• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
Celebrating our 1,000th edition. The climate news you need
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  FEATURED
Ex-Fossil Workers Convert Old Oilfields to Solar Farms After ‘Rapid Upskilling’ in Alberta June 29, 2022
London Becomes Biggest City to Sign Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty June 29, 2022
G7 Miss ‘Golden Opportunity’, Walk Back Pledge to Cut International Fossil Finance June 29, 2022
Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ For Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use June 26, 2022
BREAKING: UN Nature Summit, the ‘Paris Conference for Biodiversity’, Moves to Montreal in December June 19, 2022
Next
Prev
Home Climate & Society Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics

Unwinding Cap-and-Trade Makes Industry Anxious, Could Cost Ontario More Than $4 Billion

June 26, 2018
Reading time: 4 minutes
Primary Author: Mitchell Beer @mitchellbeer

digifly840 / Pixabay

digifly840 / Pixabay

 

Analysts and observers from all sides of the political spectrum are panning Ontario premier-designate Doug Ford’s decision to end the province’s carbon cap-and-trade program as his first order of legislative business, while Ford himself has managed to undercut his campaign trail commitment to lower energy prices before he’s even sworn in June 29.

As soon as Ford announced the carbon pricing rollback last week, reaction began rolling in, with businesses across the province expressing anxiety about the C$2.8 billion in carbon allowances they’d previously acquired, fossil companies Suncor and Enbridge asking pointed questions about the carbon allowances they’d bought under the previous provincial pricing regime, the Conservative-leaning Canadians for Clean Prosperity underscoring the political uncertainties and liabilities Ford is creating, and Ivey Foundation Executive Director Bruce Lourie putting the cost of the decision at more than $4 billion, well above initial estimates that were closer to $2 billion.

“There is a lot of apprehension, there is concern,” said Lisa DeMarco, senior partner at the law firm of DeMarco Allan LLP. “They’re very anxious to see some assurance that they will be kept whole.”

“They purchased because they figured they were going to need them by the 2020 deadline,” Michael Berends, managing director at Toronto-based cap-and-trade advisers ClearBlue Markets, said of the carbon credits purchased by Canadian fossil companies. “Now they’re being told ‘oh, you can’t expect that.’ Everyone’s scared. These guys want to have market certainty.”

iPolitics cites one industry group that declined to be identified, but noted that Ford’s initial rollback announcement contained “no answers to critical questions” facing industry

“Crucially, the group said, in a climate where businesses are contending with uncertainty in NAFTA talks, new trade tariffs and the threat of more, and the concerns over competitiveness with the U.S., the announcement from Ford only added to the insecurity that businesses are feeling,” the online newspaper notes.

“It’s one more uncertainty that those businesses don’t need, frankly,” the group said.

In a blistering opinion piece for National Observer, the Ivey Foundation’s Lourie says Ford’s decision runs against the current of “economists and sensible corporations” across Canada that support carbon pricing. Taxing carbon pollution “is so blindingly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of economic sense,” he writes. “Unfortunately, economic sense does not drive voters, nor politics. Certainly not the new Ontario government.”

But he warns that “the implications for the Conservatives are serious. Scrapping Ontario’s cap and trade system (we don’t actually have a carbon tax, that was part of the misinformation campaign) will be ‘messy and costly’, according to the Ecofiscal Commission. Recall that Dalton McGuinty cancelled a gas plant for political reasons costing Ontarians up to a billion dollars. And the Tories went to town, for years, like dogs with a bone. That experience will pale by comparison to the political folly of Doug Ford cancelling cap and trade, with early estimates showing a figure that will likely exceed $4 billion in compensation, legal fees, penalties, administrative costs, and who knows what else.”

The existing cap-and-trade regime with California and Quebec will take four years to unwind, Lourie adds, and will affect “the hundreds of major Ontario companies benefiting from the system. Many have already signalled a move out of Ontario into friendlier jurisdictions, taking jobs and investment with them. And these are the companies of the future, but sadly not Ontario’s. Good luck explaining that one next time around to the voters who thought they were getting lower taxes.”

And then, after shuttering consumer and business energy efficiency programs funded by cap-and-trade revenue—which delivered on the least expensive form of electricity “supply” at Ontario’s disposal—Ford was quick to endorse the costliest option in the province’s inventory, doubling down on his campaign promise to keep the aging Pickering nuclear station open beyond its scheduled closure date this August. That pronouncement drew immediate fire from the Ontario Clean Energy Alliance, the group that crunched the numbers to come up with a menu of least- and lower-cost electricity supply options.

“Ford’s decision does not make financial sense for Ontario’s electricity consumers,” wrote OCAA Director Angela Bischoff. “The annual savings from closing the Pickering Nuclear Station would be 183 times greater than the savings from firing Mayo Schmidt, the CEO of Hydro One,” a largely symbolic cost saving Ford had emphasized on the campaign trail.

“Based on an out-of-date 2015 report, which compared Pickering’s costs to those of a natural gas-fired power plant, Mr. Ford asserted that the continued operation of the nuclear station will save Ontario consumers $600 million,” Bischoff wrote. “What Mr. Ford failed to note is that Ontario can lower its electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year by replacing Pickering’s output with lower-cost water power from Quebec.”

Meanwhile, Canadian Solar Industries Association President John Gorman warned that shutting down the province’s Green Ontario Fund rebate program would strand thousands of Ontarians waiting for solar installations, and CBC reported that solar companies were thinking of pulling up stakes and abandoning the province for Alberta.



in Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

David/flickr
United States

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
1.2k
Graco/Facebook
Food Security

Soaring Fertilizer Prices Could Deliver ‘Silver Lining’ for Emissions, But Farmers Struggle to Limit Use

July 2, 2022
212
willenhallwench / Pixabay
Clean Electricity Grid

PG&E Risks Greenwashing with Definition of ‘Scope 4’ Emissions

June 24, 2022
98

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

François GOGLINS/wikimedia commons

Corrosion Problem Shutters Half of France’s Nuclear Reactors

June 29, 2022
227
Keith Hirsche

Ex-Fossil Workers Convert Old Oilfields to Solar Farms After ‘Rapid Upskilling’ in Alberta

June 29, 2022
422
Danielle Scott/flickr

Advocate Urges Ottawa to Intervene Before Ontario Builds Highway 413

June 29, 2022
130
David/flickr

U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Gut Emission Controls as Climate Scientists Petition for Plan B

June 26, 2022
1.2k
Number 10/flickr

G7 Miss ‘Golden Opportunity’, Walk Back Pledge to Cut International Fossil Finance

June 29, 2022
152
London Eye UK England

London Becomes Biggest City to Sign Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty

June 29, 2022
131

Recent Posts

AJEL / Pixabay

Windfall Tax on Food, Fossil, Pharma Giants Would Raise $490B to Solve ‘Catastrophic’ Food Crisis: Oxfam

June 29, 2022
58
futureatlas.com/flickr

Ottawa Demands Deeper Fuel Emissions Cuts, Offers Fossils a Double-Dip on Tax Breaks

June 29, 2022
78
Province of B.C./flickr

Comox Joins Municipalities Seeking Ban on New Gas Stations

June 29, 2022
78
/Piqsels

Refocus Agriculture Spending to Cut Emissions, Boost Productivity, OECD Urges Governments

June 29, 2022
29
Jimmy Emerson, DVM/flickr

Public Vigilance Key to Protecting Greenbelts for Climate Resilience, Report Finds

June 29, 2022
36
Miguel V/Wikimedia Commons

Forests Fall Short of Full Carbon Storage Potential, Study Finds

June 29, 2022
64
Next Post
Department of Energy/Flickr

Bipartisan Group Proposes U.S. Carbon Tax, But Would Free Fossils from Legal Accountability

The Energy Mix

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Navigate Site

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Follow Us

No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}