Tories choose politics over science, sound economic policy

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/08/2023 (755 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Why would Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative government pay more than a million dollars to one of North America’s top energy consultants and then ignore the recommendations? Right now, it appears election politics have trumped energy policy and climate concerns.

In April 2022, to demonstrate her government’s commitment to addressing climate change and future energy needs, Premier Heather Stefanson commissioned a $1.2-million study from Dunsky Energy + Climate Advisors, a Montreal consultancy that has advised governments, intervenors and utilities in North America.

Given the importance Stefanson placed on the commissioning of the report, the PC government promised to release it before the Oct. 3 election. On July 28, Stefanson appeared to fulfil that pledge when she unveiled an “electricity road map for Manitoba,” a 34-page document that had the Dunsky firm logo on it.

However, given the complexity of the issues, and the cost of the study, it seemed implausible the document released by the premier covered the entirety of the work done by Dunsky.

As it turns out, it wasn’t.

A copy of the actual Dunsky report, obtained by the Free Press, shows the PC government substantially changed or rejected most of the recommendations.

Of greater concern, Dunsky’s analysis and recommendations appear to have been ignored by Manitoba Hydro, through which all of Manitoba’s future energy and climate change policies must flow.

What were Dunsky’s recommendations and how do they differ from what Stefanson released and what Manitoba Hydro has proposed in its Integrated Resource Plan and its most recent rate application to the PUB?

Remember, the firm was asked by the PC government to plot a path to net-zero emissions by 2050. It’s also important to remember that 2050 is a target many climate experts believe is too far in the future to slow the rapidly worsening weather extremes.

In fact, just last week Ottawa released new rules about the power generation that require provinces to achieve a net-zero emission power grid by 2035. Although that does not mean the total elimination of gas-fired power generation, it does mean reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and introducing expensive carbon-capture technology to mitigate emissions.

On future energy needs, Dunsky sees demand for electricity in Manitoba increasing by as much as two-thirds. The firm argues that to achieve net-zero emissions, Manitoba must significantly decrease the use of natural gas for home heating and electricity generation, and significantly increase the use of energy efficiency programs, wind, solar and geo-thermal heat pumps.

The “electricity road map” shows the Tories largely rejected Dunsky’s projections and recommendations.

Although there is some lip service to alternative forms of power generation, the “electricity road map” and Hydro’s resource plan contain much lower projections on future energy demand. At the same time, both envision a significant increase in the use of natural gas to not only heat homes, but generate electricity which, in an age of climate change-induced weather extremes, is a massive step backwards.

However, it is on the issue of carbon tax that Dunsky and his client differ the most.

Dunsky recommended Manitoba move expeditiously to establish its own carbon pricing to generate the money needed to advance energy efficiency, develop alternative forms of electricity generation and even to help build an effective network of charging stations for the incoming wave of electric-powered vehicles.

Not only was this left out of the electricity road map, but Stefanson has turned the federal carbon tax — which is being charged in Manitoba because this province refused to enact its own carbon pricing — into an election issue.

Despite the fact Manitoba has already participated in one unsuccessful legal challenge, Stefanson has promised to launch a new action against the imposition of the federal carbon tax on the natural gas used to heat homes.

That pre-writ campaign pledge is merely the latest example of how the PC government has used politics, rather than science or sound economics, to govern its energy policy.

Since being elected in 2016, the Tories have launched an all-out assault on the independence of the Public Utilities Board by limiting its ability to objectively assess and approve Hydro rate applications. Instead, increases in electricity are being set right now by cabinet decree, completely apart from advice from experts such as Dunsky.

The Tories have done this, in large part, to improve Hydro’s debt-to-equity ratio, an important metric for the health of the utility but also a key element to determine whether the summary budget is balanced.

Critics believe the Tories have politicized rate setting, and forced Hydro to raise rates more than it would under PUB oversight, to fatten the utility’s retained earnings and make the summary budget look healthier than it really is.

More concerning is the fact that in this, the hottest and smokiest summer in recorded history, Manitoba’s premier has decided to launch a political attack on the federal carbon tax while, at the same time, introducing a plan that clearly understates the province’s future energy needs and calls for a precipitous increase in our reliance on natural gas.

It may be election-style politics, but it’s still a horrible excuse for an energy policy.

dan.lett@winnipegfreepress.com