Evidence of meeting #67 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was generation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
I think we're going to have to stop there.
Ms. DeMarco, Mr. Benedetti, thank you very much for coming today. It's been incredibly helpful. On behalf of our committee, I'd like to express our gratitude.
We will suspend for two minutes and then pick up for the second hour.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
We're going to get started on the second hour. We have two sets of witnesses.
From the Conference Board of Canada, we have Louis Thériault. We appreciate your coming.
For a second time—and hopefully there won't be bells today, gentlemen; we appreciate your coming back—we have Mike MacDougall and Tom Bechard from Powerex. Since you got cut off last time, why don't we start with you?
Each group will get up to 10 minutes to do their presentation, followed by a series of questions.
Mike MacDougall Director, Trade Policy, Powerex
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee on the topic of strategic interties.
My name is Mike MacDougall, and I'm the director of trade policy with Powerex. My colleague is Tom Bechard, and he's the managing director of gas and Canadian power.
Powerex is a wholly owned subsidiary of B.C. Hydro, responsible for marketing electricity, natural gas, and renewable energy products across western Canada and the U.S. Today we would like to give you the perspective of a user of the transmission system as to how the existing interties function, how additional value might be gained from the existing facilities, and some of the circumstances necessary for new interties to provide benefits, including greenhouse gas reduction benefits, to users of the system and the ratepayers of the utilities that build them.
First, I will give you a bit more perspective on Powerex so you can understand what informs our perspective on these issues. Second, I will discuss the nature of these interties from the everyday perspective, that is, what is available for use by customers of these systems. Then Mr. Bechard will provide you some information on how the various markets provide signals or not to make use of the facilities for economic exchange and how they incent or not the use of external clean generation resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Lastly, he will cover what economic incentives might be necessary to support the expansion of new intertie facilities.
As I mentioned, Powerex is the wholly owned subsidiary of B.C. Hydro. We were formed in 1988 and have nearly 30 years' experience participating in energy markets across North America. In 2016 we were the second-largest exporter of electricity from Canada to the U.S., responsible for roughly 13,600 gigawatt hours, or 19% of Canada's total exports to the U.S. We were also the largest importer of electricity from the U.S. into Canada in 2016, bringing 8,000 gigawatt hours, or 86.5% of all imports to Canada. We also buy and sell electricity in the Alberta market, with volumes representing on average 10% of our export activity and 3% of our import activity over the past five years.
In order to transact this volume of electricity, Powerex must purchase transmission services from a wide variety of transmission providers. Within the U.S., Powerex holds over 5,000 megawatts of long-term transmission capacity, spending in excess of $125 million per year on transmission services. One key concept we would like to share with the committee is the difference between the design capacity of transmission facilities and their everyday operational capacity.
For a user of transmission services what really matters is the operational capacity. B.C.'s connection with Alberta is nominally 1,200 megawatts when moving from B.C. to Alberta; however, the actual operational capacity is usually in the range of 430 to 600 megawatts, or only 35% to 50% of the design limits. Likewise, B.C.'s connection to the U.S. is nominally 3,150 megawatts, with a typical operating capacity of 2,500 megawatts, or roughly 80% of the design limit.
This difference is caused by a multitude of factors related to the design of the facilities, along with the operation of the grid itself; however, from a customer perspective, only the lower capacity is available to be used to move power. In the case where transmission rights are sold to users to support the cost recovery, as in B.C., this lower operational limit is also the amount that can reasonably be sold. In the case of B.C. to Alberta, roughly half the capacity is stranded and unable to be sold to recover the costs of B.C. Hydro's facilities.
When reviewing investments in strategic interties, we should first be considering whether we are getting the most out of the existing facilities. In the case of B.C. and Alberta, much of the limitation lies within the Alberta system itself, including choices made when the Montana-Alberta intertie was connected to the Alberta grid in 2013, resulting in a facility that did not increase Alberta's overall ability to import electricity.
Addressing the usable capacity of the existing interties is important from an efficiency perspective and could be substantially more economic than the cost of new construction.
In addition to the available capacity, one must consider whether users of the transmission system would see sufficient incentives to purchase the capacity made available by the transmission facilities and hence support the cost recovery of the investment.
For that discussion, I will turn to Mr. Bechard.
Tom Bechard Managing Director, Gas and Canadian Power, Powerex
Thanks, Mike.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting us to speak today regarding strategic interties.
At a high level, it seems pretty clear that there is much to be gained, both economically and environmentally, from improved and expanded wholesale electricity trade between B.C. and Alberta. Alberta is a province transitioning from coal generation to additional natural gas and wind generation, and perhaps eventually solar generation as well. B.C. is a province rich in clean, flexible hydroelectric generation. This diversity in generation technologies between B.C. and Alberta should support mutually beneficial trade between the provinces. However, there are two key barriers that have hindered maximizing these wholesale electricity trade opportunities: transmission transfer limitations and market design.
As Mr. MacDougall noted, B.C. has had a significant surplus of electricity available for export; however, in recent years, very little of that surplus electricity has found its way to Alberta. Over the past few years, Powerex has exported the vast majority of this surplus to California, while less than 10% has been delivered to Alberta. In effect, clean electricity from B.C. has travelled thousands of kilometres to California, generally reducing natural gas generation levels in California. From the perspective of reducing carbon emissions, this seems inefficient, as B.C.'s clean surplus electricity could have been sent right next door to Alberta to reduce coal output.
Aside from the challenges with transmission transfer capability, as described by Mr. MacDougall, a primary reason for this outcome is the relative price signals provided by California's organized market, compared with Alberta's, for clean generation imports.
Fortunately, Powerex expects this situation to shift to some extent in 2018, as Alberta implements its carbon competitiveness regulation, or CCR. This CCR program will have the important effect of pricing Alberta's carbon emissions and raising the value of electricity imports. We expect that this will make Alberta a more attractive destination for B.C.'s clean surplus electricity, which is expected to displace Alberta's coal generation.
Although we expect that the introduction of the CCR program is likely to increase trade between the provinces, providing mutually beneficial economic and environmental benefits, opportunities exist to expand these benefits further.
In particular, as Alberta installs qualifying renewable resources, largely expected to be wind generation, under its climate leadership plan, it will require additional flexible resources to provide renewable integration services. While some of these flexibility services will be provided from Alberta's current and expanded natural gas generation fleet, B.C.'s resource mix is well situated to compete to provide these services, while further reducing greenhouse gases. For example, B.C. may be able to back down its flexible hydro generation and utilize Alberta's surplus wind generation when the wind output exceeds Alberta's ability to use it. Later, B.C. can return clean electricity to Alberta, displacing fossil fuel generation, when Alberta wind is not producing.
Achieving this outcome, however, requires at least two key areas of co-operation. The first one is a commitment to a fair, efficient, and robust market design and/or a long-term commercial arrangement that results in an equitable allocation of the short-term production cost savings, the environmental cost savings, and the investment cost savings, compared with Alberta going it alone. The second one requires expanding the limited transmission transfer capability between the provinces.
Importantly, both of these areas of co-operation must occur together. The economic and environmental benefits of market design improvements and/or long-term commercial arrangement will be significantly limited without expanding the current transmission transfer capability between the provinces. Similarly, expanding the transmission capability under the current market framework without a new commercial arrangement is unlikely to achieve the economic and environmental benefits required to justify the necessary investments in the new transmission facilities, or to equitably distribute those benefits between the provinces.
We thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer any questions.
Louis Thériault Vice-President, Industry Strategy and Public Policy, The Conference Board of Canada
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the committee members.
It's a pleasure to present again today in front of all of you.
At the Conference Board recently, we did a report called “The Cost of a Cleaner Future”, and a lot of what we talk about in the report is on electricity and the electrification of the economy.
My role today is to discuss with you the main results of this exercise, this analysis of Canada's options for a lower-carbon future. In doing so, I will draw heavily on the results of a joint research effort of the Conference Board and the Canadian Academy of Engineering. We partnered with the Canadian Academy of Engineering to develop these scenarios.
The analysis studies three distinct policy measures: the impact of carbon pricing and a shift in the electricity generation mix; the impact of substantially decarbonizing our electricity generation sector; and the impact of investments that will allow Canada to reduce its emissions by 60% by 2050. The key findings are a couple of main points here.
Carbon pricing and a shift in our electricity generation mix will have a small negative impact on the economy, but there are distributional impacts that will need to be considered by policy-makers.
The other key finding is that pricing carbon and decarbonizing our electricity system will need to be accompanied by trillions of dollars in spending on clean energy infrastructure and significant changes to the way we consume energy. In that context, changing public behaviour will play a crucial role. This will require significant participation by Canadians, and it needs to be made clear that they're part of the solution in this transition. This requires policy-makers to present and to make more clear the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions going forward.
These findings, as I've mentioned, are the result of a technical modelling exercise with the Canadian Academy of Engineering; the economic modelling that we do at the Conference Board, which is what we're known for; policy analysis; and I must say in this case, given the magnitude of what we're talking about, a fair share of head-scratching.
The main results were presented at our Reshaping Energy conference here in Ottawa last spring, which involved industry, government, and academic presenters. As you know, the Conference Board is a non-partisan evidence-based research organization. We're non-partisan in all of this. We try to bring the facts to inform the policy in the transition to a low-carbon world. That event was a good example of how the Conference Board does this.
There are two overarching messages.
Simply pricing carbon and moving away from fossil fuels are insufficient measures to achieve the deep reductions that we were talking about in the Paris agreement. While technology and innovation will play a role in the long term, they can't get us to the 2030 target given the relatively short window available to develop and adopt these solutions. The second overarching message is that, given that the required investment will be in the trillions of dollars, policy-makers need to communicate to Canadians the scale of what we're talking about in terms of this transformation that will have impacts on everyday life.
I don't want to get into the details of the report, but there are a couple of highlights that I think are important in the context of what we've talked about today and the zooming in on electrification. The report examines the impacts of carbon pricing and of the investments needed to help Canada achieve the deep reductions—significant reductions—in greenhouse gas emissions. It finds that even taxing carbon at $200 a tonne by 2025 would result in only a 1.5% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions outside of the power generation sector, so it's not that much. We're talking about much more if we want to make a bigger dent.
Carbon tax revenues, in the context of our scenarios, significantly add to government coffers. In fact, the rule of thumb here is $6 billion for each tranche of $10 a tonne for carbon. Our assumption in this scenario is that the revenues collected are expected to be put back into the economy through tax cuts and higher public spending and investment. The assumption that carbon revenues will be recycled into the economy is, frankly, the key reason why the total impact on the economy is small.
The research also quantifies the economic impact of making deep greenhouse gas emission reductions. The investment requirements are based on—as I mentioned—the work of the Canadian Academy of Engineering, under the overarching Trottier energy futures project analysis. Outlined in this technical piece of work are several technical pathways, and in fact, over eight scenarios.
Those scenarios were developed by a combination of engineers, the David Suzuki Foundation, and some academic researchers at McGill University, who are experts in technical modelling. They didn't get into the policy options to get there, but they really describe, if we put everything on the table that's available today, how deep the reductions could be. They have various scenarios going from 30% to 60% by 2050. Of course, the 30% reduction below 1990 levels by 2050 leaves us far away from the Paris agreement. The 60% gets us closer, but none of those scenarios gets to 80% according to the technical analysis that was done.
I'll just talk about the 60% reduction, because this is the most ambitious and the one we signed up for. The 60% reduction in emissions will require a $3.4-trillion investment. That's about $100 billion annually, or just to put it in context, about half of what Canada spends on non-residential business investment every year. It's a significant amount relative to what's spent today on other things. Just to put that amount in perspective, those big numbers at a certain point become meaningless, so I think that's kind of a way to see what it means in terms of relative spending that happens today.
Of course, in that—and I've talked about electrification being a central theme of this—more than half of the investment would be directed towards power generation to enable the electrification of Canada's economy. One challenge that needs to be kept in mind—and we've heard Stephen Poloz, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, talk many times about this—is that the potential growth of Canada's economy going forward is coming down, largely due to the aging of our labour force. In other words, when we talk about the potential of Canada's economy, we're approaching a capacity to grow at the level of 1.5% to 2% a year versus 3% to 3.5%, which we were used to hearing about a few years ago.
We're reaching the capacity of our economy to absorb new investment. What we're saying in the scenarios is that this new investment would have to crowd out other investments that would have taken place if this policy wasn't in place. In other words, or as a different way to present that, our capital is in place currently in the economy and our labour force is fully employed. There's no large pool of labour capital waiting to be redirected towards these new investments, so the simple fact is that Canada is unable to leverage the funds, capital, and labour resources required to generate these investments without taking funds and productive capacity away from other economic activity.
One element to keep in mind, which I think is really important in terms of the solutions going forward, is that all scenarios of emission reductions analyzed in our study do not account for carbon leakage. To the extent that trade adjustments include declining exports of carbon-intensive goods without corresponding reductions in consumption of those goods by our trading partners, the emissions reductions in Canada could be fully offset by increases elsewhere. In other words, if we don't produce it here, it could be produced somewhere else.
We've identified five priorities for action in our work. The first is end-user acceptance. I think it's impossible to overstate the importance of this. The policy-makers for that low-carbon transition journey need to clearly communicate what is needed from households and businesses to achieve large emissions reductions and communicate that society is ready to make those commitments. History has taught us that long-term change cannot be successfully imposed by governments; rather, it must be desired by their citizens.
The second point is the acceptance of large-scale projects. I think really central to the electrification context is that substantial investment in large-scale hydro, nuclear, and wind transmission projects is required in all parts of the country. Large-scale projects typically attract their share of controversy. Acceptance of these projects among environmentalist groups, indigenous groups, and the public is necessary.
The third point is that an effective environmental assessment process for large projects is needed. This takes time. Cumulative effects over time need to be included in these environmental studies. The development life cycle for a large project can easily extend over a decade, so this needs to be included in our policy objectives.
The fourth element is regulatory acceptance of the need for investment and cost recovery. Of course, it's a business decision to invest in these projects. Business needs certainty over the long run.
The final point, which is the greatest opportunity for Canada, is that we need to think of all of this transition to a low-carbon world and to a net-negative greenhouse gas emission in context. At the end of the day, this is what matters worldwide.
An effective made-in-Canada greenhouse gas reduction policy needs to consider the global competitiveness impact on trade, and the net change on world greenhouse gas emissions. This is particularly important in the context where Canada is an open economy, dependent on trade, which was built over the years by a key competitive advantage, with an abundance of natural resources and low energy prices, so of course our economic fabric today reflects that.
Policy options where Canada gets credited for net greenhouse gas reductions from exports of Canada's expertise in technological solutions represents a major opportunity for Canada. It demonstrates leadership, and it creates employment and economic opportunity for Canadians. It's something that hasn't been talked about yet. It used to be talked about in the nineties quite a bit when Rio and Kyoto were signed, but it hasn't come back on the radar screen. I would encourage you to seriously consider that as an option. That's a clear win-win for Canada and the planet.
Thank you.
Liberal
Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses.
Mr. Thériault, what a lot of interesting information you have given us in such a short amount of time! I am a little overwhelmed because I know you are a renowned economist. I know more about engineering. You know that I'm from Saguenay, a region that is a major producer of hydroelectricity. In fact, Quebec produces around 35,000 megawatts of hydroelectricity a year.
An initial question comes to my mind as a result of your reflections. Earlier, we talked with witnesses about the possibility of having premiums for exporting our green energy. In a province like Quebec, if there was a premium to export our green energy, with the economic spinoffs it would bring, do you think we could adopt the vision you mentioned, in other words, doing research and development and raising awareness? As I understand it, if we want to achieve our goals, the idea is not only to improve our practices, but to consume less.
I would like to hear your opinion on this.
Vice-President, Industry Strategy and Public Policy, The Conference Board of Canada
I think I understand your question. Clearly, there is a whole exercise of strategic economic development that can be done on the basis of policy options to reduce greenhouse gases. Quebec has a comparative advantage: it produces green energy. In the current context, it is an extraordinary option that can help with the export of electricity, but it can also help industries such as aluminum.
We have been talking for a long time about how we could bring more local added-value to the Saguenay and Quebec economy, including through the secondary and tertiary processing of aluminum products. But all these processes are very energy intensive. The fact that the energy we produce is green at the outset is part of an economic development policy. That's clear.
All of these opportunities that are tied to a more strategic and climate-focused investment can be very attractive to citizens, and bring about changes in their attitudes and in how they do things. I would say that Quebec is well-positioned, as you mentioned, directly and indirectly.
I believe that, in the context of our work, it is clear that we need an interprovincial transmission system for electricity. Right now, by definition, these are systems that are managed by province. The big challenge is how to create an east-west harmonization of our distribution network, in the context. This is a central question.
Liberal
Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
A very good question indeed. We have long been asking it, in committee.
I'll take the example of Ontario and Quebec. These two provinces have surplus electricity production. All the inter-ties that are considered between these two provinces, for example, are therefore more related to the reliability of the networks than to the commercial aspect of meeting the needs of the two provinces.
How do you think this could be extended to other provinces in Canada?
Vice-President, Industry Strategy and Public Policy, The Conference Board of Canada
That's what we heard from other witnesses earlier today. It's a question of negotiation and long-term contracts, a question of certainty of availability. You have to know how it fits into the different types of electricity we need. Peak load and base load must be taken into account. It's a complex system. Each province has structured its network based on basic needs and advanced needs.
How should this logic be respected on a pan-Canadian basis, during a transition period when the facilities, which are largely coal-fired, need to be redesigned? In Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick in part, and other provinces, there are still plants that use natural gas and oil.
If green electrification is a central option of this energy transition policy, we must hold this conversation to adopt a much more coherent system at the national level. It's something that is very fragmented. So it's a challenge.
Liberal
Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
I would like to make a parallel. Last year, along with my colleague René Arseneault and other MPs, we visited US auto industry facilities to discuss green aluminum produced using hydroelectricity to gauge the interest of American consumers. Based on the reaction we got, people want to be eco-responsible, but they wonder what price they are willing to pay to be eco-responsible.
Have you ever interviewed the various market leaders about the price they are willing to pay for eco-friendly behaviour?
Vice-President, Industry Strategy and Public Policy, The Conference Board of Canada
Your committee deals with natural resources. But the challenge of the climate program is precisely the one you mention. Everyone is for virtue. In other words, everyone is ready to be environmentally responsible as long as they don't have to pay for it. If we can continue to do things as we do now and at the same price, everyone is ready, that's for sure. Everyone is for virtue, by definition.
So this is the big test. I would say that the climate program is secondary for consumers. They will make decisions about buying a car or a house based on priorities other than the environment. If environmental well-being is added, so much the better. The challenge is to put the environmental agenda in a value proposition for the consumer, where everything is integrated. Right now, it's something you think about after the fact. People think they are in favour of it, but they aren't prepared to pay for it.
Liberal
Denis Lemieux Liberal Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Pardon the pun, but how could we shock Canadians to convince them to make this shift?
Vice-President, Industry Strategy and Public Policy, The Conference Board of Canada
It is in this sense that I consider that we can't exclude the carbon price policy from this consideration. You have to send a price message. If we accept there is a carbon-related environmental cost, it has to be reflected in the price in a certain way. I don't think we can ignore the role of the carbon pricing policy.
However, as we have seen in our analysis—and I could expand on this—the carbon tax should be so high that we would create a huge competitiveness challenge for the Canadian economy. We can't do this overnight. It's part of the toolkit, but it's not the ultimate solution.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All of my colleagues sitting at the table should listen very carefully when you, as an expert, present evidence—of which all my colleagues love to say they found their policies—cautioning about the global context for emissions policy in Canada, and about the trade exposure of our economy overall.
I wanted to expand on your comments about the carbon tax. I know that even one of the co-chairs of the recent climate change leadership panel in Alberta made the comment on what he called the sweet spot for the carbon tax and priced it at $150. You mentioned $200. I know there are experts in Europe who have said $1,200 would be the amount required to significantly reduce emissions.
It's quite clear from your testimony and others, when you actually look at the evidence, that the current policy for the carbon tax proposal is very obviously a revenue generator for government, and really isn't attached very much at all to the stated goal of emissions reductions.
Would you expand on this issue a little bit more, and on the importance of citizens driving the transition to a low-carbon economy with personal responsibilities, actions, and choices as well?
Vice-President, Industry Strategy and Public Policy, The Conference Board of Canada
You're right. The $1,200 you mentioned is part of the work done with the Canadian Academy of Engineering. That's what we call in technical terms a shadow price on carbon. In other words, if you were to bring in the latest, greenest technology available on the market, the final technology that's available, and you throw everything at that final piece of technology to make it economically and commercially viable. That would require that you have a tax of $1,200 a tonne. That will change over time. Abatement curves around these technologies go down typically; it's true. That's what we know today. We know over time these cost curves come down, but right now that's what we're talking about.
Another thing to put in perspective is that in that whole conversation on low-carbon transition we need to recognize our starting point. We're an economy that benefited tremendously from our abundance of energy, carbon and non-carbon. Its low price reflects the electrification of our economy in Quebec. The aluminum industry, there's a good reason there's so much. Pulp and paper is another one, or mining. Those are heavy, intensive, energy-consuming industries, and the abundance of it at a low price makes us really competitive in world markets. That's part of what we are. The same thing in Alberta, of course, for oil and gas. There's been a lot of innovation in the oil and gas industry, and I think that innovation could be exported because we're not going off carbon around the planet overnight.
That element of a carbon tax is in the mix for the second point you raise, which is to send a signal to consumers that if collectively we're embarking on this ambitious agenda, there's a cost we implicitly think consuming carbon imposes on the environment, and we should be prepared to pay something for it. If you compare $200 or $150 for the consumer for motor gasoline in Canada, that would compare to about $1.40 or $1.50 a litre for gasoline. You compare that with Europe, where they pay on average $2.00 a litre, and that translates into about $400 to $500 a tonne, if you do the math around it. If you look at Europe and their fleet of cars and their economic fabric, the cost of energy over time has created different decision-making by consumers, but that's over decades.
Vice-President, Industry Strategy and Public Policy, The Conference Board of Canada
It's long term. It's not because they wanted to be necessarily clean or eco-sensitive 50 years ago. It's just that for economic competitiveness reasons that's the price they had to pay.
We have to reflect that in our policy transitioning. There's no way we can get up there overnight without having a huge impact. I think the element to keep in mind here is the solutions we develop for ourselves, because we make money if we save energy in our processes. We've developed a lot of expertise and we haven't talked about those joint international venture projects, which we used to talk about under Rio and Kyoto, and how, when Canada invests abroad...
Frankly, the overall climate challenge for the planet is coming from China, India, and Africa, which don't always have the financial means to get the latest technology. They still consume a lot of coal, gas, and oil, so we can export our expertise to bring the global balance of greenhouse gas emissions lower. I think as part of the policy for Canada, we need to include that element.
Conservative
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Many of those major energy producers certainly don't have anywhere near the environmental standards, regulations, compliance, enforcement, performance, or transparency that Canada does.
In the suite of policy options available to governments around this issue of emissions, you probably know the Liberals have recommended upstream emissions assessments as a condition to pipeline approvals in Canada. I wonder if the Liberals are also going to move to apply that same condition to major infrastructure in other sectors, as well as to mining, manufacturing, transportation, construction of renewable alternative energies, if the priority is overall emissions reduction.
It seems to me that if they are emphasizing this upstream emissions condition on one piece of major infrastructure and one sector, then I'm sure I look forward to their being consistent and applying that to all the sectors and all major infrastructure. I don't actually look forward to it. I think it's problematic, but I'm sure they will be interested in being consistent.
Earlier this year I know your organization published a paper entitled “Shaping the Canadian Low-Carbon Economy”. I just want to read out a section and then ask you to comment on it.
You said, “The production of Canadian oil is also rising, even as production from renewable energy sources is growing. Canada’s hydrocarbon producers are working hard to reduce the energy they use to produce and process their product, thereby reshaping the sector’s carbon emissions footprint.”
Liberal