If there’s one thing ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s three parties can agree on in this election, it’s that ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ needs to build more energy infrastructure faster. As for how they get there—and what that future looks like—there are considerable differences between the parties worth unpacking.
A good energy plan is one that is feasible, affordability-minded, and forward-looking as it relates to our economy and, of course, our climate. Last week, ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s three parties released their plans for energy ahead of the provincial election. Clean Energy ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ has since responded to . In a nutshell, what did we think?
The BC Conservative plan
The BC Conservatives’ plan correctly recognizes that we will need new energy infrastructure from a variety of sources to meet future demand and to build it quickly. Unfortunately, the plan’s details are undermined by a number of false assumptions.
One is that EV sales requirements and other government programs to transition homes and buildings to electric heat pumps will “push our grid to the breaking point.” In reality, BC Hydro that current EV sales requirements will increase electricity demand by two per cent in 2030, with other global forecasts.
Heat pumps, meanwhile, use significantly less electricity than baseboard heating, lowering grid demand and saving money for the 40 per cdent of ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ households their homes this way. A heat pump is also more efficient than a natural gas furnace. In fact, a forthcoming Clean Energy ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ report shows that a typical ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ household transitioning from a natural gas furnace to a heat pump is expected to save $550 a year.
Another false assumption in the Conservative plan is that “energy independence” will make life more affordable for British Columbians. We assume this to mean that ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s energy grid should be able to produce 100 per cent of the province’s energy needs on the coldest or hottest days. What this would mean in practice is building an energy system for peak load, resulting in infrastructure sitting idle at great cost—only to be used every couple of years.
This is an expensive solution to a non-problem. Currently, ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ both sells and buys electricity to and from our neighbouring provinces and states. Over the last decade and a half, ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ was a net in seven years and a net exporter in the other eight (including from 2019 to 2023). In many cases, importing cheap power allows BC Hydro to maintain reservoir levels for cold snaps and heat waves.
The BC Green plan
In contrast with the above, the Green party’s energy plan spotlights the many benefits electrification could bring to communities across the province. The plan also commits to 50 per cent Indigenous equity ownership in clean energy projects, a single-window permitting office to speed up approvals, and correctly identifies the important role that skilled labour will play in the deployment of clean energy.
Overall, many of the plan’s component parts are aligned with meaningfully advancing climate action. What the plan lacks, however, is detail and direction. There is no clear vision for how the party would build ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s energy system to support clean economic growth and attract investment. And while the plan commits to increasing the availability of heat pumps for lower-income households, as one example, there is no target—making this and other ambitions hard to evaluate.
The BC NDP plan
The NDP’s energy plan has the clearest sense of direction and alignment with a world shifting to clean energy. The party’s election platform maintains this trend and builds on CleanBC, one of North America’s strongest climate plans.
Importantly, last week’s platform commits to doubling the province’s electricity production by 2050 with new capital investments in BC Hydro, guided by a comprehensive energy plan.
At a household level, the NDP rightly notes that provincial support for heat pumps constitutes a three-in-one solution: providing cooling as ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ becomes a hotter province, lowering energy bills through improved efficiency, and shrinking household carbon footprints. In addition to providing rebates, the platform also commits to bulk purchasing heat pumps—an approach taken by the EU—to lower costs that can be passed on to consumers.
That said, the party could centre these affordability opportunities even more by casting a wider net. Incentives, for example, must capture the middle class, especially where income alone is used to qualify people. The current income cap on EV rebates excludes many working families faced with big mortgages, daycare, student loans and other life-stage cost burdens.
Finally, if the NDP chooses to eliminate ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½’s longstanding consumer carbon tax at a future date, we would emphasize the importance of continuing to implement its CleanBC policies, including finalizing the province’s forthcoming oil and gas emissions cap.
In an election that has rightfully focused on the cost of living and affordability, it would be a mistake to discount what parties are saying on energy. After all, clean energy is the only truly sustainable way in which to help families pay less for energy. And whether a party has a clear plan for how it intends to build our energy future—and who will benefit, whether households or an LNG industry—matters more than ever.
Mark Zacharias is the executive director and Evan Pivnick is the clean energy program manager at Clean Energy ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½, a think tank at Simon Fraser University’s Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue.
