Environment Committee on May 16th, 2007

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That would include more efficient lighting?

[Carol Buckley]

Yes, that would include the regulatory program for energy efficient products, for energy-using products, as well as all the other energy efficiency programs.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Light bulbs, etc.

[Carol Buckley]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

When I moved an amendment to Bill C-30 at committee for more efficient lighting, it was rejected at the time by government saying they weren't prepared, etc.

That analysis must have happened after that period, because at the time, I don't think there was any explanation from government as to what the benefits were for more efficient lighting. When was that analysis done?

[Carol Buckley]

We've been working on improving the efficiency of lighting with a multi-stakeholder group, including provinces, territories, utilities, and industry, for a year at least. It has always been our intention, as part of the regulatory package that was part of Bill C-30, to improve lighting technologies through standards.

We provided to committee—I don't remember if it was this or the natural resources committee—a list of the intended products for regulation.

The amendment to Bill C-30 that you proposed a couple of months ago was not the same as the proposed regulation the government announced recently. Your amendment had a specified lumens per watt right in the regulation, which is not one that we had assessed, and it wasn't comparable to what is emerging internationally from jurisdictions such as California, the U.K., and Australia. So it's sort of comparing apples and oranges.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

What I'm hearing you say is that there had been an analysis of the projection of reductions that this would have on our general GHG emissions.

[Carol Buckley]

Yes, we've been analyzing the impact of various regulations for many months in advance of the October release of Bill C-30. We have also continued to refine those estimates, as our consultations with stakeholders continue. So that work goes back a fair ways, predating the amendment proposal for Bill C-30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Dewar, your time is up.

Thank you.

I'll go to Mr. Allen, then Mr. Warawa, I believe.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everybody for staying for this second portion.

I have a few questions, and most of them are directed towards Natural Resources.

First, I want to talk a bit about biomass on the forestry side. As you're well aware, the forestry industry got out in front of this in the early 1990s in adopting biomass. I think up to 60% of their power generation is now from biomass. We are giving credit in our plan for 15 megatonnes of this early adopter thing.

Has there been consultation with the industry on that? When are the rules going to be defined about how that's going to be spread?

[Howard Brown]

That is a question for Environment Canada because it has to do with the regulatory framework.

[Cécile Cléroux]

If the biomass has been used by an industry that is going to be regulated, this is the kind of project that could be admissible for credit for early action.

As we are proceeding right now to determine the criteria, they will be announced. Part of the final framework is targeted for the fall of 2007, so that people will be able to know exactly what the process will be and the criteria for projects to be recognized.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

My next question is with respect to renewable energy, which obviously will play a big role going forward in terms of reducing our air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. I have some concerns about renewable energy getting out under the grid at a reasonable cost for developers who want to undertake this. As everybody is aware, electricity generation, distribution, and also, for the most part, transmission are provincial responsibilities.

For the developer who is getting this off the grid, what kinds of things are we doing in discussions we're having with utilities to ensure that we can get the most bounce for our buck on this renewable energy program?

[Howard Brown]

If I understand the question correctly, I think you have identified a real issue--namely, how do you ensure that the grid is capable of accepting as much renewable power as possible?

There are questions about codes and standards and so on. The department is doing some work in that regard. I don't have the details with me, but again, I could get back to you on that.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I think grid stability is one thing. Obviously the utilities who have gone headlong into wind energy now are finding that this hasn't worked out quite so well. Now they're talking to baseload fossil stations to offset their wind.

I'm just thinking that suppose someone wanted to build a baseload garbage-burning facility or something; that would be a baseload plan, getting that type of thing on the grid. It would be a challenge; we see it right now.

In terms of coal stations, at our natural resources committee the other day, Dr. David Lewin said the following:

We did our best to anticipate. I must say that we didn't anticipate as strenuous targets as we saw.

We were hoping we would have a little bit more time to change out the capital stock. As you have older capital stock coming up for renewal, it makes sense to put the best available technology in place.

That was by Dr. David Lewin from the Canadian Clean Power Coalition.

As well, page 11 of the deck here mentions that compliance options “provide the time and flexibility” and complement “normal capital turnover cycles”.

In terms of the consultation process with our utility industry—I know it's going to be a challenge especially for coal-generating places—what kinds of consultations have we done to ensure that we don't cause capital stock problems in the industry?

[Cécile Cléroux]

Part of the work we have started doing with the different sectors, including electricity, is to be able to work with the targets they have before them. For air pollutants, we are consulting at this time to validate if they are coming into force for 2012, going up to 2015. There is flexibility, taking into account those elements. As well there's the flexibility mechanism we have in the regulatory system on the GHG side and for the air pollutants. It's giving them the leeway to be able to match the capital stock turnover with the time they need to take into account those different issues.

We are consulting right now across the country and with different groups, taking stock of the different comments that are coming in. We'll provide recommendations to government when we provide the final framework in the fall of 2007.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you.

My questions are probably most directed to Mr. Brown at this point.

Perhaps you can give me a response in another context. We've maybe heard some of this message, but how is Natural Resources Canada supporting the growth of renewable energy in Canada? I'm thinking in particular of such things as small hydro, biomass, tidal power, and so on.

[Howard Brown]

The key program in that respect is the ecoENERGY renewable program, in which the government committed $1.5 billion to support 4,000 megawatts of additional renewable capacity. That would include wind but also small-scale hydro, biomass, potentially geothermal, and so on.

In addition to that, there's ongoing research and development being done at our own labs that would support many renewable sources of power.

You'd be aware as well that the government announced this year the commitment of $230 million to an ecoENERGY science and technology strategy. The priority areas on which that money will be allocated will be decided in consultation with others, but I would expect that renewables would be fairly high up on the list of many jurisdictions and many industries.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

How does the federal government's support for clean electricity work out with or complement the efforts being made by the provinces?

[Howard Brown]

If I take wind as an example, because it is the largest by far of the non-traditional renewables, a rule of thumb is that a subsidy of about 2¢ a kilowatt hour is needed to make it cost-competitive. It obviously varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from site to site, but that's not a bad rule of thumb. The ecoENERGY renewables program provides about half of that, 1¢ per kilowatt hour.

There are wind projects that would be economical with support of 1¢ per kilowatt hour, but on average that means provinces would have to contribute roughly the same amount for the program to reach its full potential. There are many different ways that can be done. It can be done, as in Ontario, through a request for proposals for renewable power projects, for example. It could be done through mandates. It could be done through cash contributions.

What we have at the end of the day is a very flexible and informal--but effective--joint effort between the federal government and the provinces.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Thank you.

How does your department, particularly in the days ahead, anticipate working with industry and working with utilities when it comes to supporting clean solar and some of the geothermal solutions?

[Howard Brown]

There are two areas. The first, as I mentioned, is the ecoENERGY renewable program. Solar is certainly eligible under that program for power generation. Its eligibility may be slightly theoretical, because to the best of my knowledge, it won't be competitive with other renewable sources.

There's also a smaller program that would support solar space heating applications, and there, I think, the economics are somewhat better. Then, in addition, through work in our own labs and through the ecoENERGY science and technology program there's an opportunity to provide research and development funds to bring the costs down and to make these solar technologies more economical and more competitive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can I use one minute, please?

I just wondered if you've used what the Alberta government is doing with the tar sands in terms of their plan to capture and sequester and put it in a pipeline and put it down in oil recovery. Have you taken that into account?