When we have a massive surplus in energy supply, using taxpayer funds to reduce demand never made sense to me. It’s as if the LCBO told us to drink less, or OLG said gamble less.I will surprise some here, given that I am obviously passionate about the environment, and certainly concerned about climate change (and not a Doug Ford fan).....
I don't mind this decision.
I didn't like this program.
It was a very peculiar thought process that went into this, as w/previous home-owner targeted programs, they were really often hidden subsidies to producers of very particular goods.
(remember CFL bulbs and there adverse impact on the environment, as the early ones in particular had large concentrations of mercury, and most were improperly disposed of).
I would much rather the government stay agnostic on which supplier or product a homeowner (or business) chooses.
Raising prices provides the market cue that its worth your while, to invest your money in conservation in/on your property.
I think allowing individual choice often allows greater market innovation and more cost-effective solutions.
I would also add this amounted to a subsidy to homeowners, while broadly providing nothing to renters (recent changes varied this slightly), the program was not income contingent and so paid out, in some cases to people and businesses who could easily afford to make these investments on their own.
The government's proper role is to raise the standards in the building code, to mandate some retrofits over time; to modify standards for consumer goods (ie. setting an energy to lumen standard for light bulbs) and then to get out the way.
Such dollars would be better spent retrofitting government owned assets and then having the taxpayer reap the benefit of the operating savings.
I might be open to a very limited program targeting homeowners that can show financial hardship due to rising energy bills, who are low or lower-middle income.
But that idea sounds cumbersome even as I describe it, and I think we're better off leaving those decisions to the market, and focusing government on address inadequate incomes for low-income earners.