Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks; Ministry of Energy and Mines; Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness
Mr. Alex Wood
Thank you for the question. The question of modelling and the modelling framework that we use has been discussed already a bit, but I’ll endeavour to get deeper into your question by providing a bit more information on that. We follow best practices and will continue to employ those best practices in our GHG emission projection analysis. As I mentioned earlier, we are committed to continuous improvement to ensure modelling remains robust. MECP continues to assess and refine the approaches, tools and processes used to develop GHG emissions projections as new information becomes available. We, as a matter of business, have a subscription access—and the deputy mentioned this earlier—to basically Canada’s leading energy environment model, run by an organization called Navius Research. It is a peer-reviewed energy economy macroeconomic model that is used by most governments across Canada, including Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, British Columbia and Alberta. It has also been commissioned by respected third-party institutions such as the Canadian Climate Institute, Clean Prosperity, the Public Policy Forum and Clean Energy Canada. Our teams continue to collaborate with Navius and to follow best practices to regularly update that model and to reflect the latest emissions data, economic trends and policy developments. To get specific, we use the following approach to modelling updates: Most updates involve calibration of the model undertaken by Navius using publicly available data to reflect historical trends across all sectors of Ontario’s economy. So in this case, we use the National Inventory Report, the National Energy Use Database and related reports, Statistics Canada’s report on energy and supply and demand; macroeconomic projections; electricity sector data; and trends from the Independent Electricity System Operator, including energy supply and demand and energy conservation management frameworks—all inputs that go into that basic framework that we use. At least annually, or as new policies are proposed, MECP collaborates with the leads on MECP initiatives to reflect updates to policies such as the Emissions Performance Standards Program, whenever amendments are made to that program; changes to the cleaner transportation fuels, which I’ve already mentioned; and then food and organic waste policy statement changes as well. We also utilize annual federal consultation processes to track updates to relevant Ontario policies. These are exercises and reports issued by the federal government, such as the biennial transparency report, the emissions projections and the national inventory report, which I also mentioned. Finally, policies and commitments announced in Ontario and in federal budgets, or updates to the federal emissions reduction plan itself, are reviewed for new developments on an ongoing basis. MECP collaborates with Navius, the model provider, to make any necessary policy updates. We also attend regular federal webinars on new climate policies to stay abreast of policy understanding. If a policy is unclear, MECP would follow up with other ministries to clarify or rely on the expertise of the service provider. Again, all of that to underline the work that goes into the model, that is itself the basis by which we generate and issue the emissions forecast, is an ongoing work in progress, constantly being calibrated, constantly being updated with up-to-date assumptions. Thanks for your question.