Merran Smith 2016-09-25T16:58:38-04:00 Merran Smith Copyright 2008,, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Merran Smith Good old fashioned elbow grease. Solar Power Isn't Perfect, But It's the Best We've Got,2015:/theblog//3.7475852 2015-06-01T14:56:09-04:00 2016-06-01T05:59:01-04:00 Merran Smith The Darker Side of Solar Power"--an article that appeared last week in The Globe and Mail.

Writer Konrad Yakabuski argues that solar carries hidden costs that muddy the technology's popular perception as a clean and limitless electricity source.

You can almost hear a cackle in the background. Hah! Those guys think they're so perfect. Let's take them down a peg!

But here's the rub: Something has to keep the lights on, and there's simply no such thing as a clean, reliable, cost-effective--and 100-percent pollution-free--electricity source. It doesn't exist. This rule applies whether you're considering fossil fuels, nuclear, or renewable energy. Like many things in this world, power generation is a game of finding the best option, warts and all.

In other words, yes, of course solar carries environmental costs. But the research shows that the technology's "energy payback"--the length of time a given system has to operate to recover the energy and associated pollution and CO2 that went into making it in the first place--is just a few years.

Meanwhile, fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal don't actually have an energy payback period. They simply pollute, forever. As for nuclear, a recent Globe and Mail article revealed that Canada's nuclear waste will remain deadly for 400,000 years.

Speaking of waste, what about recycling of solar panels? Solar is growing quickly, but it is just maturing as an industry, and its products are only just beginning to approach middle-age. The vast majority of global PV installations have more than a decade of life left in them. With no moving parts to wear out, they last a long time.

Relative to other industries facing similar "life-cycle" issues--such as computers and cell phones--there isn't a lot of discarded solar product out there to be dealt with yet. But the solar sector is already on the case. First Solar, the largest U.S.-based panel manufacturer, offers a good example. The company has provided for panel recycling in sales contracts since 2013. Most major manufacturers are following suit.

In September, in collaboration with the Canadian Solar Industries Association and the International Energy Agency in collaboration with the Canadian Solar Industries Association will release a study on solar panel recycling. Its findings will inform national regulations, that will be in place well before the earliest installations hit retirement. Those envisioning mythical mountains of future solar panel garbage might well consider the considerably more toxic waste and destruction associated with other energy sources, such as mountaintop removal coal mining or hydraulic fracturing.

Ontario companies manufactured the vast majority of modules installed in the province to date, in facilities that meet and exceed stringent environmental regulations. This was a direct result of government policy that established a world-class manufacturing base in the province.

Finally, since you've read this far, can we talk about climate change? Simply put, solar is one of the best solutions in our toolbox, in fact Ontario will not meet its emissions reductions targets without it. And given the federal government's stark lack of leadership on the file, without Ontario's leadership on solar Canada stands almost zero chance of meeting its international commitments.

Nobody ever called solar perfect. But when we look at how the technology stacks up against its fossil and nuclear peers, there's simply no contest. Solar remains a safe, reliable, scalable, and increasingly affordable solution to our energy challenges. That might not make for a provocative headline, but it is the truth.

Nova Scotia Should Become the Second Province to Adopt a Carbon Tax,2015:/theblog//3.7259524 2015-05-12T08:34:25-04:00 2016-05-12T05:59:01-04:00 Merran Smith
I don't want to brag or anything, but I paid my carbon tax yesterday.

I'd just tanked up my vehicle -- I don't yet have an electric car -- with 30-odd litres of regular unleaded, near my home here in Vancouver, B.C.

The tab included an extra $0.60, a modest premium that you, my pals in Atlantic Canada, aren't currently paying. But I was pleased to cough it up, because I know that the law requiring me to do so is not only reducing my province's dependence on fossil fuels, it's also creating jobs and strengthening our economy.

I'm not the only one who knows it, either. Seven years ago, provincial leaders out on this coast introduced the carbon tax, which today tacks an extra six cents onto the price of a litre of gas and similar amounts on natural gas and propane. Nobody paid much attention back then, but in the intervening years, it's become a bit of a public policy rock star.

This past December, the World Bank lauded British Columbia's carbon tax as "the most powerful example" of effective climate policies. A year earlier, the secretary general of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) called it "as close to a textbook example as we have" of climate policy done right. The United Kingdom's Green Fiscal Commission also gave it a high-five, as did The Economist.

In the words of that respected business magazine, British Columbia's carbon tax has proven itself "a winner" that cuts pollution without hurting the economy.

We know this because economists at the Sustainable Prosperity think tank, and other academics, have pored over Statistics Canada data. They've concluded that, in the years since the policy came into force, carbon pollution and per-capita fuel consumption have both dropped in British Columbia. Meanwhile, the province's economy is outperforming the Canadian average.

Let me say that again: Carbon pollution is down, and business is up. In other words, our carbon tax works exactly as designed.

Our carbon tax has helped to grow our clean-tech sector which creates thousands of clean,
high-paying jobs. In fact our recent report Tracking the Energy Revolution shows that in 2013, direct jobs in the various sectors that together comprise Canada's clean energy sector outpaced direct jobs in the oil sands. And of course that was before the plunging price of oil started impacting the oil sands. B.C.'s carbon tax has put us at the front lines of this trend. Our carbon tax is also used to lower personal and corporate taxes.

As I've seen in my province, a carbon tax is as a useful fiscal tool that can be tailored to meet both the environmental and economic goals of any given jurisdiction.

There is a lot to like about our carbon tax, too. For example, the province added protection for low-income citizens, to help out those who are going through difficult economic times, and provided northern and rural homeowners with up to a $200 annual benefit.

Last last year, Nova Scotia's Tax and Regulatory Review endorsed the idea of a carbon tax. At about the same time, my team was conducting a series of candid interviews with the men and women who designed and introduced British Columbia's version--and also expert observers who have followed its progress over the years.

As we note in the report that came out of those conversations, How To Adopt a Winning Carbon Price, one the questions we asked was, "what would be your advice to other jurisdictions considering a carbon price?"

"Do it!" said one former leader, "It's the right thing to do. It should be the future of taxation." "Get smart," added another. "It's a winner. Make it a winner."

It's good advice to keep in mind. How great would it be if Nova Scotia were to join hands with British Columbia as the second province to enact a carbon tax, and serve as climate leadership "bookends," inspiring all the others in between to follow suit.

Now that would be something to brag about.

All best,

Merran Smith

Debunking the "Clean Energy Jobs Vs. Oil Sands Jobs" Controversy,2014:/theblog//3.6296740 2014-12-09T16:28:55-05:00 2015-02-08T05:59:02-05:00 Merran Smith
Last week my team flipped that story on its head when we released Tracking the Energy Revolution -- the first annual assessment of Canada's clean-energy performance. Thanks to the report, our nation's strong recent growth and huge potential in fossil-free energy production and innovation hit the national agenda in a big way.

Given how little profile this Canadian success story usually enjoys, we were expecting the project would rattle a few cages. And rattle them it did.

Cody Battershill, a Calgary, Alberta realtor and Huffington Post contributor, directs -- a volunteer organization that supports Canadian energy development and the environmental, social and economic benefits that come with it. (And by "energy," he's almost exclusively talking about the kind you dig or pump out of the ground.)

On his Huffington Post profile, Mr. Battershill says he "advocates for an informed discussion about our economy and Canada's future prosperity." That's why we were scratching our head at the poorly researched column that he published here last week.

Indeed, his post criticized our report for omitting things that we didn't actually omit -- like the number of large fossil-fuel companies active in clean energy. We conclude he must have critiqued our report without actually reading it first.

Mr. Battershill also speculated wildly about our funding. To be clear, the vast majority of our support comes from individual Canadian donors and Canadian foundations keen to accelerate Canada's transition to a clean-energy economy that is less dependent on the price of oil.

But Mr. Battershill's main beef -- here and on Twitter -- is that we are overstating the economic impact of the clean energy sector by implying that it's bigger than the overall oil sands sector. (It isn't.) Specifically, he accuses us of excluding manufacturing and other services in our oil sands operations numbers.

Tracking the Energy Revolution cites 2012 employment data from Analytica Advisors, which identifies 23,700 direct jobs in clean energy in Canada. We define direct clean energy job categories as including power generation, biorefinery products, smart grid and infrastructure, energy efficiency and building envelope and clean transportation.

The 2012 Analytica data is the most reliable and recent of its kind, and we were surprised and delighted by the total. Who knew so many Canadians worked in fossil-free energy production, efficiency, and innovation?

So to put this number into context for Canadians, we went looking for comparisons.

We'd already done the same thing with the investment figures in our report; there, we found that over a five year period, investors moved about the amount of money into Canada's clean-power production as they did into agriculture, fishing, and forestry combined. (We sourced the clean energy investment numbers from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and looked to Statistics Canada for the agriculture, fishing, and forestry investment figures.)

We cast around on jobs numbers and soon found an apples-to-apples direct employment number: According to a 2013 Petroleum Human Resources Council report, 22,340 people work directly for oil-sands producers. So with respect to direct employment, in 2012, more people worked in these clean energy sectors than worked in the oil sands.

Neither number includes construction jobs, and neither includes the indirect or induced jobs associated with producing inputs that either the clean energy sector or the oil sands sector use in their operations.

No one is suggesting that this comparison represents the sum total of either sector's economic contribution. But we wanted to illustrate the scale of the incredible growth we've seen in clean energy -- and we think our comparison to oil sands jobs, which attracted national attention, did exactly that.

Again, the comparison is contextual. We don't suggest one job is any more or less important, or appropriate, than the other, or that one is competing with the other. As we are seeing in Canada, both sectors can experience growth simultaneously.

What Mr. Battershill calls "cherry picking" is, in fact, just us being careful to compare apples with apples -- or cherries with cherries, as the case may be.

Mr. Battershill says he supports an informed discussion about energy in Canada. So do we, and that's exactly why we released our report. The response, near-universal enthusiasm from coast to coast, tells us that Canadians are eager to keep talking about, and building, Canada's clean-energy success story.


Why the U.S. Energy Secretary Just Got Around to Visiting Canada Now,2014:/theblog//3.5843338 2014-09-19T08:20:43-04:00 2014-11-19T05:59:02-05:00 Merran Smith
It's a bit of a head-scratcher that it has taken the secretary this long to pop over to the neighbours, given the amount of trade between our nations and the degree to which we collaborate on shared interests such as energy security and infrastructure.

But then again, as of late the cross-border energy conversation has been getting a bit, well, awkward.

That's because the Secretary is likely coming our way in an effort to ramp up the bilateral Clean Energy Dialogue that the United States initiated upon President Obama's first visit to Canada back in 2009. The sector has since exploded south of the line; last year it attracted more than USD$200 billion in new investment. The solar market in particular has gone supernova, with U.S. generation expanding more than tenfold since 2008.

Moniz sees Canada as a promising export market for his country's clean-energy products and services -- and not just sleek Telsa sports cars, either. Earlier this year, a U.S. Department of Commerce trade analysis flagged Canada as the top export destination for American clean-energy entrepreneurs.

Ottawa should be eager to have the same conversation. According to clean technology consultants Analytica Advisors, Canada's 700-plus clean technology companies already represent an $11 billion industry, one that grew nine percent between 2011 and 2012. The sector's revenues could rival those of Canada's aerospace industry in the years ahead.

But here comes the awkward part: Our Natural Resources Minister says he intends to use the meeting to "highlight the benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline" for his U.S. guest. This despite the fact that, as the minister himself acknowledges, Keystone is not even the Energy Secretary's responsibility.

The White House is clearly in no hurry to approve that proposed project. Meanwhile, America's top diplomat, John Kerry, told the entire State Department that tackling climate change is his personal priority.

The secretary's visit offers Canada a perfect opportunity to shift the "dialogue" into clean energy action. To date, the U.S.-Canada dialogue has proven a useful forum to exchange technical knowledge. Very worthwhile, but why stop there?

For example, the minister and the secretary could agree to champion marquee new clean energy projects that span the border.

Manitoba Hydro's $4 billion agreement with Minnesota Power offers an inspiring example to emulate. The cross-border deal will allow Manitoba hydro power to back up Minnesota's wind turbines, offering a clean-energy solution to the midwest and export revenues to Manitobans.

Similarly, the two leaders could set joint targets for sales of electric vehicles, and commit to matched incentives to get there. On that score, Canada currently lags far behind. While Washington provides electric-vehicle rebates of up to $7,500, Ottawa currently offers nothing.

Governments have two broad approaches at their disposal to promote the clean-energy sector's growth. They can offer specific support through tax breaks for related technologies, trade promotion initiatives led by overseas embassies, and so on.

Even more important, they can create predictable demand for clean power -- an essential climate change solution -- by adopting strong rules to curb greenhouse gas pollution. That means choosing policies like clean power regulations, a price on carbon pollution, and meaningful carbon targets.

Canada could be doing far more of all of the above. But while Ottawa's climate regulatory agenda has stalled, leaders around the world are moving -- including our American neighbours, who are enacting sweeping new clean power regulations.

In that changing landscape, betting heavily on oil sands to carry our economic future is too big a risk. Instead, Ottawa needs a "Keystone XL"-sized effort to support our clean energy industry's huge potential.


Canada Needs To Stop Turning the Conversation Back to Keystone,2014:/theblog//3.5515303 2014-06-20T17:41:57-04:00 2014-08-20T05:59:05-04:00 Merran Smith
You're less enthusiastic, but he's relentless, so your run-ins with him are getting a little awkward. Even worse, you were actually hoping to enlist him to help you fix up the local park -- but it's hard to get a word in edgewise.

A little irritating from a neighbour. Even more unfortunate for a country.

But it's not far off what's been happening with Canada, the United States, and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

We all know that our federal government really, really likes the Keystone proposal, and never seems to miss a chance to plead its case in Washington. Recent media reports revealed that Canada and the United States are now talking about clean energy, with Canada's federal government saying it hopes this kind of "alignment" will help its push for Keystone XL.

But it's a good bet that what the U.S. actually wants to talk to Canada about is -- wait for it -- clean energy. A recent U.S. Department of Commerce study projects $7 trillion in global private sector investment in renewables from 2012 to 2030 -- and identified Canada as the top export market for U.S. renewable energy companies today. (China, Brazil, Chile and Mexico round out the top five.)

President Obama has recently followed up on a scorching June 2013 climate speech with regulations to curb power sector emissions. Across two terms, he's made significant moves to bolster clean energy technologies. Meanwhile, his Secretary of State has made tackling climate change his personal priority for the U.S government's work around the world.

Earlier this month, our Prime Minister had this to say about taking action on climate change: "No country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country."

But what if a country believes its comparative advantage actually lies in solar panels, electric vehicles, or cutting-edge energy efficiency technologies?

If you see things that way, regulations that spur clean energy and boost energy efficiency sound more like a benefit than a cost.

And an international climate deal means more global demand for clean energy -- which means growing markets for companies that deliver clean energy technologies and services.

Of course, the United States is still a very significant consumer and producer of fossil fuels (though it's worth noting that U.S. oil demand is already dropping). But it's increasingly evident that the White House sees a big upside to tackling climate change.

President Obama says he wants to cut greenhouse gas pollution to leave our children a safer and less volatile climate -- but also, he says, because American ingenuity means his country will be among the winners in a global clean energy transition.

The good news is that Canada could have a place in the winners' circle too.

Our 700-plus clean technology companies represent an $11 billion sector today, one that saw nine per cent growth between 2011 and 2012 (and 17 per cent the year before). Analysis from Analytica Advisors, a clean technology consultancy, foresees a thriving clean tech sector -- larger than today's Canadian aerospace industry -- if we make some strategic moves to support its growth.

A 2012 study from global consultants McKinsey concluded that alongside the oil and gas we hear so much about, Canada is already global leader in hydro electricity and a potential leader in solar power and energy efficient buildings.

U.S. leaders have made it clear that they want to hear more about Canada's plans for clean energy. During President Obama's very first visit to Canada, he and Prime Minister Harper launched a cross-border Clean Energy Dialogue that's still going strong. Speaking in Edmonton this month, Hillary Clinton called on Canada and the U.S. to work together to become global leaders in tackling climate change and making the transition away from fossil fuels.

Despite those encouraging signs, our government seems determined to turn the conversation back to Keystone XL -- a proposal that, clearly, President Obama is in no hurry to approve.

In New York this month, Canada's Natural Resources Minister said the key question is "how much the U.S. wants to get in on the economic action." Of course, he was talking about oilsands exports.

The United States has exactly the same question for Canada -- but it's asking about clean energy.


How To Change Canada's Energy Habits,2014:/theblog//3.5366037 2014-05-21T13:13:46-04:00 2014-07-21T05:59:04-04:00 Merran Smith
No, it's not the plot of this summer's dystopian blockbuster. Rather, it's a vivid illustration of the actual energy savings potential that could be unlocked across the country if electric utilities were to equip Canadians with tools and programs to help them reduce their energy use.

Late last year the New York Times reported on Britain's "Ministry of Nudges" -- essentially a Behavioural Insights Team that "has been nudging people to pay taxes on time, insulate their attics, sign up for organ donation, stop smoking during pregnancy and give to charity." The Ministry has reportedly saved taxpayers tens of millions of pounds.

You may not realize it, but a big chunk of that potential goes beyond the conventional technology-related solutions you've heard about, like EnerGuide ratings on appliances, better insulation for your home, and more fuel-efficient cars. Those approaches are important and have helped move the needle in recent decades, but in many cases they overlook a critical factor: human behaviour.

The truth is, to a large degree our behaviour -- the patterns we live by, our habits, the choices we make in the marketplace -- determines how much energy we use, or don't use. And in the past few years, advances in behavioural science and big data have begun to yield impressive results in the public and private sector to nudge consumer behavior in an energy savvy direction.

Pulse Energy, a BC-based company, offers a range of services to commercial clients including BC Hydro and Fortis BC. Meanwhile, Opower, a Virginia-based company, has emerged as the early leader in creating behavior-based tools that encourage residential and small businesses customers to change their energy habits. The company delivers personalized information via multiple communications channels to consumers in Canada, the United States, and six other countries in Europe and Asia.

In its study of behavioural energy efficiency potential in Canada, Opower found that utilities could empower 8.3 million Canadian households -- 65 per cent of the country -- with personalized Home Energy Reports that could in turn deliver 1,792 gigawatt hours of annual electric savings, or 409 megawatts of annual capacity savings across the country. Hence the Calgary yardstick.

The results are interesting when you dive in. Because each province has its own electricity system, results vary across the country. For example, Quebec annually stands to save the most energy from behavioral efficiency -- enough to power the Montreal Metro for almost three years -- and would allow citizens to keep an extra $55 million in their pockets.

When it comes to reducing climate pollution, behavioural efficiency programs are also a winner. They could help Albertans avert more than 100,000 annual tonnes of greenhouse gases of the 275,000 annual tonnes identified nationally. That's the equivalent of the amount of carbon dioxide locked up in more than 40 million litres of gasoline.

Recent public-opinion research by the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance suggests Canadians appear to be open to the idea of being nudged to use less power. The alliance found that many Canadians believe home energy efficiency improvements will save them money -- but even more believe they could save a great deal if they changed their behaviour.

For utilities, behaviour-based energy efficiency programs could make for happier customers, as industrial and household ratepayers alike are ready to be empowered to better manage their energy use and bills. Similarly, policymakers charged with delivering on energy efficiency will appreciate having one more arrow in their quiver. And for companies like Opower, Pulse Energy, Ecotagious and others, it's a growing business opportunity.

When energy makes headlines, its usually because of conflicts arising from how that energy is produced -- such as the oil sands -- or geopolitical tensions, from Russia to the Middle East to Venezuela. But as the world grapples with rapidly rising energy demand, the environmental and climate impacts of energy production, and increasing energy costs, the imperative to use energy more efficiently will loom ever larger.

Canada must and will shift towards an energy-efficient, ecologically responsible, and prosperous low-carbon economy. And behaviour-based energy efficiency programs will help us get there.


Why British Columbians Want to Speed the Shift to Clean Energy,2014:/theblog//3.5208215 2014-04-27T00:33:32-04:00 2014-06-26T05:59:03-04:00 Merran Smith new poll released this week not only reveals that most British Columbians are keen to transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy, but also highlights their motivations for doing so:

  • More than three quarters of British Columbians (78 per cent) agree that B.C. should transition away from using fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy to prevent climate change from getting worse.

  • More than two thirds (67 per cent) agree the province should decrease its reliance on fossil fuel exports to avoid future "boom and bust" economic cycles.

  • Three quarters (74 per cent) agree that the province has a good opportunity to create jobs and grow the economy by developing the solutions needed to transition away from fossil fuels.

Let's unpack each of these results in turn.

Climate disruption

British Columbians are already seeing the impacts of climate disruption with their own eyes --noting stories such as the collapse of the scallop fishery due to ocean acidification, the closure of sawmills due to pine beetle kill, and the increase in fires and extreme weather events in neighbouring Alberta and around the world.

British Columbians know that climate disruption isn't just an environmental issue, it will carry a huge economic toll as well. According to a 2011 analysis, climate disruption could cost the province $5 billion per year by the year 2020, and between $21 billion and $43 billion per year by 2050.

Though the province's electricity is largely clean and renewable, we still have many opportunities to reduce carbon pollution in transportation and buildings. More than three quarters agree that climate disruption is an important reason to act on clean energy.

Boom and bust

When times are good in a resource economy they can be very good. But when they are bad, well, global commodity markets can be unforgiving. At the moment, the province's North Coast region is going gangbusters as companies race to get a series of proposed liquefied natural gas plants up and running.

But this polling result suggests that British Columbians have seen this before and know that there is a better way forward for the economy than steadily increasing fossil-fuel exports.

More than two-thirds of British Columbians seem to recognize that we've built our wealth on resource exports, but also see the short-sightedness of relying on this model forever.

Clean energy economic opportunities

Last year, investors poured $254 billion into the global clean energy economy, with China leading the pack. For the first time, that nation generated more electric power from water, wind and solar than it did from fossil fuels and nuclear.

Though the Government of British Columbia primarily sees China as a market for carbon-based fuels -- including the roughly eight million metric tonnes of thermal coal that pass through Port Metro Vancouver each year -- the opportunity to export clean energy products and services is enormous. This could be anything from small wind turbines made in Surrey to "energy intelligence" software developed in Vancouver.

British Columbians -- especially those between 18 and 34 -- sense that the province is currently lagging behind many other countries in this growing global market, and are concerned that we will miss the boat as the world embraces a clean energy future.

The bottom line?

The new research shows that across the board, British Columbians want to transition away from fossil fuels and embrace clean energy -- for the climate, and for the economy. They instinctively know the province is sitting on the sidelines of a global clean energy bonanza, and that the provincial government needs to change that through targeted policy today.]]>
Provinces Should Think Beyond Pipelines,2013:/theblog//3.4275967 2013-11-14T17:16:38-05:00 2014-01-23T18:58:21-05:00 Merran Smith
"The most promising path forward on international climate change policy at present is bottom-up development of regional, national and subnational policies that become linked," said Stavins, who directs the university's Environmental Economics Program. His words echoed those of the Governor of California who, in signing the Action Plan last month, promised those present that "this thing is going to spread."

Cue the Council of the Federation -- scheduled to meet Friday in Toronto. In fits and starts for the past 18 months, the alliance of provincial and territorial leaders has been thrashing out the details of a Canadian energy strategy.

From day one, Alberta's keen interest in oilsands pipelines has driven the premiers' deliberations. And to be sure, any cross-provincial energy strategy must address all forms of energy distribution, including liquid fuels. But at its core, any such plan should serve to transition the nation to a lower carbon economy, and ensure we compete in the growing global market for low-carbon products and services.

Alas, we're seeing troubling signals that the strategy may ultimately begin and end with long tubes of welded steel. Such an outcome would prove a strategic blunder of epic proportions. As the Philippines endure the aftermath of the largest tropical storm ever to make landfall -- and as nations such as China make moves to establish carbon pricing -- this is not the time to double down on fossil fuels.

As the Pacific Coast Action Plan suggests, clusters of states and provinces -- as well as alliances between cities such as Vancouver, Chicago, and Toronto -- are not just aligning but fully integrating their efforts to address climate change while efficiently delivering their citizens vital energy services such as heat, power and mobility.


These sub-national agreements aren't small change. The Pacific Coast example collectively represents 53 million people, a combined GDP of $2.8 trillion, and 670 million collective tonnes of annual carbon pollution. To put this in perspective, that's more people, a larger economy, and almost as much carbon pollution as all of Canada.

A Harris Decima poll, conducted this past summer, suggests that Canadians get it. Asked to prioritize a series of objectives for a Canadian energy strategy, they identified as a "top" or "high" priority "improving energy efficiency" (80 percent), "creating more jobs in clean energy" (73 percent), "reducing Canada's carbon pollution to slow down climate change" (67 percent), and "reducing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal" (61 percent).


If a collection of states can link up with one province with a bold plan to address carbon pricing, electric vehicles, high-efficiency buildings, and low-carbon fuels, why can't the Council of Federation follow suit and come up with a plan for our energy future that is about much more than moving oil and gas from A to B?]]>
It's Game On for Canadian Climate Change Leadership,2013:/theblog//3.3499743 2013-06-26T17:30:20-04:00 2013-08-26T05:12:02-04:00 Merran Smith Climate Action Plan, released today, amounts to a strong signal that Canada's "business as usual" days are numbered.

As the United States moves to reduce its reliance on coal, the country will need an abundance of clean and green energy to ensure both its citizens and economy have the energy they need. This creates a significant opportunity for Canada.

We have tremendous untapped clean and renewable energy capacity. According to a recent Trottier Energy Futures report, Canada's supplies of solar, wind, hydroelectric and biomass energy are much larger than the current or forecast demand for fuel and electricity, and technology costs have been falling in recent years.

Our provinces have barely scratched the surface of what can be accomplished to meet both our own needs and those of our neighbours -- already our largest trading partner.

Canada's federal government has pledged to follow America's lead on climate change. We need to get back into the clean energy race, meet our own climate change commitments to limit warming to two degrees above historical temperatures, and better prepare our cities and communities for the intensifying impacts of climate disruption. Local governments are on the front lines of climate change mitigation and adaptation.

It looks like the United States is taking serious action on all these fronts--as promised. Our own government has said it would "wait and see" before following suit. The waiting is now over.

Game on.

Will 40/40 Take the Heat off Edmonton?,2013:/theblog//3.3030216 2013-04-06T20:25:31-04:00 2013-06-06T05:12:01-04:00 Merran Smith
But even the most resolute climate hawks know that there is no black and white--only various shades of grey, usually in the form of messy trade-offs. It is important to acknowledge steady progress, but also place it against the context of the hard work that lies ahead.

It is in this spirit that we weigh the Government of Alberta's new 40/40 climate change proposal which, it must be noted, is just that--a proposal.

When you do the math, the scheme would compel large polluters to reduce their emissions by 40 percent, or pay the equivalent of $40 per tonne of carbon pollution that they pump into the atmosphere. While this is more than Ottawa had expected, many oil sands producers have already been making long-term plans assuming a much higher "shadow" price. In fact, such a move might even improve the bottom line of oil sands operators if it helps them get their product to higher-priced markets.

The province is not floating this trial balloon altruistically. It's doing so in a transparent effort to secure social license--the tacit "permission" of the people, if you will, both at home and in the United States--that it needs to build new pipelines pointing south, east, and west.

The industry has a long row to hoe. Escalating protests from environmental groups are having their intended effect. The Canadian public, which for years has been hearing about "responsible" oil sands development while observing just the opposite, has its guard up. A number of high-profile pipeline spills on both sides of the border haven't helped the industry's case. Nor has the fact that the oil sands are Canada's fastest growing source of carbon pollution. As the former CEO of the National Roundtable on Environment and Economy recently wrote, Alberta's carbon problem is Canada's, too.

So does Alberta's proposal go far enough? To answer that, we need to understand how much closer it takes us to where we need to be.

Our country has committed to limit the long-term average increase in the global temperature to two degrees celsius--beyond which point, things start to get really hairy. To have a 50:50 shot at achieving this goal, we need to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at no higher than 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent.

In 2010, in an effort to figure out what that might look like on the ground, the International Energy Agency (IEA) modelled what it called a 450 Scenario, which explicitly looked at Canada's oil sands. In this scenario, thanks to technologies like carbon capture and storage, oil sands production would continue to grow, cresting three million barrels per day of production in 2035. That is about 50 percent higher than today's extraction rates--but less than what Alberta regulators have already approved. A key assumption of the 450 Scenario was that OECD countries would adopt a carbon price, starting at $45 per tonne in 2020, rising to $105 per tonne by 2030, and meeting $120 per tonne in 2035.

But more recent analysis suggests that the carbon price must actually be significantly higher by 2020--on the order of $100 per tonne--if Canada is to meet the federal government's target.

Within this context, a pollution price of $40 in Alberta is a strong first step, but it should also be bolstered by a clear commitment and schedule to increase its price on pollution in the coming years. Until these subsequent steps are grounded in policy, the 40/40 toe in the water does not advance Alberta or Canada very far down the path at all.

To secure social license from a wary public and give businesses the certainty they badly need, Alberta will need to continue increasing its carbon price over time--and that commitment needs to be made now. Anything less won't take the political heat off of Edmonton, or the heat off the world.]]>
Beyond The Bubble: A Recipe for a Stronger Alberta,2013:/theblog//3.2820311 2013-03-06T12:56:05-05:00 2013-05-06T05:12:01-04:00 Merran Smith
Yet while Premier Redford undeniably has tough decisions to make, there are promising signals that she is looking beyond bubbles and examining a range of more enduring solutions to the province's challenges. These might include economic diversification, saving more resource wealth, and--as crazy as it might sound--a more aggressive climate policy.

First there's the matter of resource dependency, a conundrum that David Emerson knows well. "Energy and natural resource markets are notoriously volatile," the former federal conservative cabinet minister and chair of the Premier's Council on Economic Strategy once wrote. "The more government spending relies on such revenues, the more fiscal volatility and instability becomes embedded in fiscal frameworks."

How might Alberta stabilize its fiscal frameworks? The long-term solution is not finding more markets for oil, but diversifying the entire economy to smooth out some of the bumps on the natural-resources roller coaster. That's a tall order, of course. But where there is a will, there is a way--and there is a way.

The truth is, Alberta can capture new revenue, start paying down the deficit, restore its credibility as a responsible environmental steward, and use market forces to drive the innovation needed to gradually reshape the economy.

It can do it, in part, by increasing the price paid for carbon pollution.

Hear me out, because a window of opportunity is opening. The province is currently reviewing its greenhouse gas regulations under the glare of an international spotlight on the oilsands--presenting a clear opportunity to demonstrate true commitment to addressing climate change by significantly strengthening them.

Increasing the price paid for pollution (currently at $15/tonne) and taking a more sophisticated approach to deploying the associated revenue will not only begin diversifying the economy but will go a long way towards restoring the oil sands sector's diminished environmental standing in markets south of the border and overseas.

A stronger price on carbon pollution will drive market forces to get rid of that pollution. We will begin to see more efficient buildings, more renewable energy, better transportation systems, and higher industrial productivity - that is, more value produced per unit of pollution emitted.

To its credit, even in the face of the deficit, Premier Redford's government has begun a public conversation about the need to sock more resource wealth into savings.

As Madeline Drohan, Canadian correspondent for The Economist and author of the report The 9 Habits of Highly Effective Resource Economies, has written, putting resources revenues into a fund and using only the income from the fund for current spending "takes the government off the roller-coaster fuelled by resource revenues that soar and plunge unpredictably."

This echoes similar recommendations from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, and numerous other scholars and thought leaders.

A higher price on pollution will drive innovation and provide the province with sorely needed revenue. Couple it with complimentary efforts to diversify the economy and invest more resource wealth, and you have a dynamite combination. In all cases, revenue might be strategically invested to better prepare Alberta for the inevitable global transition to a low-carbon economy.

But of all these solutions, a serious carbon price just makes sense. It would not only deliver myriad environmental and economic benefits as outlined above. It would capture the attention and respect of the entire world.]]>
The Six Most Overlooked Energy Stories of 2012,2012:/theblog//3.2378047 2012-12-31T08:15:19-05:00 2013-03-02T05:12:02-05:00 Merran Smith #cdnpoli.


1. We Could Make a Killing in EVs

2. The Grid Goes Digital

3. Canada's Hidden Opportunity

4. Canadians Support a Carbon Price

5. First Nations Unplugging From Diesel

6. Welcome to the United States of Arabia!


Does Shell Decision Signal New Approach to Energy In B.C.?,2012:/theblog//3.2323903 2012-12-18T14:00:45-05:00 2013-02-17T05:12:01-05:00 Merran Smith

In withdrawing its proposal, both Shell and the province recognized that the proposed drilling and fracking project &#8212; which would have involved drilling more than 4,000 wells across more than 400,000 hectares of wilderness &#8212; would have too great an impact on the salmon-based economies of local and downstream communities in the region.



Controversy first erupted in the Sacred Headwaters region &#8212; the watershed of the Skeena, Nass, and Stikine Rivers &#8212; in 2004, when Shell drilled three test wells in the area, exploring for coal bed methane. In response, the Tahltan First Nation and downstream communities mobilized around significant concerns with the impacts of the proposed development.





Surprise, Surprise: Northern B.C. Supports Carbon Tax,2012:/theblog//3.1964221 2012-10-16T05:36:31-04:00 2012-12-16T05:12:02-05:00 Merran Smith



Energy Canada












Premiers Grab the Climate Change Baton,2012:/theblog//3.1730404 2012-08-03T10:50:40-04:00 2012-10-03T05:12:02-04:00 Merran Smith
But the Council of the Federation meeting of provincial premiers -- which wrapped up last week in Halifax, Nova Scotia -- did hit an important milestone: It placed the opportunity of the low-carbon transition and the imperative to finally do something about climate change squarely at the center of the Canadian energy agenda.

Canada's provincial premiers closed out the two-day conference by committing to "a more integrated approach to climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and managing the transition to a lower carbon economy."


They weren't alone; a Harris Decima poll released the first day of the Halifax meeting suggested that Canadians want an energy strategy that fights climate change and reduces the nation's dependence on fossil fuels. According to the poll, two-thirds of Canadians believe a national energy strategy should reduce the country's dependence on oil, gas, and coal (66 per cent pegged this as a "top" or "high" priority for such a plan.)


It appears the premiers were tuning in. The idea of a Canadian energy strategy is now moving forward with climate change on the agenda. Provincial energy ministers will evidently now be given the mandate to address carbon reductions -- which historically has fallen outside their portfolios.

This regional interest is encouraging, because Canada's federal government has shown little -- if any -- interest in seriously addressing climate change or boosting the nation's participation in the global low-carbon economy, which is expected to crest $3 trillion before the end of this decade.

Canada's provincial energy ministers will now pick up the energy-strategy conversation. Early next month, they'll meet in Prince Edward Island. It will be interesting to see the extent to which they next raise the bar.]]>