the image below which will improve the performance of older homes and buildings. Through modern building innovations, more energy efficient techniques can be utilised to reduce consumption of energy.

To date, Ontario conservation programs have done little to improve building envelopes in existing homes, yet serious progress in reducing their energy use and climate impact is not possible without taking the above recommendations.

One third of homes in Ontario underwent some kind of renovation in 2017, but with modest government policy changes could help increase this number and make home renovations more accessible for home owners proving to be more beneficial in the long run as well as lead to lower costs of energy.

The opportunity is there in plain sight and if we continue down this path of cancelling programs not implemented by the current government, we could be heading down the wrong path towards sustainability.