By Trevor McLeod
In the Leader-Post

March 30, 2015


 

Saskatchewan has been more strategic about mitigating climate change than many people recognize, but its cities can cut emissions even further while saving taxpayers money.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have each committed to spend approximately $1.3 billion on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. Saskatchewan’s investment in post-combustion technology should be portable to places like China (where two to three new coal plants are built each week), while Alberta’s specialized CCS technology is unlikely to be transferable. Put simply, Saskatchewan’s CCS technology could be a gamechanger.

As Western Canada’s resource economies face a downturn, we should remember that Premier Brad Wall has maintained a singular focus on growing Saskatchewan’s economy while keeping costs low for taxpayers. His government should be applauded for that.

However, it would be a mistake for the government to use the downturn as an excuse not to do more to reduce Saskatchewan’s carbon footprint. After all, Saskatchewan has just over three per cent of Canada’s population, but accounts for more than 10 per cent of Canadian emissions.

CCS is not enough. Yet, since 21 per cent of Saskatchewan’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from the electricity sector, it is a good start. Another 34 per cent of emissions come from oil, natural gas and mining. Although there are efficiency gains to be made, this does not mean Saskatchewan should rush to implement expensive environmental solutions like Ontario’s feed-in tariff (a policy of offering long-term contracts to renewable energy producers, typically based on the cost of generation of each technology).

Fortunately for Saskatchewan, GHGs can be reduced while saving money. A recent report by the Canada West Foundation entitled Walkin’ the Walk: Five Steps toward Efficient Cities provides a simple framework for western Canadian cities to follow. It makes the case that most western cities need to do more, but advises cities to remember that not all environmental projects are worth doing. The ones that are worth doing meaningfully reduce energy use, GHG emissions and costs to taxpayers over time.

Saskatoon and Regina have taken steps to limit both energy use and GHG emissions. But they should take a close look at some of the things other western Canadian cities are doing. Calgary, Victoria and North Vancouver are leaders in mapping energy use, which allows cities to identify the highest value targets for energy management. Calgary, for example, found that 67 per cent of its energy use comes from buildings. This information helps the city to show value as it seeks public support to reduce energy use and emissions from buildings.

Edmonton and Winnipeg have led the way with self-funding initiatives. They have partnered with energy service providers to enable private funding for energy infrastructure like street lighting, with the private investor being repaid from the savings in operating costs. It is encouraging that Saskatoon has started down this road.

It also makes sense for the province to take a look at the Vancouver Charter and Alberta’s Framework Agreement for Charters if it wants to provide cities with more tools to reduce energy use and GHG emissions.

Cities could do more if citizens were less complacent, but their attitude is understandable. Energy is both cheap and abundant in Saskatchewan and improving energy efficiency tends to have high upfront capital costs. Competing demands for dollars also distract municipal politicians from taking a hard look at our urban energy systems.

Builders, too, face a disincentive. Investments in commercial buildings balance capital costs against long-term operating costs. Penny pinching on the upfront investment can result in higher energy and environment costs down the road. If cities were to implement full-cost accounting for the life of projects, emphasis would shift from shortterm to long-term goals.

If Saskatchewan were to apply its strategic CCS thinking to other environmental initiatives, it would soon regain its rightful place as a leader on this issue.

Trevor McLeod is director of the Centre for Natural Resources Policy at the Canada West Foundation (www.cwf.ca).