News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

Can't wait to see what constitutes "emissions reductions initiatives." Let Ontario be the expensive boy scout jurisdiction yet again while U.S. states burn coal to generate electricity for us to buy at top dollar during peak periods. We're such suckers.
 
A lot of the slack is going out of the US coal generation picture. The dirtier plants are also the older plants and economics, let alone greenhouse gas issues, have led to closures. Coal production in the northeast is all but finished - the impact on West Virginia is heartbreaking, even if you are anti-coal. Railways are reporting coal shipments are way down.

- Paul
 
Can't wait to see what constitutes "emissions reductions initiatives." Let Ontario be the expensive boy scout jurisdiction yet again while U.S. states burn coal to generate electricity for us to buy at top dollar during peak periods. We're such suckers.

Under the legislation, an annual report will have to be published detailing exactly what the cash flow is (both revenues from carbon credit sales and expenditures on emissions reductions programs) and a description on the environmental merits on each initiative. So it will be easy enough for the media and opposition politicians to scrutinize to ensure that cap and trade revenues are being spent appropriately.

These mechanisms are detailed in Section 68 of the act:


Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account

68. (1) An account shall be established in the Public Accounts to be known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account in English and Compte de réduction des gaz à effet de serre in French in which shall be recorded the following amounts:

1. The amount of the proceeds from the distribution of Ontario emission allowances created under section 29.

2. Any amounts payable to the Crown by a participant under section 14.

3. The amount of any administrative penalties that are paid under section 54.

4. The amount of any fees payable to the Crown under this Act.

5. All expenditures of public money incurred under subsection (2).

Authorized expenditures

(2) Amounts not exceeding the balance in the account may be charged to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account and paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the following purposes:

1. To fund costs incurred by the Crown, directly or indirectly, in connection with the administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations or to reimburse the Crown for expenditures incurred by the Crown, directly or indirectly, for any such purpose.

2. To fund, directly or indirectly, costs relating to initiatives described in Schedule 1 to this Act that are reasonably likely to reduce, or support the reduction of, greenhouse gas and costs relating to any other initiatives that are reasonably likely to do so.

3. To reimburse the Crown for expenditures incurred by the Crown, directly or indirectly, for any purpose described in paragraph 2.

Restriction

(3) No amount is payable under paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection (2) during a year in respect of any initiative unless the Minister reviews and provides an evaluation of the initiative to Treasury Board. The Minister’s review may consider,

(a) the potential greenhouse gas reductions of the intiative;

(b) the relationship of the initiative to the achievement of the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets established under section 6;

(c) the relationship of the initiative to other potential, planned and funded initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas;

(d) the relationship of the initiative to the climate change action plan prepared under section 7; and

(e) such other matters as the Minister considers appropriate.

Reimbursement of prior expenditures

(4) A reimbursement described in paragraph 3 of subsection (2) may be provided for expenditures incurred by the Crown on or after November 1, 2015 and before this section comes into force.

Same

(5) A reimbursement described in paragraph 3 of subsection (2) for expenditures incurred by the Crown on or after the day this section comes into force must be made before the books of the Government of Ontario are closed for the fiscal year in which the expenditures are incurred.

Annual report

(6) Every year, the Minister shall prepare a report about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account setting out the following:

1. A description of each of the amounts credited and charged to the Account during the year.

2. A description of each of the initiatives with respect to which amounts were charged to the Account during the year, identifying any of those initiatives that were contemplated in the climate change action plan prepared in respect of the year.

3. A description of amounts charged to the Account to reimburse the Crown for expenditures incurred by the Crown, directly or indirectly, in connection with the administration and enforcement of this Act and the regulations.

4. Such other information as may be required by regulation.

Same

(7) The Minister shall lay the report before the Assembly at the earliest reasonable opportunity.

Schedule 1 provides a detailed description of what constitutes "emissions reductions initiatives":

SCHEDULE 1
GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION ACCOUNT

Initiatives

1. (1) Any of the following types of initiatives may be funded, in whole or in part, from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account in accordance with section 68 of the Act, but only, for any particular initiative, if the particular initiative is reasonably likely to reduce, or support the reduction of, greenhouse gas:

1. Initiatives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas from energy sources and uses through the use of renewable and alternative energy sources and uses including the following:

i. The production or installation of renewable, low-carbon, carbon-free and net zero alternative energy.

ii. The research, development or deployment of technologies that eliminate or reduce the need to use fuels that emit greenhouse gasses.

iii. Distributed renewable energy generation and energy management technologies to support load-shifting, energy storage, net metering and other measures to eliminate the need for grid-based electricity during natural gas peaking.

iv. Carbon capture and storage technology for greenhouse gas emitting energy sources.

2. Initiatives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas from land use and buildings including the following:

i. Geothermal solutions, insulation, and other technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings and neighbourhoods.

ii. Support for increasing consumer demand for near-net-zero and net zero buildings, structures and communities.

iii. Infrastructure to support adoption and use of zero emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and low-carbon alternative fuels.

iv. The design, construction and retrofitting of buildings and structures to reduce greenhouse gas emitting energy sources related to space and water cooling and heating.

3. Initiatives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas from transportation including the following:

i. Support for increasing consumer demand for zero emission and plug-in hybrid vehicles.

ii. Active transportation infrastructure that will reduce greenhouse gas.

iii. Public transit vehicles and infrastructure that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

iv. Technologies, infrastructure, vehicles, buildings and structures that reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the movement of goods.

4. Initiatives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas from industry including the following:

i. Technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

ii. Switching from higher greenhouse gas emitting sources of energy, carbon capture, sequestration and storage and changes to processes, including changes to the inputs to those processes that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

5. Initiatives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas from agriculture, forestry and natural systems including the following:

i. Support for agriculture, soil and forestry approaches that are intended to reduce or remove greenhouse gas.

ii. Treatment or destruction of by-products that produce greenhouse gas.

iii. Carbon capture, sequestration and storage.

6. Initiatives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas from the waste system including the following:

i. Reducing the waste that produces greenhouse gas.

ii. The management and use of waste to reduce greenhouse gas.

iii. The use and destruction of by-products of waste management that produce greenhouse gas such as landfill gas.

7. Initiatives relating to the reduction of greenhouse gas through the use of financial models and services including the following:

i. Support for organizations that develop and deliver financing tools, project aggregation, and professional services for initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

ii. The use of risk capital funds to invest in clean technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), any initiative described in subsection (1) may include any of the following actions:

1. Researching, developing and deploying technology, equipment and scientific processes.

2. Developing and delivering education and training.

3. Providing information to the public.

4. Activities related to innovation.

5. Other actions.
 
At the very least, I hope the profits are targeted to productivity and quality of life boosters like transit. The benefits of some other environmental measures are harder to quantify. I think much could be accomplished through regulations like changes to the building codes rather than any measures that result in net tax increases. We pay enough. The cost of living is too high in Ontario. The housing market is completely out of wack.
 
Transit expansion is actually not likely to receive money from this. The goal is to maximize "bang for the buck" in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. Transit expansion is actually a poor performer in this regard. You need to spend a lot of money on transit projects to receive the sort of ridership gains necessary to really make a dent in carbon emissions. In fact, transit expansion can actually make carbon emissions go up, at least in the short term. For example, increasing bus service will cause carbon emissions to immediately increase, but the ridership gains from people getting out of their cars to ride the bus instead will take a lot longer to develop.

The revenue will likely be used more for projects like subsidizing insulation upgrades and such, which are much more effective at reducing emissions for the money they cost.
 
Not necessarily. What's the net effect on carbon emissions if we electrify GO or say we deploy electric trolley buses on VIVA's Hwy 7 corridor?

Those work for carbon reduction, but they don't necessarily make transit better. (Ie. VIVA Purple is not suddenly a much better service because it's running a trolley bus every 30 minutes instead of a diesel bus every 30 minutes).
 
At the very least, I hope the profits are targeted to productivity and quality of life boosters like transit.
Quality of life boosters is letting me keep more of my own money.

As for the Ontario pension plan, a big flaw, carried over from CPP is my money put into the system is lost when I die. With my own RSP and savings I can ensure the cash goes to my family.
 
Quality of life boosters is letting me keep more of my own money.

As for the Ontario pension plan, a big flaw, carried over from CPP is my money put into the system is lost when I die. With my own RSP and savings I can ensure the cash goes to my family.

Come now. You do get quality of life improvements from transit. Unless you think sitting in traffic for an hour each way is quality of life. We need these investments.

As for the ORPP, the bigger suspicion is that they plan to use the pension plan as a slush fund to pay for infrastructure. That's rather skirting fiduciary duty to invest money for maximum return. It's in effect, another mechanism for debt. This should be highly concerning to anybody.
 
Transit expansion is actually not likely to receive money from this. The goal is to maximize "bang for the buck" in terms of reducing CO2 emissions. Transit expansion is actually a poor performer in this regard. You need to spend a lot of money on transit projects to receive the sort of ridership gains necessary to really make a dent in carbon emissions. In fact, transit expansion can actually make carbon emissions go up, at least in the short term. For example, increasing bus service will cause carbon emissions to immediately increase, but the ridership gains from people getting out of their cars to ride the bus instead will take a lot longer to develop.

The revenue will likely be used more for projects like subsidizing insulation upgrades and such, which are much more effective at reducing emissions for the money they cost.

The Relief Line Short was actually projected to create additional carbon emissions.
 
Come now. You do get quality of life improvements from transit. Unless you think sitting in traffic for an hour each way is quality of life. We need these investments.

As for the ORPP, the bigger suspicion is that they plan to use the pension plan as a slush fund to pay for infrastructure. That's rather skirting fiduciary duty to invest money for maximum return. It's in effect, another mechanism for debt. This should be highly concerning to anybody.

I am against ORPP for a lot of reasons....this is not one of them. Everytime someone talks about that I just roll my eyes. Yes, ORPP is a bad piece of policy....but not for that reason.
 
I am against ORPP for a lot of reasons....this is not one of them. Everytime someone talks about that I just roll my eyes. Yes, ORPP is a bad piece of policy....but not for that reason.

That's funny. I support the idea of the ORPP (or better yet just raising CPP). But the fact that they might use it as a slush fund is what bothers me. It would effectively create massive liabilities down the road. Not something I want. Just convince the feds to slowly raise the CPP.
 
That's funny. I support the idea of the ORPP (or better yet just raising CPP). But the fact that they might use it as a slush fund is what bothers me. It would effectively create massive liabilities down the road. Not something I want. Just convince the feds to slowly raise the CPP.
government using a pension plan as a slush fund is illegal....that's why that part does not bother me.
 

Back
Top