Legislative Assembly of Ontario · Committee
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
The official transcript of the meeting, from Hansard, by heading. Ministers, officials and witnesses appear as the transcript names them; committees have no live transcript, so the record appears once the Assembly publishes it.
Read from the beginning of the meeting
MPP Billy Denault
Just a quick question—well, I don’t know if it will be quick—to the panel: If you can share some examples of ways that Ontario has encouraged decarbonization in the province’s industrial sector by working with industry, not against them, both to protect jobs and the environment.
Mr. Alex Wood
Thanks again for the question. While Ontario’s economy has grown, its emissions have declined. From 2005 to 2023, Ontario’s GDP grew by 34% while emissions fell by 21.6%, with Canada’s overall reductions only at 8.5%. Ontario remains a strong supporter of clean growth. Our investment in industrial decarbonization, such as clean steel and EV manufacturing, is creating opportunities for business and workers. Actions to support decarbonization in this sector include the emissions performance standard and the associated Emissions Performance Program. This is a program that was created and received federal recognition in 2022. It is an alternative to the federal carbon pricing regime and it is tailored to minimize the burden on trade-exposed industries in the province and to be flexible to the unique needs and circumstances of industry in Ontario. The EPS has been successfully giving industries an incentive to make reductions without driving away business and job creators. For example, Ontario’s cement manufacturers have found ways to reduce emissions and improve their bottom lines in the process. In the first two compliance years of the EPS—the emissions performance standard—approximately $407 million in proceeds have been collected, which are being used to fund the Emissions Performance Program, which allows eligible industrial facilities to apply to use EPS proceeds paid by industry for projects that reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Part of that money also went to the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ Future Clean Electricity Fund, which uses proceeds paid by the electricity sector to help reduce system costs for electricity ratepayers and to support the construction of new energy generation. Funded projects under the Emissions Performance Program include energy-efficiency, electrification, waste water, energy recovery and waste heat recovery projects. I’ll also point to the work that’s been going on in relation to the carbon management framework, which I just referenced earlier. Ontario is developing a provincial carbon management framework that will accelerate the use of new technologies and support the growth of a strong carbon management sector in the province. Development of this framework was announced in spring 2025 and builds on the government’s efforts to enable geological carbon storage. It will open the door to new export markets and attract investment while reducing industry’s carbon footprint. Carbon management technologies are a cost-effective way to reduce hard-to-abate industrial process emissions. By harnessing CO2, not only can emissions be effectively reduced but new economic pathways can be forged, fostering sustainable growth and driving Ontario’s transition toward an innovative, clean and competitive economy. You asked specifically about the steel sector as an industrial sector. We are working with the steel industry to help them cut their greenhouse gas emissions by supporting efforts to reduce and phase out the use of coal in their operation. Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie, working through the Northern Energy Advantage Program and through the Emissions Performance Program, which is channelling investments back to them, is carrying out an $888-million electric arc furnace transition program. That project by itself is expected to reduce emissions in the province by almost three megatonnes. In 2022, another steel company, ArcelorMittal Dofasco, in Hamilton, Ontario, committed $500 million in support of the ArcelorMittal Dofasco decarbonization project, which, in that case, would also replace coal-fed coke ovens and blast furnaces with lower-emission electric arc furnace technology.
Mr. Alex Wood
In the interim, ArcelorMittal Dofasco has advised the Ontario government that the Hamilton project is delayed due to broader economic factors, including global market conditions and US tariff trade policies. To date, no provincial money flowed to ArcelorMittal Dofasco for this project, but we continue to work with them to make this project a reality.
Mr. Andrew Dowie
Recognizing that there’s just about a brief minute left, I have a question: In recent years, we know that we’ve had a change in climate. Stormwater curves have had to be adjusted for frequency and intensity, and we need to prepare our communities for a changing climate. I’m hoping you may be able to highlight some of the efforts that Ontario has made to build resilience in our communities.
Mr. Alex Wood
Thank you for the question. So I referenced a little earlier on in one of my answers the work that the province undertook back in 2023 to release its Provincial Climate Change Impact Assessment, and the undertaking there was designed to support evidence-based, climate risk-informed decisions by governments, by Indigenous communities, by municipalities and businesses in light of the findings of that report. The Ontario government has also implemented a range of adaptational resilience initiatives that include conserving wetlands by investing approximately $11 million in projects completed between 2023 and 2025 under the Wetlands Conservation Partner Program to support wetlands restoration and enhancement projects across the province to help protect communities from flooding, drought and other extreme weather. The government has also funded core infrastructure projects that enable and maintain housing while promoting climate resilience and adaptation through the Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program, also investing $7 million in the Evergreen Brick Works recovery and climate resilience project to protect one of Canada’s first large-scale community environmental hubs and a top destination for residents and tourists in the heart of Toronto. That project showcases how climate-resilient infrastructure can help protect communities and keep residents safe from floods and other weather events, including stormwater green infrastructure. The government has also invested $15 million between 2022 and 2025 to support improvements to waste water and stormwater management systems in 18 Lake Ontario basin municipalities. It has implemented commitments in the 2021 Canada-Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. Specifically, annex 10 of that agreement is focused on building an understanding of climate change impacts on the Great Lakes and integrating this knowledge into adaptation strategies and management actions by communities in that region. Further initiatives include: —supporting Ontario farmers in adopting technologies and practices to reduce GHG emissions and make their lands more resilient to climate change through initiatives such as the Sustainable Canadian Agricultural Partnership and the Ontario Agri-Food Research Initiative—I believe Deputy Kelly mentioned those earlier; —issuing $24.6 billion in green bonds to help finance transit initiatives, extreme weather resistance infrastructure and energy -efficiency and conservation projects; —supporting the Port Lands flood protection project in Toronto through Ontario’s sustainable bond programs, with $400 million allocated to reducing flood risk by creating a naturalized mouth for the Don River in the Port Lands, constructing a new river valley and creating a flood-protected area; —renewing the provincial hazard identification and risk assessment program to support emergency management partners to better understand hazards, emerging risks and resiliency opportunities to strengthen Ontario’s emergency preparedness for an evolving risk landscape; —enhancing emergency management capacity through sustained investments in provincial and community preparedness; —establishing the Ministry of Emergency Preparedness and Response; —implementing the Provincial Emergency Management Strategy and Action Plan; —launching the Ontario Corps to support emergency response; and —strengthened coordination between provincial and community emergency management through the Emergency Management Modernization Act. A couple of final points: —requiring planning authorities to plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the impacts of a changing climate, as set out in the provincial planning statement 2024, which is Ontario’s land use planning policy framework; and —finally, implementing Ontario’s Flooding Strategy, released in 2020, to better understand flood risks, strengthen long-term preparedness, enhance emergency readiness and guide investment in flood risk reduction.
The Chair (Mr. Tom Rakocevic)
You have four minutes—just under five, actually, or about four and a half.
MPP Mohamed Firin
I would like to thank you all for the presentation today. We’re all concerned about keeping our energy supply affordable and reliable, while also reducing emissions. How is the government ensuring that Ontario’s energy supply continues to be affordable, secure, reliable and clean to support the growth of our economy for the coming decades?
Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig
Thank you for that question. I have, in both my opening remarks and in my earlier responses, given some of that—but maybe pulling a number of those pieces together. I will highlight Energy for Generations, a comprehensive, integrated plan—the very first one in Ontario which not only looks at the short term but looks at the long term over the next 25 years and how we can meet all those four words that you just mentioned: affordable, secure, reliable and clean energy. I think that one, right now, is on top of people’s minds because we have done so much in that space. We are taking the largest nuclear build-out on the continent, while continuing to invest in energy-efficiency, electricity generation, storage and distribution. Alex Wood, for example, mentioned the significant investments in energy-efficiency our government has done: $10.9 billion over the next 12 years. All these different actions together will help Ontario achieve more than 99% zero-emissions electricity by 2050. As we have talked about, and I referenced in my remarks, we already have one of the cleanest electricity grids in North America. As we continue to have the refurbished and new nuclear online, on the grid, and continue to go through these procurements for renewables, we are going to continue then—over time, as I said—to see those significant reductions and get to that near zero. In Energy for Generations, it talks about the nuclear—all the refurbishments. The Darlington refurbishment: That was just completed under budget, on time, which, in the world of nuclear, is almost, I would say, unprecedented. It doesn’t happen often.
Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig
I had the opportunity to be in some meetings with the minister internationally, and it was recognized everywhere because it is so rare. Nuclear projects are famous for being much delayed and much over budget, so this is a unique one that we can be very, very proud of. The Bruce refurbishments are continuing and tracking the same way. And then OPG has started the construction of the first small modular reactor in Darlington, with units 2, 3 and 4 to come later. As we continue to do this significant expansion—and I have only talked about, at this point, the generation side of things. But there is similar expansion, for example, that is going to take place, of course, in the distribution. We will have to build a lot of wires to make sure that the energy gets to all those customers—whether they are residential customers, small business customers or large industry—at the time when the power is required. But in terms of supporting them, there is significant expansion of energy infrastructure. The government has also been increasing supports for Indigenous communities to lead and partner on these energy opportunities. So a couple of examples of that: The province is tripling the total amount of loan guarantees through the Indigenous Opportunities Financing Program to $3 billion, which will support Indigenous equity participation in energy projects. The province has also increased funding—
The Chair (Mr. Tom Rakocevic)
Thank you. We’re at time. We will now begin the second and final round for the third party, beginning with MPP Fairclough.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
I’ve got a couple of specific questions, and then I’m going to turn my attention to the work that’s happening for beyond 2030. My first question is: We’re currently in a global gas and oil energy crisis now. With gas at over $1.70 a litre, people need to save wherever they can. The Conservative government cancelled the EV rebate program and cancelled the home retrofit programs to help reduce home energy costs and reduce emissions. My questions are, how many people in Ontario benefit and what was the benefit of those programs? And can you explain why those decisions that were designed to save families money and reduce emissions were cancelled by this government?
Mr. Alex Wood
The cancellation of those programs dates back to 2018—at least the EV incentive program. I may ask my colleague from MTO to weigh in on the framework around that, but my recollection at the time was that was largely a function of an existing federal incentive and the government deciding that there didn’t need to be a double incentive provided to individuals for the purchase of those. It also, I think, speaks to a recognition that, at that time, in 2018—it may seem like fairly recently, but the marketplace at that time for those vehicles was largely a luxury market. Teslas and some of the German manufacturers were the very high-end vehicles, very high-cost vehicles, and the judgment there—again, at the time—was that these were incentives that were not necessarily incenting middle-income, low-income purchasers for those kinds of vehicles, which is the kind of policy that we would have wanted to support, instead of providing incentives to buyers who probably didn’t need those incentives.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
It’s a bit of a shame though, isn’t it? Because I think we have now lagged quite a bit around the infrastructure that we need for EVs. We’re seeing gas prices rise tremendously. Now, we’ve got new trade opportunities. It’s a bit of a shame. I feel like it pulled us back a little bit as a province, but I’d be curious as to your own view on the impact of that kind of change in policy—both for families, but also for building our own infrastructure in the province.
Mr. Alex Wood
I mean, my own view would be that the infrastructure is quite a different question. I’ll send it over to Tamara to speak to the investments that have been made in building out that charging infrastructure, because that commitment has continued and that investment has been made over the last little while.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Yes. Of course, we’re lagging quite a bit though, still; there are a lot of gaps across this province in being able to rely on it today. Maybe there are plans to build it out?
Ms. Tamara Gilbert
Yes. I’m pleased to answer to round out my colleague’s question in two important ways. First, there are the investments that the Ministry of Transportation is making in the ChargeON program, which is really intended to address the specific need around charging infrastructure in the province. We’re at over $180 million in funding that program. The second round is rolling out now. Through the first round of the program, there were, I believe, over 1,000 ports and over 200 charging stations—probably the same number of which will roll out in the second round of the program. So really important strides in making and supporting the infrastructure that’s needed to give people the confidence to move to EVs.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Okay. Great. Thank you. My second question is really—climate change is impacting the affordability crisis. People in my community of Etobicoke and across this province are paying more for their home insurance, which impacts both homeowners and renters, and local property taxpayers are shouldering the costs of the extreme weather. People in Ontario are bearing the costs of climate change. Can you talk about what work is being done by your ministry today in this area? Have you looked at what those costs are for people in Ontario? Have you been making recommendations in this regard to the government?
Mr. Alex Wood
If you’re speaking specifically about looking at insurance costs and what’s been happening on the insurance side, the answer is no. We have not been looking at that. Again, as I answered in an earlier question, our role is largely to take the expertise that we have on essentially trying to forecast climate impacts over the coming decades and trying to build that into the policy-making, the decision-making that other ministries are carrying forward. But we are not regulators of the insurance industry, so we don’t have specific work on that.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
I will just say, it is something I hear regularly from my own constituents about. Flooding is a very serious issue in our area, and so I would think that the government would have some interest to think about how we tackle it. But let’s switch gears. I am interested in what work the ministry is doing to evaluate, consider and advise on approaches to reducing GHG emissions beyond 2030.
Mr. Alex Wood
As we were addressing in some of the earlier questions, the intent right now and the commitment that the government has is to continue to work to achieve the 2030 target. As the deputy mentioned earlier, we have not been asked to develop a forward-looking plan beyond that date.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Okay, thank you. I do just want to ask a few resource questions, then. How many staff in your ministry or ministries are currently working on reducing GHG emissions?
Mr. Alex Wood
I can tell you that in my division, the one that happens to have “climate change” in the name, we’re around 95 officials. But as the deputy has mentioned, and as some of the folks across the table have also, the reality is that climate change is now a much more distributed set of responsibilities across many different ministries. I’d be hard-pressed to come up with all of the OPS who have climate change in their mandate or responsibilities. That’s not a number I have.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Yes, I guess it makes sense. I searched the budget document again this morning—from last year—and I think the word “climate change” is mentioned once in that, so it aligns with the fact this isn’t a priority for the government. Have there been any changes to your own personnel as a result of the change in legislation to remove Ontario’s GHG emission targets?
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Okay, so there haven’t been changes, but we still aren’t making firm commitments to where we’re heading. I guess I would just suggest that—I think it’s incredibly important that governments are forward-looking. We are in 2026. We know what it takes to look ahead and look at what the interventions might need to be beyond 2030 and set ourselves up well in Ontario for that. I’m pretty disappointed to hear that the government doesn’t seem to be interested, even, in looking beyond 2030 at this time.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Member, I appreciate the question in the spirit of how that is shared with us. I just want to capture, again, that the presence of there being a target is not the same as a commitment of the government of Ontario to continue working with climate change and to keep thinking about GHG reduction and decarbonization. The ministry is committed to this. A target is an expression of that, but not the only expression of that.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
But my question earlier was not about a target, actually. It was just about work that is being done to evaluate, consider and advise on approaches to reducing GHG emissions beyond 2030. That’s just a long-term view of what we should be doing versus a plan that you’re publishing or anything like that.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
I appreciate that. I think, then, that it would be a mistake to characterize what we’ve said as there not being any forward thinking, because in all of the policy work that there is, there are foundational efforts for government and thinking about how government moves forward and what that future is. The lifespan of those is going to be different based on policy and program, so there’s no uniform answer to that particular question. But the government is very forward-thinking in the work that we’re doing, and that’s the mandate of our ministry, to be thinking about that and to be thinking about the forecasting and future dates.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Okay. I’ve got one quick last question. Under Bill 60, the government removed the city of Toronto’s ability to require green roofs. This long-standing policy has had an important impact on flood mitigation and urban heat. It was also a job driver, with over 1,600 jobs and growing in our province, including in my own riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore. I just wanted to ask, were you consulted on that policy change?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
I was just conferring with my colleague because that’s not a lens that the Ministry of the Environment has reviewed and not a program the Ministry of the Environment has weighed in on. I’m not certain where that falls, if that would have been—
Ms. Lee Fairclough
It was under housing, but I would presume that they would actually ask for your expertise on that issue, to be honest.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Again, member, I think it’s also because of the expertise that’s been developed and the capacity that’s been developed by ministries to do much of the planning, the policy advisement within their respective ministries and portfolios. Our ministry continues to be a partner in that, but we’re not the exclusive holder of that information. So not all policy direction is derived from my ministry. There’s a considerable amount of policy work that’s being done across the province that we are interested in but we’re not necessarily directly informing.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Thank you. What I would say to the comment about not having targets is that what gets measured gets managed. We all know that. I’m going to talk about waste. I’m obsessed with waste, specifically diversion. We know, in the audit, landfills emit 90% of waste-sector emissions and 4% of Ontario’s total GHG emissions. We know our landfills are reaching capacity, specifically Green Lane landfill, which, for those who don’t know, is Toronto’s landfill—Toronto being, of course, the largest city in Canada, so it’s pretty important to know where Toronto’s waste is going to go. I’m just wondering what your ministry is doing to extend the life of Green Lane landfill. It’s my understanding it runs out in 2034. It will be at capacity. What are the measures that your ministry is taking to extend that life? Can we hold my time while we do a switch? Thank you.
The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Thushitha Kobikrishna)
Charles O’Hara, do you solemnly affirm that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
Great, thanks Green Lane landfill is a Toronto landfill, so it’s their purview. It’s not a provincial purview to manage that landfill. So you would have to talk to the city about what their plans are to extend the life of the landfill etc.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Well, I think we’ll all be concerned about that. Do you know anything about what is shipped to Michigan right now?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
I don’t have the numbers in front of me right now, but there is a significant portion of IC&I, which we call commercial waste, shipped to Michigan in Ontario.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Is the ministry worried about that, given what’s going on down south? If the border is closed, what would we do with that?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
I guess I would look to the deputy. I don’t know if that’s a question about greenhouse gas or if it’s a question about waste diversion. I don’t know if you want me to continue.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
It kind of combines both because there’s trucks involved, right?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Yes, member. Thank you for the question. These are emerging issues. This is more what we were speaking to earlier and the things that we can plan and the things that we can’t plan. There are a number of considerations within the ministry, understanding what the impact would be if borders were closed and how we might be able to manage the waste that gets shipped outside of our border through the US channel and how we’d be able to manage that within Ontario. I’m not certain if you have a specific question—
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Just if you have any forward thinking on plans for that, should that come to fruition.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Yes. Again, I’m mindful that as a public servant, I speak for what has been decided, what has been directed and what has been implemented. At this stage, I would say that there’s nothing that I could offer by the way of a program, per se, Charles, unless there is something that I am—
Mr. Charles O’Hara
Thanks, deputy. The ministry is aware of waste going across the border. Those are private contracts to ship waste across the border. They’re not provincial decisions. The province has a number of programs on diversion of waste. There are the five extended producer responsibility regulations to divert batteries, electronics, hazardous special products, tires, blue box—all those are diversion programs.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Is the ministry planning any programming around deconstruction versus demolition, for legislation to put that into effect so that materials, instead of just being demolished, are reused in other construction sites? That would help with waste reduction.
Mr. Charles O’Hara
At this time, the government isn’t consulting on anything to do with diversion in what we call the C&D sector, or the—
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Okay. So we’ll go right to EPR, then. I’m thrilled with extended producer responsibility. I think it’s the right move at the right time. Even though it’s coming from the government, I’m not sure of how happy or proud the government is. What was the communication from this government for Ontarians about the transition to EPR?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
There are five regulations. Is there one in particular that you’re talking about?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
They’ve all had different start dates. The earliest was in 2018 for tires.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Was there communication to Ontarians about that from the province of Ontario?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
These are extended producer responsibilities. The regulation would have had press releases, announcements at the time about the regulation passing. Then it would have been for producers to decide how they were communicating their regulated obligation to Ontarians about collecting materials. There’s also, as I think you know, something called the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority that communicates through a website to the regulated parties about its obligations under the framework.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Was it the ministry’s idea to roll out a new recycling system in January, the dead of the winter, after the holidays? Was that the ministry’s decision to do that at that specific point in time?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
Again, these were all part of the decision of government to make a regulation. I think you’re talking now about blue box.
Mr. Charles O’Hara
The regulation was passed in 2021, and in that regulation was a transition schedule that said “when each community transitions.” Not every community transitioned on January 1, and then the final transitions were on January 1, 2026.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
So it was a government decision to roll it out for the city of Tronto on January 1, the dead of winter?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Chair, respectfully, I think at this juncture maybe I would ask the question whether or not this is covered under the scope of the review today of the auditor’s comments. The ministry is happy under different circumstances to come prepared for this line of questioning. But not inside the scope of the audit; we’re not prepared to be able to provide the level of answers that the member is requiring of us at this time.
The Chair (Mr. Tom Rakocevic)
In conferring with the Clerk, the member has time. The member has the right to ask questions. You have the right to answer or not answer them, or—
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
I guess the connection would be that we know that greenhouse gas emissions come from landfill sites. We know that extended producer responsibility is a waste diversion program. Presumably, the ministry, as I do, would like to ensure its success. I feel it was not successfully rolled out, and it is your decision to go ahead with it. If it’s something you’re proud to do, why wouldn’t you ensure a successful rollout? But I will skip that for now. I’m just going to ask, why is the ministry delaying the targets for extended producer responsibility? Why is the ministry delaying the public space expansion of the system? And why is the government reducing the targets pertaining to certain materials?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Member, we’re very pleased to answer specifically on the direction that the ministry has received, but you are asking us to speculate about what motives or policy considerations a minister who provides that direction to us may have taken and we’re just not in a position to be able to provide a response to that question.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Why did your bottle deposit return system working group dissolve?
Mr. Charles O’Hara
In 2023, the government had a working group to look at deposit return. After considering it, the government decided it wasn’t going to proceed at that time because its priority was to focus on transition to EPR and not wanting to disrupt that.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Okay. I’m going to go over to balcony solar. That’s what I was going to ask before. I’ve given up on waste. Are there any programs that you are establishing to develop a balcony solar system for people who wish to choose that?
Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig
Personally, I’m not aware of that specific—there are programs for solar and so on, but I’m not able to specifically speak if we are considering balcony. Happy to bring it back. We work very closely with IESO, as I was saying earlier—
The Chair (Mr. Tom Rakocevic)
We’re at time. We now move to the second and final round for the official opposition, MPP Bell.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you once again for being here. This is a topic that I know many of us care a lot about. Just to recap what we’ve discussed a little bit so far: It is clear that the Conservative government has no public plan to reduce greenhouse gas emission targets post-2030, no public plan to have targets associated with that and no commitment to engage in any kind of public consultation for the public to assess whether the plan is credible or to provide feedback in order to improve it. There is also the issue that I raised around the unsound evidence that was used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions reductions, although I heard that there is a commitment to move forward on best practices when it comes to assessing greenhouse gas emissions reductions and to improve on that. I also heard frequent mention that the ministry is still committed to greenhouse gas emissions reductions and that there are specific policies and programs in place to achieve that, from transportation and food and energy. That’s correct?
Ms. Jessica Bell
Just to be clear, is the government still committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030? Is that still a stated commitment of the government?
Mr. Alex Wood
That target, as you know, is one that was expressed through the 2018 plan. That plan continues to exist. So, yes.
Ms. Jessica Bell
So just to be clear, when you say yes, you are saying government is still committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, that is correct?
Mr. Alex Wood
The government has said that the commitment is to continue to work toward that overall objective, taking into account, obviously, the situation that we find ourselves in from an economic perspective right now. As a very concrete example, I’ll raise something that I—
Ms. Jessica Bell
I have a lot of questions. You’ve answered that question, thank you very much. Naturally, I am not rude, but in this circumstance, I have to be forthright, okay? Just to be clear, you’ve got a commitment and there is a draft progress report that was done in 2025 to essentially—my guess is—assess your progress toward meeting that target. What is your progress toward meeting that target?
Mr. Alex Wood
Our progress: We’ve mentioned some of the numbers that we are certain of, and we’re going to get back into a discussion here about what is forecast and what is real. Essentially, we have real numbers showing reductions, showing progress of around 22% to that 30% target—
Ms. Jessica Bell
Correct, and 50% is because of the reduction or the decision by a previous government to eliminate—phase out of coal, right? Some 50% is from that?
Mr. Alex Wood
Well, we can get into a kind of tutorial on how—from what baseline we’re measuring, we should probably take that offside since you want to stick to some of the questions—
Mr. Alex Wood
You are quoting me, yes, and I mentioned earlier that that 20- to 25-megatonne reduction from the coal closure is, in fact, baked into our baseline now. So what are we measuring from is the question. Sorry. But you were asking about where we are—
Mr. Alex Wood
The latest forecast that we’ve—not the forecast, sorry, but the actual NIR numbers that we have show us at a 22% reduction. I will make a point here, which is the NIR—our experience is that, every year, it changes. So whether our NIR will year by year show every year of progress verses one year being a little higher, one year being a lot lower, I would point to the need to wait for the latest in NIR for us to be able to speak conclusively about reductions that were achieved as of 2024 in fact, because there’s a delay—