I am frequently struck by the seeming inability of the ministries I oversee to understand the minimal public consultation system set out in the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993 (EBR).

Here is how it works. When  specified ministries are considering making a decision that has environmentally significant implications, they post a “proposal notice” on the online  Environmental Registry that describes the nature of the decision. All proposal notices must be posted for a period of at least 30 days.  The proposal invites members of the public to submit comments or concerns relating to the proposal. Once the comment period ends, the ministry is required to consider the submitted comments during its deliberations. When a final decision is made, a “decision notice” is posted on the Registry describing what was decided and how the comments were taken into consideration.  As Commissioner, I receive and review the comments in my Annual Reports to the Legislature, to assess the decision and ensure that the EBR was complied with.  It seems straightforward enough and it’s required by law for certain decisions.

But frequently, this process is not followed. In some cases, the ministries receive applications for various permits or licences, and engage in elaborate conversations and negotiations with proponents without posting proposals to notify the public as to what is going on.  Only after the ministry has reached a final internal decision on the matter with all necessary internal approvals, do they post a “proposal notice” on the Registry.  The public is left to comment on a fait accompli that it cannot usefully influence or inform.  To add to the public insult, it is in these situations that the ministry complains that the Registry requirement unnecessarily delays government decision making.  In other cases, the ministry posts a proposal, perhaps at the appropriate stage, receives comments, and then never bothers posting a decision notice, even though the decision is made and implemented.  In such situations, the public never knows what happened or how its concerns were addressed, if at all.  Again, there is an implicit public insult.  I always cite these ministries in my Reports to the Legislature for their inappropriate postings, but the improprieties continue year after year.

The problem seems to stem from a lack of understanding of the fundamental nature and importance of public consultation. The ministry staff involved don’t seem to grasp that the public is a party to the decision making, and that the public’s participation actually improves the quality of the decision. People out there actually have knowledge and wisdom that is relevant and valuable to the decision-making process. At best, such participation can make the ministry’s job easier and more successful. At a minimum, including the public in the deliberation in a meaningful way will defuse possible misunderstandings and anxiety. The public most often doesn’t make any comment on posted decisions; but knowing what is going on, and that it can provide input if it wants to, creates and improves public confidence in the ministry’s decision making generally.

There was a time, years ago, when government ministries made decisions for the good of the province without public participation, because they thought they “knew best.” And, maybe they did.  These are not those times.  These are times when government action relating to the environment can have serious and widespread consequences.  And these are times when people want and expect to be informed of and engaged in such decision making.  Frustrating these desires is ill conceived, unwise and contrary to the law.

Gord Miller
commissioner@eco.on.ca

The Ministry of the Environment is currently asking for public comment on the Environmental Registry on its proposal for making the Ministry of Education subject to public consultation provisions in Part II of the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR). The comment period ends April 25, 2011. For your comment to be considered, click here to go to the Environmental Registry page and click “Submit comment.”

In past Annual Reports, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario has called for the Ministry of Education to be prescribed under the EBR:

Prescribing Education: Crucial to Future Sustainability (2006)

Prescribing the Ministry of Education under the EBR (2001)

There has been much effort made in the media to lead the public to believe that their electricity bills have been spiralling due to the cost of subsidies to wind and solar initiatives of our energy conservation programs.  The 80 cents/kilowatt hour (kWh) for solar is frequently cited as the greatest offender, even though that rate only applies to rooftop solar with a capacity of 10 kW or less. In total, such installations currently amount to just 34 MW out of the 37,000 MW of installed generation in the province.   Not mentioned are the subsidies paid to our private natural gas generators, or those paid to Bruce Power, when the market price doesn’t meet their guaranteed price (which is almost all the time).  The latter subsidies involve 70% of the global adjustment monies paid out, simply because they pay for the delivery of much more power.  In fact, the Ontario Power Authority paid out $1.35 billion in 2010 to meet gas and nuclear power purchase agreements.

So how significant are the subsidies to renewable energy and the monies paid for conservation in a typical residential electricity bill anyway?  To answer that we had better clarify what a typical electricity rate is per kilowatt hour delivered to your home.  There has been much confusion about that as well.

A typical electrical bill consists of a charge per kWh of electricity used, plus a charge for transmission and distribution, plus a fixed fee to the utility, plus a regulatory charge, plus a debt retirement charge, plus HST, less the 10% the Province has just given us in the clean energy benefit.  It is a complicated system to be sure. To get an estimate of a representative rate, we looked at a typical home that heats with natural gas and uses 800 kWh of electricity per month, and we compared that to a similar house with electric heat that uses typically 2500 kWh of electricity per month (averaged over 12 months).  Although the costs per month obviously varied ($105 vs. $303) the cost of electricity per kWh “all in” was the same, about 13 cents.

So how much of that is due to renewables and conservation?   In 2010, the Ontario Power Authority paid electricity resource costs of $317 million for conservation programs, and $269 million for renewables.  That is a lot of money – but you must realize that it is recovered over a total Ontario consumption in 2010 of 142 terawatt hours (that’s 142,000,000,000 kWh), which amounts to 0.4 cents per kWh (split roughly equally between conservation and renewable subsidies).  So the cost of conservation and all the renewable subsidies in 2010 amounted to 0.4 cents of the 13 cents we paid for a kWh in our homes.  A significant amount, perhaps, but hardly the bogeyman that it is so often made out to be.

In fairness, it must be acknowledged that this 0.4 cent amount will rise as more green energy comes on line in future years, but in 2010 that is what it was.  During these times when we are publicly discussing a long-term electrical energy plan, I think it is important to be honest about the current cost of electricity.

ECO Gord Miller appeared on TVO’s The Agenda last week discussing green energy in Ontario. Watch the video here.

Part III in The Agenda’s “Pressures of Progress” series: Ontario is trying to become a world leader in green technology. And while the McGuinty Liberals believe it’s the future, citizens and industry aren’t fully buying in. Do we all want to go green, until it happens?

Click to go to episode page.

The Ministry of Natural Resources is currently asking for public comment on the Environmental Registry on its proposal for protecting caribou habitat, including when permits would be required under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and when some forms of development would be exempted. The comment period ends March 10th, 2011.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario (ECO) has reported on caribou conservation in several of its Annual Reports to the Ontario legislature, most recently in September 2010.

The ECO also released a Special Report to the Ontario legislature in March 2009 providing an overview of the ESA: The Last Line of Defence: A Review of Ontario’s New Protections for Species at Risk.