iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Thanks to the City of Regina for their collaboration on the survey and to all of the Regina residents who participated in the survey. We appreciate you taking the time to answer the phone and respond to the survey

010

There is also support for a number of policies and actions the City of Regina could take to make progress towards the 100% renewable and net-zero target. Here's a snapshot of what Regina residents think about those actions.

112

We also asked if Regina residents support a broader city-wide 100% renewable goal where the City of Regina would work to ensure that the entire city, including private buildings and vehicles, is powered by 100% renewable energy by 2050. 64.5% of Regina residents support that broader target.

100

In case you don't want to read the whole report, here's a couple snapshots of the results. We asked if Regina residents support the city working to power all of its buildings and vehicles using 100% renewable energy by 2050. 67% of Regina residents support that target

100

Thanks also to Adam Hunter for a discussion of the survey and Regina's next steps towards our 100% renewable and net-zero goals. Our conversation on CBC's Morning Edition can be heard here: www.cbc.ca/listen/live-...

cbc.ca

100

Regina Energy Futures Survey 2025: Measuring support for the City of Regina’s Energy and Sustainability Framework Goals and Supportive Policies

What do Regina residents think about the 100% renewable target? Do they support continued purchase of electric buses? In new research, Jessica Smith and I survey 453 Regina residents to find out. Our summary report can be found here: hdl.handle.net/10294/16870.

hdl.handle.net

110

p.s. In terms of the social cost of carbon 1 tonne of CO2 causes $271 in damage. Governments should consider this damage in their decisions. When analyzing policy we should use a gasoline price of $2.00/litre, natural gas price of $20/GJ & residential electricity price of 30 cents/kwh.

000

Just to close off, I'll send out a thank you to Jessica Smith for her work on designing the City of Regina survey, as well as to City of Regina staff for their collaboration & feedback. Thanks also to all of the Regina residents who participated in the survey. Together we can meet these targets

100

3. cont For example, we might find that the health benefits of electrifying school buses & reducing kids' exposure to diesel exhaust make that project rank higher than electrifying the city fleet. This can guide decision-making at the City of Regina & ensure we all row in the same direction

100

3. With an inventory of actions & policies + good analysis of the complete costs & benefits of each, we could rank & prioritize actions using metrics like $/tonne CO2 reduced. We might determine that electric buses should not be the first priority, but we would have other actions at the ready.

100

2. cont With the elimination of the federal fuel charge, many organizations are cancelling emission reduction projects. This is bad economics. Greenhouse gases like CO2 still do damage & harm well-being even when they are not priced. We can consider this damage using the social cost of carbon.

000

2. Evaluate the costs & benefits of each of the actions or policy supports the City can implement. For example, when it comes to electric buses, we can look at the costs of purchasing & energizing them, but we should also look at the value of benefits like cleaner air & reduced climate damage.

100

I'll continue to research these topics. In the meantime, the City of Regina could consider three actions to ensure progress is made: 1. Create a roadmap for each of the 32 actions outlining supports the City of Regina can offer to ensure progress. Actions could be as simple as free parking for EVs

100

In Regina, we need to find ways to bridge the implementation gap. This is a responsibility not just of the City of Regina, but all individuals & businesses in the city. Each of us can ask, what we can do in our homes & businesses to clean up electricity & electrify transportation & heating?

100

At last week's Executive Council meeting, we learned that we are falling behind on many of the actions required to meet the 100% renewable energy & net-zero target by 2050. In the medium term (2025-27) 71% of the actions are at risk of failure or lagging behind. This includes electrifying buses.

100

We asked about 9 policies and actions the City of Regina can take to meet the 2050 target. There is strong support for retrofitting city buildings, requiring new homes to be energy efficient, good urban planning, rapid transit, purchasing electric buses & separated bikeways

100

64.5% of Regina residents support a city-wide 100% renewable target. This figure shows responses to the question: To what extent do you support or oppose the City of Regina working to ensure that the entire city, including private buildings and vehicles, is powered by 100% renewable energy by 2050?

100

We asked "To what extent do you support or oppose the City of Regina working to power all of its buildings and vehicles using 100% renewable energy by 2050?" 67.3% of Regina residents support this target as shown in this figure.

100

Brett Dolter @brettdolter.bsky.social · 20/06/2025

What do Regina residents think about the city's 100% renewable energy target? The Regina Energy Futures Project ran a survey to find out. You can download a copy of the survey summary report at this link: bit.ly/4mSFxLk.

bit.ly

Dropbox

121

That was my follow-up question - would SK win? Sounds like you think it's a long-shot.

100

Brett Dolter @brettdolter.bsky.social · 19/06/2025

@molszyns.bsky.social Question for an environmental law expert: could the federal government call for a reference case on the 'Saskatchewan First Act' to test its constitutionality? The SK government is using the Act to claim jurisdiction over GHG regulation & justify operating coal plants past 2030

120

Today's announcement is incredibly disappointing and unnecessary. There are other ways to give economic opportunities to the Estevan and Coronach areas that don't involve burning coal. Let's build a productive relationship with the federal government to ensure good jobs that also protect our climate

1174

This may make for good politics locally, but is incredibly unproductive for actually advancing the interests of Saskatchewan residents and Canadians.

3111

Unproductive – It appeared that the provincial government and federal government were beginning to find common ground on many issues. This announcement sets Saskatchewan up for a hostile relationship with the federal government.

1153

Continuing to burn fossil fuels, especially coal, which is the dirtiest method of generating electricity in the province, will continue to increase temperatures, leading to drier forests and soils, more fires, and reduced agricultural output. This is a crime against our children.

1185

Immoral – We have watched an early fire season decimate northern communities and choke the rest of the province with dangerous smoke. These fires are happening in a climate that is 1.47 degrees Celsius warmer than pre-industrial temperatures.

2224

Minister Harrison notes that China is building new coal plants. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world, and is the 10th biggest GHG emitter in the world. If we cannot retire coal-fired power then it undercuts our arguments that the rest of the world should also phase out coal.

2213

Short-sighted – Canada has been leading a coalition of countries working to phase out coal globally. Canada’s plan to retire coal by 2030 would demonstrate to the world that there are many good options for electricity generation that do not pollute.

1181

Investing in coal power plants now is like Blockbuster Video doubling down on building new VHS-rental stores in an era of Netflix and other streaming services. It is a waste of Saskatchewan ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money.

14714

Expensive – Rebuilding coal plants requires a significant expense. This investment would be better spent on power plants that can continue to operate beyond 2050, and that are resilient to any future policy changes at the provincial and federal levels.

2203

Unnecessary (part 3) Wind and solar serve to reduce the amount of natural gas required to supply the province with power. Gas plants + renewables were the core of the future supply plan at SaskPower and are still a viable option since nuclear does not appear to be a short-term option.

1173

Unnecessary (part 2) Gas plants can be made compliant with the federal ‘Clean Electricity Regulations’ by equipping them with carbon capture & storage (CCS). We can reduce imports of natural gas from Alberta by pairing investments in natural gas plants with investments in wind and solar.

1124

Unnecessary (part 1) – SaskPower identified options for its electricity future in its extensive supply planning public engagement. Extending the life of coal plants was not on the table. Viable alternatives exist to power the province, including ‘dispatchable’ natural gas power plants.

1214

Illegal – It contravenes the federal Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity Regulations. This opens up the door for protracted legal battles with the federal government and great uncertainty at a time when rapid investment in our electricity system is needed

2245

Brendan Haley @brhaley.bsky.social · 20/02/2025

Minister Jeremy Harrison has just directed SaskPower to rebuild its coal-fired power plants and continue running them past 2030. The letter directs SaskPower to begin by putting Boundary Dam unit 4 back in service. This decision is problematic for many, many reasons and I list some of them below:

Quoted passage from Minister Jeremy Harrison's letter to SaskPower staff: "Work will begin this year to restore Boundary Dam 4 to service and be re-certified. Further investments will be made in long-lead items as a part of the life extension project. In the years to come, all coal units at Boundary Dam, Poplar River and Shand will receive the work necessary to extend the life of those units."

47540

Reposted by Brett Dolter

Saskatchewan is backtracking on energy efficient building codes Giving license to low-quality construction companies to burden homeowners with higher operational costs and maintenance issues in the future #saskpoli www.efficiencycanada.org/saskatchewan...

efficiencycanada.org

Saskatchewan's building code backtrack will burden homeowners with higher costs - Efficiency Canada

Saskatchewan is backtracking on its commitment to make new buildings more energy efficient – disrupting the construction sector and lead to higher long-term costs for homeowners.

0137

Brett Dolter @brettdolter.bsky.social · 20/02/2025

If you also think this is a bad idea, then you can write Minister Eric Schmalz to express your opposition: SaskRivers.MLA@outlook.com. Building inefficient buildings does not save us money. The slight reduction in construction costs is cancelled out by higher energy costs over the long-run

011

Reposted by Brett Dolter

John Bistline @bistline.bsky.social · 20/02/2025

⚛️ New EPRI report on advanced nuclear is out! ⚛️ 📈 ARs thrive with decarbonization policies, low capital costs ($3k/kW), higher gas prices 🍃 Without decarbonization incentives, ARs may struggle to compete 🍁 With limited CCS, ARs may have larger markets in U.S. & Canada

141

Brett Dolter @brettdolter.bsky.social · 20/02/2025

After two weeks of temperatures ranging from -25 C to -40C here in SK, it is clear that energy efficient buildings save us money & keep us safe. What a bizarre time for Premier Moe & the SK government to backtrack on energy efficiency standards for new buildings. www.saskatchewan.ca/government/n...

saskatchewan.ca

Making Home Construction More Affordable in Saskatchewan | News and Media | Government of Saskatchewan

3125

Brett Dolter @brettdolter.bsky.social · 28/01/2025

Thanks CBC for hosting a conversation about SK's ill-considered move to keep coal plants alive for another 20 years. This is a radical and illegal move and the people of Saskatchewan need to know about it. Here's the conversation on (the other) Blue Sky www.cbc.ca/listen/live-...

cbc.ca

12314

Brett Dolter @brettdolter.bsky.social · 24/01/2025

The Saskatchewan government is directing SaskPower to consider keeping coal on-line rather than retiring the plants as planned. Here’s my take on that risky strategy thestarphoenix.com/opinion/colu...

thestarphoenix.com

Opinion: Saskatchewan signals radical shift by clinging to fading coal

SaskPower is exploring keeping its coal-fired electricity plants running past 2030, apparently reneging on a commitment by Saskatchewan's government.

252

Do we in Saskatchewan want to be the last province burning coal? Does SaskPower want to be known as the biggest polluter in the electricity sector in Canada? Can we afford to invest millions in coal & risk creating stranded assets when the world & Canada gets serious about GHG reductions again?

021

As Trump begins his second term it certainly feels like climate policy progress is at risk. But, Trump's election doesn't change the basic physics of climate heating. Temperatures will continue to rise, driving evermore expensive climate disasters. At some point (I hope) the pendulum will swing back

142

Climate policy is missing in action in Saskatchewan election

Refurbishing coal plants means making a risky bet that climate policy will remain low on the public's list of priorities. This may have been true during the past provincial election when the SK Party & NDP avoided any discussion of reducing GHGs. policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/oc...

policyoptions.irpp.org

The main parties lack serious climate-action plans and polled voters have other priorities. Progress will likely require more sustained civil actions.

100

Third, would Saskatchewan be successful challenging the federal regulations in court? They also tried to argue that carbon pricing overstepped federal jurisdiction & lost that court battle.

100

What happens next will depend on the answer to a few questions. First, will SaskPower conclude it is in their interest to refurbish coal plants or add CCS? Second, will the federal Conservatives (if elected) be willing to throw out the coal-fired regulations they implemented?

100

The announcement that SK will look at continuing to run coal plants comes in response to the federal Clean Electricity Regulations. In recent research I found that these regulations would put SK on a similar path to their own net-zero by 2050 commitments. climateinstitute.ca/wp-content/u...

climateinstitute.ca

100

Canada has driving down electricity sector GHG emissions for years with actions like the coal phase-out in Ontario & more recently Alberta. This leaves SK & SaskPower responsible for an increasing share of Canada's electricity sector GHGs. SK was 11% of electric GHGs in 2000 & now makes up 28%

Electricity sector GHG emissions in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and nationally in Canada in select years from 2000 to 2022. Unit is Megatonnes CO2e. Source: Canadian National Inventory Report 2024

Proportion of national electricity sector GHG emissions in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and nationally in Canada in select years from 2000 to 2022. Unit is % of national emissions. Source: Canadian National Inventory Report 2024

101