Environmental Defence Canada…

Environmental Defence Canada has significant concerns with Bill 214, the "Affordable Energy Act," as it currently stands. While there are some positive elements in the legislation, such as the recognition of the need for an Integrated Energy Resource Plan (IERP), the bill falls short in key areas that are critical for ensuring a transparent, cost-effective, and decarbonized energy future for Ontario.

We are particularly disappointed by the lack of provisions for transparency, the removal of essential climate and emissions reduction goals, and the prioritization of nuclear power over more affordable and sustainable energy solutions.

Below, we outline our main concerns and provide recommendations to strengthen the bill.

1. Lack of Transparency and Oversight

The bill places significant control over energy planning in the hands of the Minister and the Ministry of Energy, with little provision for transparency or input from energy experts, the IESO, the OEB, or civil society organizations. In particular, it removes the requirement for the IESO to produce a technical report on the adequacy and reliability of electricity resources, which was previously required under the Electricity Act of 1998.

Under the current system, the IESO’s technical report ensured a level of scrutiny and accountability, as it was publicly accessible and guided the development of the Long Term Energy Plan (LTEP). Removing this requirement and replacing it with vague consultations could lead to decisions being made behind closed doors, without sufficient expert or public input.

Schedule 1 of Bill 214 includes further provisions suggesting a diminished role for the OEB, e.g. “restriction on Board modifications” and “restriction on amending” etc. In other words, the government, not an independent arms-length agency, will be developing and driving the implementation plans.

Governments of all stripes have in the past respected the arms-length energy regulation approach because of those agencies’ important independent foresight function. Within the context of the proposed legislative changes, we must ask ourselves: who benefits from a diminished role for both the OEB and IESO in Ontario?

Recommendation:
We strongly recommend that the bill be amended to reinstate the requirement for the IESO to prepare and publicly post a technical report on the adequacy and reliability of electricity resources. Moreover, the Integrated Energy Plan should undergo a public consultation process, including hearings with intervenors, interrogatories, and input from independent experts. To ensure the process is fair and transparent, we advocate for an independent body to oversee the development of the IERP, rather than allowing it to be driven by political interests.

2. Omission of Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Goals
The proposed bill alters the purposes of the energy plan by striking out references to climate change resilience and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction. Additionally, energy conservation is given a reduced emphasis, while nuclear power generation is explicitly prioritized.

The previous version of the Electricity Act included essential goals around reducing GHG emissions and prioritizing energy conservation. These goals aligned Ontario’s energy planning with the global need to decarbonize the energy sector and mitigate climate change. By removing these goals, the government risks undermining Ontario’s contribution to reducing overall emissions, especially as the province faces growing pressure to electrify sectors like transportation and industry.

Recommendation:
We urge the committee to amend the bill to restore the climate change, emissions reduction, and energy conservation goals. Specifically, the Integrated Energy Plan must prioritize decarbonization of the electricity sector and align with broader climate goals. This can be done while respecting affordability, but decarbonization should remain a clear, non-negotiable priority.

3. Prioritization of Nuclear Power Over Cost-Effective Alternatives

The bill explicitly prioritizes nuclear power as a key component of Ontario’s energy future. This could lead to a significant misalignment with the most cost-effective and sustainable options available, such as wind and solar power, which are widely considered the lowest-cost sources of new electricity generation.
The government has previously stated its commitment to a technology-agnostic approach to energy planning. However, prioritizing nuclear power in the bill contradicts this stance and raises questions about the cost-effectiveness of such an approach. The significant costs and long lead times associated with nuclear power could undermine affordability and the efficient use of resources in meeting Ontario’s future energy needs.

Recommendation:
We recommend removing the explicit prioritization of nuclear power from the bill. Instead, the Integrated Energy Plan should take a technology-agnostic approach, with a clear focus on decarbonization and cost-effectiveness. Wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources would emerge as clear winners in such a process, given they are the most affordable and sustainable solutions to meet future energy demand.

4. Lack of Public Access to Independent Energy Modelling Studies
The Ministry of Energy has contracted independent energy modelling firms, Dunsky and ESMIA, to study the most cost-effective pathways for Ontario’s energy transition. However, this study has not been made publicly available, despite its importance in guiding the development of the Integrated Energy Resource Plan.

Public access to independent studies is essential for ensuring that energy planning decisions are based on sound evidence and are subject to scrutiny. Without access to the modelling results, stakeholders, including experts, the public, and organizations like Environmental Defence, are unable to fully engage in the planning process or assess the adequacy of the proposed energy strategies.

Recommendation:
We urge the Ministry of Energy to release the results of the Dunsky and ESMIA studies as soon as possible. This will ensure that the development of the Integrated Energy Resource Plan is based on transparent, evidence-based analysis and that all stakeholders have the opportunity to review and provide input on the proposed pathways for Ontario’s energy future.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment,

Alienor Rougeot
Senior Program Manager, Climate and Energy
Environmental Defence