Search Climate Insights Directory

The document details the technical framework of the HEAT™ model used to assess the economics of heat pump adoption in Canada. It specifies the building archetypes, equipment configurations, and future-shifted climate data for Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montréal, and Halifax. The report outlines the financial inputs, including energy price forecasts, carbon pricing based on the federal backstop, and a comprehensive list of federal, provincial, and municipal incentives available at the time of analysis.

The 2023 wildfire season in Canada, which burned 19 million hectares, highlighted the vulnerability of the forestry industry, which represents 1.7% of Canada's GDP. Climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of fires, potentially leading to a loss of 4 billion dollars in export revenues and 32,000 jobs by the end of the century if no action is taken. The document recommends a coordinated approach involving government and industry to enhance resilience through diversified reforestation, active forest management—including Indigenous-led controlled burning—and the expansion of bioenergy to reduce forest fuel loads.

The Canadian Climate Institute examines how to integrate oil and gas decarbonization projects into a proposed national Climate Investment Taxonomy. While most global taxonomies focus on 'green' labels for net-zero activities, the authors advocate for a 'transition' category to unlock funding for hard-to-decarbonize sectors. The paper suggests a high-bar approach using specific criteria to ensure projects align with 1.5°C pathways and avoid carbon lock-in, focusing on three key areas: Scope 3 emissions risks, the distinction between new and existing facilities, and the alignment of project lifespans with climate targets.

The Canadian Climate Institute suggests that using case-by-case impact assessments to determine if projects comply with emissions reduction pathways is inefficient and subjective. Instead, the author argues that overarching policies—such as industrial carbon pricing and the oil and gas emissions cap—are better suited to ensure projects align with climate goals. This shift would allow the regulatory review system to focus on averting specific environmental harms and engaging Indigenous Peoples while accelerating the approval of clean growth projects to maintain global competitiveness.

The report identifies systemic barriers to climate-resilient Indigenous housing in Canada, rooted in colonial policies and exacerbated by funding gaps and capacity constraints. It highlights the disproportionate risk First Nations face from flooding, wildfire, and permafrost thaw, while recommending a shift toward prevention-focused funding, modernized building codes, and the integration of Indigenous Knowledge.

The document examines how flood risk transparency practices in Canada often disadvantage equity-deserving groups, who are more likely to live in flood-prone areas and have less access to risk information. It identifies gaps in flood risk mapping, such as outdated data and a lack of climate change integration, and notes inconsistencies in real-estate and rental disclosure requirements. The brief warns that rising insurance premiums, driven largely by flood damage, and fluctuating property values can trap vulnerable populations in high-risk areas. To mitigate these inequities, the author recommends the co-development of mapping programs with diverse stakeholders, increased public accessibility of data, and the standardization of disclosure guidelines for both buyers and renters.

The document argues that while flood risk transparency—through mapping, disclosure, and pricing—is essential for resilience, it currently disadvantages equity-deserving groups who are more likely to live in flood-prone areas and lack access to risk information. It calls for a 'transformational transparency approach' involving the co-development of mapping programs with these communities and the standardization of risk disclosure for both property sales and rentals to prevent a cycle where marginalized populations are forced into high-risk housing.

The Canadian Climate Institute evaluates the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions' (OSFI) Standardized Climate Scenario Analysis Exercise (SCSAE), arguing that while it is a positive step toward normalizing climate risk management for federal financial institutions, it is currently 'exagérément simplifié'. The Institute recommends that the SCSAE move beyond simple exposure analysis to incorporate asset vulnerability, regional differences within Canada, and the economic opportunities presented by the clean energy transition to avoid distorting the financial risk landscape.

The Canadian Climate Institute supports the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions' (OSFI) draft Standardized Climate Scenario Exercise (SCSE) but argues it is currently oversimplified. The Institute recommends that OSFI explicitly disclose limitations regarding the lack of regional data and the omission of clean energy opportunities. It specifically warns that the SCSE confuses 'exposure' with 'risk' in its physical and real estate modules, failing to account for asset vulnerability and comprehensive climate policy. To increase practical value, the Institute suggests piloting risk assessments for a small number of highly material risks, such as flooding, rather than broad hazard exposure mapping.

The report argues that Canada must add over 10 GW of zero-emission capacity annually until 2050 to reach its climate goals. To achieve this, it proposes a 'fast track' permitting process for modest projects using proven technologies, contrasting with an existing track for large-scale or experimental projects. The proposed framework focuses on three pillars: technology (proven, low impact), location (objective, binary criteria), and timeline (fixed limits for each project phase). It emphasizes the central role of municipal and Indigenous governments in granting approvals to ensure social acceptability and the protection of key ecological elements. The document also analyzes the constitutional competencies of federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous authorities to implement these reforms.

The paper examines how strategic assessments can be used to streamline the approval of clean growth projects in Canada, particularly in light of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on the Impact Assessment Act. It suggests that by shifting the regulatory burden from individual project assessments to broader strategic analyses of policies and systemic issues, Canada can accelerate its energy transition. The author recommends implementing clear triggers, a tiered approach to assessment, and robust outcome tracking, drawing on international examples from the EU and US.

The paper examines how strategic assessments—which analyze policies and systemic issues rather than individual projects—can accelerate Canada's net zero transition. It highlights that while the 2019 Impact Assessment Act provides a framework, the tool remains underused and lacks formalization. By adopting global best practices such as tiering, formal triggers, and outcome monitoring, Canada could more efficiently manage cumulative impacts and share regulatory burdens between strategic and project-level assessments.

Canada needs to add over 10 gigawatts of new zero-emission electricity annually until 2050 to reach net zero. The author argues that current inclusive permitting processes are too slow and complex. They propose a two-track system: one for major or unproven projects and a second, expedited track for proven technologies like wind, solar, and lithium-ion batteries. This fast-track process would rely on binding, objective 'yes/no' criteria focusing on local government support, avoidance of key ecological features, and the mitigation of uncompensated off-site impacts. The paper concludes that all five orders of government (federal, provincial, territorial, municipal, and Indigenous) have the legal authority to implement these reforms, and recommends that municipal and Indigenous governments lead the project decisions for fast-track approvals.

The Canadian Climate Institute argues that for the federal government's progress report on the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan to be effective, it must provide exhaustive updates on policy implementation, emissions forecasts based on concrete policies rather than extrapolations, transparent modeling assumptions, and a commitment to developing a comprehensive set of progress indicators.

The analysis finds that while exempting heating oil has a negligible effect on emissions, adding a natural gas exemption would increase 2030 emissions by 4.5 megatonnes. Furthermore, such exemptions would reduce the carbon rebate payments available to most households, negatively impacting affordability, particularly for lower-income groups.

The document analyzes how New York and California are reforming their permitting processes to overcome delays in clean energy deployment, highlighting the use of 'one-stop shops', legal deadlines, and community benefit agreements. While these reforms aim to improve financial viability and public support, the study identifies risks such as imprecise legal language, potential infringement on Indigenous rights, and persistent bottlenecks in grid interconnection that require federal intervention.

The document analyzes how New York and California are reforming permitting processes to overcome delays in clean energy deployment. Key measures include creating 'one-stop shop' agencies, setting statutory time limits for approvals, and mandating community benefit agreements to reduce local opposition. While New York has seen project approval timelines drop from five-ten years to under two years, challenges remain regarding administrative capacity, Indigenous rights, and the failure of state reforms to address the critical backlog of grid interconnections, which remains a federal jurisdiction.

The analysis finds that exempting natural gas and heating oil from the federal carbon price would increase emissions and reduce household affordability, particularly for low-income Canadians, due to a decrease in the value of Climate Action Incentive Payments.

The Canadian Climate Institute and Clean Energy Canada propose adjustments to the Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) to ensure they are achievable and cost-effective. Key recommendations include raising the performance standard to 60 tonnes of CO2 per GWh, increasing the capacity factor for peaker plants to 15%, and introducing interim standards for facilities commissioned after 2025. To complement the CER, the authors argue for reforming the Output-based Pricing System (OBPS) to apply full carbon pricing to the electricity sector, federally procuring negative emissions via DAC-CCS and BECCS to offset residual emissions, and increasing support for demand-side management and distributed energy resources.

The Canadian Climate Institute argues that Canada faces an existential challenge to accelerate its transition to net zero to remain competitive. Key recommendations include implementing a climate investment taxonomy, finalizing Clean Electricity Regulations to meet demand that could triple by 2050, and addressing the high carbon intensity of the oil and gas sector through emissions caps and methane regulations. The Institute emphasizes that the risk of moving too slowly outweighs the risk of moving too quickly, especially as international investors managing over $61 trillion in assets commit to net zero.