Ford’s fuel folly
Dear Editor:
RE: ‘Short-sighted bill,’ March 7.
Kudos to Gord Cumming on his insightful comments regarding the proposed overturning of the Ontario Energy Boards (OEB) changes to the provinces energy systems.
The OEB (which is charged with safeguarding consumers in electricity and natural gas markets) had ruled that if Enbridge wants to keep connecting new customers to the natural (fossil) gas systems, then it should pay these infrastructure costs up front.
This would ensure that if a transition to increasingly available alternatives such as heat pumps and district heating occurs, as it must to avoid complete climate breakdown, consumers would not be left paying for stranded assets.
The decision by the OEB to shift the costs to developers “upfront” by 2025 would be an incentive to “choose the most cost-effective and energy effective choice.”
Energy minister Todd Smith seems to believe that encouragement to select the most “cost and energy efficient” system would increase the cost of new housing. However research has shown that by avoiding fitting a new home with both gas and electric infrastructure, costs go down. In fact, high efficiency heat pumps are more affordable over the lifetime of the equipment than new gas hookups.
Instead, the Ford government wants to ensure that subsidizing costs for Enbridge and developers lands squarely on the backs of all Enbridge consumers.
For someone who has consistently railed against the carbon tax (which is returned to Ontarians quarterly) as “taking money out of people’s pockets,” Ford seems quite content to allow us to cover costs for Enbridge.
What he fails to acknowledge is that if his government followed the OEB’s recommendations we would be moving towards not only cheaper housing costs but a more liveable planet.
Sue Braiden,
Erin
