Evidence of meeting #106 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
This committee did a study, probably six years ago, on electrical interties, and it was determined that even provincially our systems aren't compatible. Have you seen any progress in that respect over the last couple of years?
Chair, Energy For A Secure Future
There are provinces that share electricity today. Quebec and Newfoundland are an example. Quebec and Ontario are an example. Therefore, there are some interties. It's not a huge amount of energy that's shared between them. Again, most provinces don't have enough electricity now, so building a bunch of interties doesn't solve the problem that you don't have the generation. Again, we're talking about expanding what electricity does in a way that's never happened before.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
You looked at all our potential power sources for electricity that exist today. How much capacity do we have that's available, including stuff that's parked?
Chair, Energy For A Secure Future
The capacity that's available in terms of new build is not close to 350 gigawatts. It's not close to what we're really talking about in terms of what we would need to build.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
The former CEO of Manitoba Hydro says that it would take about 20 years to get a new dam from conception to producing electricity. Is that something that you would agree with?
Chair, Energy For A Secure Future
I would agree with anyone who runs a utility if they tell me how long things take to make.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Okay.
When we look at renewables, going forward, can you talk a little about reliability and storage?
Chair, Energy For A Secure Future
Today, again, natural gas plays a really important role in wind integration and in renewables integration, in terms of ensuring grid stability.
The Canadian Electricity Association published a report in response to the proposed clean electricity regulations. They said that they can't ensure reliability, safety, etc., without natural gas and that they can't be told when to get rid of it. They'll get rid of it when it works for them. Manitoba Hydro put out a pretty detailed study of moderate to aggressive paths to net zero. In all of them, they need natural gas.
I think we need to be listening to the people whose job it is to provide energy 24-7 to our citizens and to ensure safety.
Chair, Energy For A Secure Future
Well, we've never told anyone what the net is on net zero. What I will say is that, with regard to CER's numbers to achieve that by 2035, I'm not sure how that could be done without really high burdens of cost to the population and without impacts on quality of life and on competitiveness.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
You have 10 seconds. Thank you.
We'll now proceed to our next speaker, Ms. Dabrusin.
Go ahead. You have five minutes.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Thank you.
I think the conversation is actually pretty interesting because what we're talking about is what the fundamentals are for a clean electrical grid. We're talking about it needing to be clean, needing to be affordable and needing to be reliable. What I am hearing is people trying to wrestle with those issues.
Maybe I could start with the David Suzuki Foundation. What I seem to hear, essentially, from the last bit of evidence from Ms. Joseph is that you can't actually get those three things by 2035 in a net-zero scenario.
What do you envision when you're thinking about getting to a clean grid? What do we need to do to get there?
Clean Energy Manager, David Suzuki Foundation
The core principle here.... We already talked about policy clarity and policy certainty. I think that's one thing that the federal government can provide here—
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Do you mind if I interrupt you on that?
What does that look like? If I were to try to get granular, what does that policy certainty look like? I'm hearing different things as to what the message should be.
Clean Energy Manager, David Suzuki Foundation
There is a range of things when it comes to funding, from actually implementing the ITCs for clean electricity to the federal government having a very clear policy framework for where Canada is headed to grow and clean our electricity system. However, it is also regulations. It is a clear policy signal, a clear target, and clear rules in the clean electricity regulations coming out this year.
For us, when we talk about envisioning what the grid could look like, we talk a lot about where things are today and why it's challenging to move forward. That's the whole point of this work; it is looking where the puck is going, not where the puck is today, if I can hazard a hockey quote.
For us, we talk about wind and solar being the cheapest forms of electricity in the world and the cheapest forms of new power that we can build here in Canada. Maximizing that and creating an electricity framework or electricity systems in provinces that can make the best use of that lowest-cost electricity is a priority.
When it comes to timing, we've also heard a lot in committee today about the long tails and the long timelines that things like large hydro dams or other large, bulky electricity systems have, and those things, I believe, are also true. That's why wind and solar, as modular, shovel-ready projects are also attractive for how quickly we need to build out electricity generation. For wind and solar, it is between two and five years for a project timeline, depending on the permitting and where things are. If we're reaching for something that we need to build quickly and cheaply, then wind, solar and energy storage are definitely priorities. That's another reason we see energy efficiency and upgrading of the grid more broadly, specifically the transmission system, as other keystones that enable that low-cost electricity to deliver when it's needed.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have only two minutes, so I'm going to cut you off there and go to Mr. Pivnick with the same question.
If we're trying to get to an affordable, reliable and clean grid by 2035, when you're saying “policy certainty” and all that, what are you looking for?
Program Manager, Clean Energy, Clean Energy Canada
I think I'd focus on two specific pieces. First, I completely agree about the ITCs. The idea of the federal government coming in and helping fund this is about ensuring that our progressive tax system can help support the build-out of these resources. It will ensure greater equity across the board. It will not be asking the lowest-income families to bear the cost of the build-out that's required. It will actually be using progressive taxation to do so. ITCs are an incredibly important tool to put into place as quickly as possible.
Another specific example would be the SREP program, as mentioned earlier. That could be retooled to focus on demand management more directly. It could help unlock the distribution-level things that add the lowest-cost perspective, energy efficiency and distributed resources. This is really a conversation that we're very nascent in and very behind in when it comes to Canada. In Ontario, with the IESO, they've stood up one of the largest and one of the first pilots of this. They now have the ability to pull the equivalent of Kingston, Ontario, off the grid during a peak event. It's 90 megawatts. They can reduce that peak when they are seeing that climb.
Those sorts of tools are the ones that we need to be building our grid to optimize if we're really concerned about cost. I think those are two instruments that the federal government should be prioritizing.
Liberal
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Joseph, you piqued my curiosity earlier when you gave the example of Germany. I don't know if you saw the recent article written by the person responsible for the energy transition in Germany. He said that there would be less demand for gas and that, if anything in Canada interested Germany, it was hydrogen and critical minerals. I see that European countries are trying to get involved in the transition and that their industrial strategy is based on it.
At the same time, you talked about energy costs, and I see a strategy being put in place where we are trying to significantly reduce the cost of fossil fuels. For example, we paid $34 billion for a pipeline, which is pretty obscene. In addition, there is a federal strategy for about $80 billion to be invested by the federal government in fossil fuels by 2035.
If we applied that to a world where we supported cleaner forms of energy, their cost might be lower. Do you agree with my premise?
Chair, Energy For A Secure Future
Mr. Simard, if we no longer want to use fossil fuels, that's great. What is important to me is our path toward the changes we want to make to our energy system. They have to be affordable and reliable, ensure our energy security, and so on. If some countries are closer to their targets than we are, that's fine.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I am pleased to hear that. I like what you're saying. That's excellent. If we want to have energy security in Canada, we have to design it in such a way that we are competitive with other countries.
Recently, I heard people such as Suncor representatives say that they were going to set aside carbon capture and sequestration strategies because they were too expensive. Producing low-carbon oil is not profitable, and things like that should be taken into consideration.
Do you agree with me?