I'm writing in support of…

ERO number


Comment ID


Commenting on behalf of


Comment status

Comment approved More about comment statuses


I'm writing in support of the continued investment in CDM in Ontario, thru 2024.

While I understand that the fundamental objective of CDM is to optimize the provision of electricity through least cost delivery (energy efficiency), the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic points to an even more important need to continue to invest in the energy efficiency (EE) industry, in order to help manage electricity bills, protect jobs, and provide considerable economic stimulus.

Many studies have evaluated, and furthermore, demonstrated the economic benefit associated with each dollar spent on EE. If EE is contemplated as a potential element of a broader economic recovery and stimulus package, I would suggest studies such as these form a convincing argument for continued or even enhanced support for Ontario's CDM programs.

Our CDM cost-effectiveness framework really only evaluates EE against value to the system. I understand that Ontario applies a "social benefit" adder of 15% to program cost-effectiveness evaluation, but economic studies reveal that this is nowhere near adequate. Our characterization of the value of EE without taking into account the metrics proposed in the reports listed below (ie. GDP, jobs) is simply incorrect given today’s economic climate.

Considering the powerful impact that EE investment can have on an economy in recovery, it’s worth looking at the best ways that you can serve people of Ontario. The following reports suggest EE is an excellent way to provide impactful stimulus:

The Economic Impact of Improved EE in Canada - Dunsky for Clean Energy Canada
• Study estimated the jobs and GDP impacts of implementing the Pan-Canadian Framework’s energy efficiency measures between 2018 and 2030
• Study showed that implementing the Framework’s energy efficiency actions would add 118,000 jobs (average annual full-time equivalent) and increase GDP by 1% over the baseline forecast, by 2030
• The findings suggest that every $1 spent on energy efficiency programs generates $7 in GDP

Energy Efficiency: Engine of Economic Growth in Eastern Canada
• A study quantifying the macroeconomic impacts – GDP and job growth – of expanded investment in energy efficiency in the provinces of Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island
• The authors indicate the findings for these provinces “expand and corroborate” many other studies which suggest investing in energy efficiency produces significant positive direct and non-direct economic benefits
• The study found that every $1 spent on energy efficiency programs generates between $4 and $8 of GDP, and every $1 million invested in energy efficiency programs creates between 30 and 57 job years (one job for one year)

Estimating the Economic Benefits of EE & RE - US EPA
• A report that provides guidelines for identifying and calculating the economic benefits of EE and RE investment, including case studies from different U.S. states:
o Vermont: spending $44 million in a single year on efficiency in Vermont would result in a net
increase of close to 1,900 jobs-years, nearly $100 million in additional personal income,
approximately $350 million in output, and $220 million in gross state product over the next 20 years
o California: $257M invested between 2010-2012 lead/will lead to an estimated 16,946 full-time or
part-time jobs from 2010 through 2026, $1.27 billion of incremental personal income from
additional wages and salaries, and $2.04 billion in gross state product cumulatively over 16 years
o Southeast U.S. (multiple states): every $1 million invested would yield 17.28 jobs, $1.1 million in
labor income, $1.9 million in total value added, and $3.9 million in output