Council backs Ontario Energy Board gas subsidy decision

All right. Good morning, everyone. It is Tuesday, March 26, 2024. It is 10:00 a.m. And it is our city council meeting, so I'd like to call the meeting to order. Just right off the bat. We did get regrets from councilor or Rourke today. She may pop in later, if possible, but. Just as a heads up, probably not. With that. If I could ask everyone to rise, if you're able. As we recognize our national anthem.

Great. Thank you. And now, just for a moment of silent reflection.

Great. Thank you. And our territorial acknowledgment. As we gather, let us take time to reflect on our privilege to live and work in wealth. A city that is built over rich indigenous histories. We're guests here, and we should reflect upon the responsibility to care for this land, the people who live here today and the generations to. Come. If our actions today can move us towards reconciliation, we should take pause and make those decisions with intention and gratitude. This place we call Guelph has served as traditional lands and a place of refuge for many peoples over time, but more specifically. The Anawanarok and the honey showing this land is held as the treaty lands and territory. With the Mississaugas of the credit. First Nation and Guelph lies directly adjacent to the Holdeman track and as part of a long established traditional hunting ground for the six nations of the Grand river, many first nations, Inuit and Mati peoples who have come from across turtle. Island called Guelph home today. With that, is there any disclosure of pecuniary interest or any general nature thereof for the items that are listed on the agenda today. Don't hear or see anything there. So consider that matter closed. We got

a few consent. Items both as coming from committee and on council. And then we also have. One item that's been added with some delegations ahead of us. So would someone be. Willing. To. Move. Let me just ask if there's anyone that wants to pull anything out of the. Committee. Consent is the 2024 property tax policy. And the private tree protection by law. And the internal audit work plan. Great. And then under the consent for council to see if I can wrap it all up into. One here. The Parkland dedication for that emergency shelter. Okay, CNN. Would someone be willing to move both of those for me? Councilor Alden, Busatil. Will second. Thank you. And I'll call the votes then. Is anyone against those two portions of consent? Well, that's unanimous. So that's great. Thank you very much. So we only have the one item for discussion, as I mentioned, which is the city of Hamilton. Resolution support for the decision of the Ontario Energy Board to end the gas pipeline subsidy. We have a few

delegations. That have signed up for this, but as is normal. Kind of process. Councilor Koran has pulled this item to have it added to the discussion for today. I think it would be appropriate for Councilor Koran. Just a couple of minutes. Sort of preamble just to kind of set the stage, if I could call it that. Just to understand. What is being put forward, and then we can go to the delegations, and then I could. Go back to councilor Quran to look to move the recommendations from there. Does that work for you, councilor. Crying it does work for me. I do have a question of procedure, Mr. Mayor. In advance. And that is to you, it's just about the five minutes. Because I'm bringing the motion forward. Will any questions I ask or any questions I answer. If a member of council asks me a question and I answer that question, is that included in my five minute limit. Yes. Okay. Well, start the clock, then I'll have a very quick preamble, which is that. This came to my attention when we

received a letter from environmental defense regarding an Enbridge position. To. Reverse the Ontario Energy Board decision to subsidize future fossil gas infrastructure into new development. Areas. Thereafter received a letter from the Home Builders association, which prompted me to do a considerable amount of research into what this was all about, because. It really was very complex situation. I submitted to clerks and to counsel. All of the background information, a copy of the OEB. Decision. A copy of the embryage letter, a copy of the homebuilder's. Letter, a copy of the environmental defense letter that wasn't able to be put on. The agenda package due to our procedural bylaw, so I just want it on public record. For the council meeting record. That I did post all of that information, including a draft motion and a preamble about the reasons behind this motion. The only place I could post it was my website. So award five. Ca and the top right hand corner, under a blog there is a backgrounder attachment for all of the information that I sent to council. So for those who are watching, who

are wondering what this is all about and why there's, no information on the agenda. It's a procedural thing, but I have posted all that. Information where it's publicly accessible. So without further ado, I'm not going to read the preambles because that is going to cut into my five minutes and we can get started on the delegations, but my. Summary introductory comments is that we have a community energy plan. That. Wants us to move forward on the energy transition. We have all of the key ingredients in place. The OEBD Ontario Energy Board is an independent. Regulator who acts in the public interest and. After a great deal of investigation, data research, stakeholder consultation, they came to the conclusion that the fossil gas subsidy will not help us as a province that energy transition, and that is unfair. To our communities to continue subsidizing the building of fossil gas infrastructure. Their decision was them doing their job. And so the introduction of a reversal by the province has meant that two things that we're going to continue to subsidize its fossil. Gas. We're not going to meet

our net zero 2050 goals. The legislation also includes. Language where. The politicization of appointments. To the Ontario Energy Board, which is contrary to what the energy board's purpose is. Are being introduced as part of Bill 165. So I believe that there's a number of councils, I believe five to date and two more coming, including, not including, the city of Hamilton, so. Six who have passed similar motions to what's on the floor today, which is to support the OEB decision to cease the subsidization of fossil gas development in our greenfield. Development communities. And I'll pass it back to you, Mr. Mayor. Great. Thank you so much. We have a few delegations, and just before we start asking them to come forward, We have been told in advance that the last delegation, which was Adrian Curry, as listed on the agenda was unable to make it but a substitute to read and delegate on their behalf. Is Keith Brooks. Now, that is not something that we would normally allow. But it is up to the chair. And

so I am going to be okay with that. But I just want to know if anyone wants to challenge my decision on that. Okay. Thank you. So we'll allow Keith Brooks to take the place of Adrian Curry. With that for any of our delegations that are coming forward, either in person or they're. Online or video. You have no more than five minutes. And you'll hear a chime at the four minutes and 32nd mark that gives you. The 32nd warning that you only have 30 seconds left. So please make sure that you adhere to that because you will be cut off at the five. Minutes, and I don't want to do that. No one wants to do that, so just. Make sure you stay within the allotted time. And we're going to go with our first delegation, I believe is in person, which is Samantha Hicks. Is Samantha here? Yes. And in the wings, Abigail Walton and Indigo Warren, are you here? Yes. Okay, you're in the wings. Okay, so you're up next. Welcome, Samantha. Thank you very much. And I'll turn it over to you.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I want to first express my gratitude. First to all of you, for all of the service that you provide to better our guelph. Community and beyond. And I also want. To thank the land that we're standing on that is holding us and caring for us. In so many ways, which often go unnoticed and underappreciated. This land. Our earth loves us unconditionally. And is very sick right now and is in an emergency. And despite her state, she still provides. She is in need of our care, and we can do this and show this in so many ways. And one of the ways we can, we can show her love is by supporting this motion. To support the OEB decision to stop subsidizing Enbridge to be the default. Energy provider for new development. When heat pumps actually save people more money and are better for the environment. And if all this mother earth stuff isn't your jam, think about it as clean air. Clean water, clean soil for you, your grandkids,

your kids and your community. And if you want to keep these pristine, then we all need to do our part to take care. We all have the same goal and need to keep life going and to thrive. We all want us and future generations to be safe and to flourish. Building more subsidized gas lines for new homes is not in line with what we want for our future. So why would we be subsidizing Enbridge's gas? Expansion. Expansion of gas heated homes that keeps locking us in for years to come. I do not want my money going to this expansion. And I know many others who do not. And I would rather want to be subsidizing building a sustainable energy system that we want for our future. That is aligned with our goals and needs. We already have so many existing sources that are burning fossil fuels, and we definitely don't. Need more. The evidence is loud and clear. The burning of fossil fuels is hurting our earth and us. So don't create new lines and new homes and buildings when it's one of the things

we should be avoiding. It's not environmentally sound and it's not grounded. In indigenous wisdom. And scientific knowledge. And if economics is your priority, then why would we pay for something now that we're going to need to pay again to change later. Let's just do it right from the start. We need war time effort. Margaret Klein Solomon, in her book facing the climate emergency, which I encourage you all to read speaks about this. We've done this in the past. We've done this effort in the past with other emergencies that we faced and recently with Covid. We've seen how we can pivot and we can do it again. We need to make changes now and not incrementally. Now. And if the grid is in demand and we run into challenges, well, thank goodness we're. Humans and that we have. A powerful tool. Our imaginations. And we need to trust in our abilities and look at what we've already done when we faced other emergencies, and we need to look to other communities. Who are doing inventive, creative, sustainable solutions. Ontario can do this too. By relying on

fossil fuel infrastructure, it robs us of the opportunity to do something better. And create the sustainable energy system we want. We need to lessen our spending on fossil fuel infrastructure, which will allow us to still keep housing which will allow us to have a housing be affordable and help fight climate change. And if Enbridge keeps getting what it wants, it will not do either of these things. Bring the land into this room. I ask of you today if she was here to have a vote. Would she support this motion? Of course. What would she want you to do? Support the original OEB decision. And you can do this unanimously. That would be wonderful. Think about the impact that that would make. And what that would tell everybody. Thank you all for your time. Great. I just want to make sure you knew. You have 30 seconds left. I didn't. Want that bell to be. Yes. No, I know. Or you were right on that bell. I'm. Good. Okay. Thank you. Is there any follow up questions? None at this time, so thank you very much.

Thanks. All right, up next is Abigail and Indigo. And Evan Ferrari, you are in the wings. So come on, Ford. Thank you very much for coming. And the time will start when you both start. Okay, go ahead. Good day, Mr. Mayor, members of council and citizens of Guelph. My name is Indigo Moran. And my name is Abigail Walton. As grade eleven students currently attending high school in the city of Guelph, we come representing a large group of youth from across the city. We fully support the Ontario Energy board decision to end the gas pipeline subsidy. And councilor Khuran's motion for the city of Guelph to show its support. Within the early years of our adulthood. The climate goals that the current government has in place will either be met or missed. Actions we take as individuals and as communities will determine this outcome. In Canada. Our goal as a country is to be net zero by 2050 in order for this goal to be met, we must no longer be emitting any greenhouse gases by

that time. Our nation has pledged this, along with 120 countries across the globe. Guelph is one of the many cities that have committed to be net zero by 2050. Communitywide and achieve 100% renewable energy for city operations. Encouraging Embridge gas to continue to subsidize and construct new natural gas pipelines. By supporting them and the Ontario government. Is a step backwards from meeting these climate goals. It is imperative that fossil fuels be phased out in order for us to limit our carbon emissions. And meet these critical deadlines. Without a planet, there will not be an economy to protect. Imposing new natural gas infrastructure would be pointless and counterproductive to a green energy transition, and ultimately, many of the efforts already to save the environment. Continuing to change charge customers over the lifetime of these developments would not only discourage the use of green energy. It would be impractical to customers as they would be paying for this development. Long after the 2050 deadline of net zero has passed. Instead. Charging housing developers for the construction and

connection of energy sources upfront will encourage them to implement renewable sources of energy, as this will be more beneficial in the long term, both financially and environmentally. Our current Ontario government has said they want to build 1.5 million homes by 2031. Increasing affordability in the process. This does not need to, but often comes at the expense of natural environments and ecosystems. For example, wetlands and other habitats are frequently sold for housing developments. However, this is an occasion where one decision will result in both housing affordability and environmental sustainability. In a few years time, young people like ourselves will be facing the heightened effects of the climate. Crisis on our health, infrastructure, supply chains, green spaces and more, while simultaneously trying to pay for our homes and heatings. Numerous studies show that energy efficiency, conservation, renewables, and other technologies are actually less expensive. Than more natural gas use. Plenty of youth are worried about not being able to pay for their futures, or worse, having no futures at all. Either of these could very well be the reality if we implement natural gas pipelines connecting to

homes that will run for the next 60 years. The OEB themselves argued that new natural gas infrastructure will be overbuilt and underutilized there is no need for the subsidy. If it is allowed to continue, we will be living with the results of this mistake for generations. To come. We are at a crucial point in our history where we must start taking action immediately. And must all do our part. We must follow the course of action best for our planet. Long term and with shortterm benefits such as affordable energy and housing. We urge you once more to stand with the Ontario Energy Board in opposing Enbridge natural gas. Subsidy. As a community, we must prioritize the health of our planet by encouraging transitions to greener energy sources. Especially when doing so ensures housing affordability. As young adults, we ask this out of concern for our adulthoods, for future generations, and for the earth. Thank you. Great. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for coming. See if there's any follow up. To you. There isn't. So thank you very much for coming and delegating. We appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Next is Evan

Ferrari. And let's see here. After Evan. Is Anna Gascon Markle by video and then Keith Brooks by video. So, Evan, welcome and I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of council. I have to say that how inspired I am by the delegation of young people before me. They truly give me hope. The issue before you today is an opportunity for counsel to show climate leadership. And trust in an institution. The OEB currently exists to protect the interests of energy consumers from an economic, social, and environmental perspective as per their mandate. It is our watchdog. But it doesn't exist to do the bidding of the fossil. Fuel industry or a government that apparently wants to see more fossil fuel burned emerge. Gulf sustainability wholeheartedly supports the December decision of the OEB to end fossil fuel pipeline subsidy. Pardon me. And we support the draft motion that will be coming

forward. To show your backing for that OEB decision. When existing gas customers will see their rates increase to pay for new customers instead of developers. It is clearly a subsidy. In contrast to this new connections of hydro services that Electra squelph hydro. Or for that fact, the city's own water and wastewater. Infrastructure are paid by the developers that are requesting these services. Not existing customers. While other utilities have to pay for their own expansion. The provincial government wants us to subsidize enbridge of fossil Fuel company. The OEB looks rather the OEB also points out that as homeowners, businesses and institutions work on decarbonizing. Their buildings away from fossil fuel. The burden of this subsidy will be carried on the backs of a smaller customer base. That translate to even greater costs for the remaining customers. And from our perspective, the OEB decision also takes into account the impacts that climate change is having on consumer

choices. Mr. Mayor and members of council, I urge you to support the oeb decision to end this fossil fuel subsidy and. To share. Your decision with your colleagues and municipalities across the province. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Great. And thank you. Evan. Any follow up for Evan at this time? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. And then. By video. Anna Gascon. Marco, hopefully, if I'm saying that right. Anna. Can you join us? It's America three. Okay? And we just need you to make sure you turn your video on there if you wish. To do that. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes. We can see and hear you. So thank you very much for joining us. And you have up to five minutes as well. Go right ahead. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, councilors. So. I just want to relate to some of the terms that often are used. As resiliency and affordability. Net zero energy security, all of those are thrown out there. And sometimes misused. To kind of make us a bit feel

fear and often also ask greenwashing terms, so. I'm going to address two of them, which is resiliency and affordability and. Then I'll dive into the net. Zero. So for resiliency and affordability. As I understand, these two terms relate to the capacity of our communities to thrive in our buildings. To cope with climate events that sometimes could in our city's infrastructure. Buildings need to perform well at all times, but especially when most needed, which is usually the coldest. And warmest days. There's evidence that a building built. To this. Better standards can still be affordable. And provide the resiliency we need without having to rely on fossil fuels. The support letter that I share with council contains a graph. Of the cost of those type of buildings that are being built. To a better center. And again, they don't have to rely on fossil fuels to provide affordability. And again, there is no relation with those buildings

having. A higher per dollar per square foot cost. And if our policies were to ask for better buildings to be built this way. Society would involve in this direction and feel. Supported. These type of buildings. Also, just to put it on record, usually it could consume up to 90% less or hidden than a regular building. That is why using electricity for those type of buildings it actually will not put any strains on our current. Rates. If we talk about net zero again, it's another term that. Unfortunately. Is used by many as. A current definition of what a sustainable term is. This only relates to creating in a building as much energy as the building consumes. So the building itself could. Still be the worst performing belt in again, not resilient. And would still be able to admit net zero, provided energy would be generated on

that building by means of PB panels, which are fluctuable. Take panels or other mints. However. If we, in that term, net zero, we add carbon. This relates to buildings that could still generate energy on site. But the main difference with the term that I just explained only. Zero is that? We also look at having low carbon, again, a building that is not relying on fossil fuels for heating and or cooling. This again, would. Improve. Our resiliency of our grades because, again, Our buildings will be consuming less energy overall. Not. Having. To. Have. That to be able to be resilient or affordable. To provide you also. With. A comparison of. How gas relates to energy. The emissions. In fact, to reference values by the

Government of Canada. They provide us with two numbers. One is for natural diets, which has a 1921. Thousand, 921 grams of co 2 /m³. And that compared to electricity in Ontario. Has a consumption intensity value of 30 grams for co2 equivalent for kilowatt of power. Of electricity consume. Again, in order to put these two numbers together, if we compare grams of CO2, Kilowatts hour. That result is that gas is 5.9 times. Provides has more emissions that electricity. So I hope that council takes all of the comments into our comments and see these as a future and very resilient. Forward not to support. In weight. And thank you very much. Let me see if there's a follow up question. Yes, Councilor Koran. And then. Councilor alt so just stay with us for a couple of questions.

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you to the delegate. You seem to have a lot of technical knowledge on this subject. Is this an area of expertise for you? Have you seen homes and buildings who have demonstrated this data in your work? Exactly. Yeah. I think. That's kind of like what we do. We design buildings are built to better standards, hence they don't need as much energy. So if we couple. Having lower energy consumption for a building. Which, regardless of the type of energy we use, That is like a benefit. So again, the net serial would come when more energy is used, so. When we look at that. With that lens. It makes sense, really, that we start implementing policies. To again request that buildings consume this energy, period. So our societies can be more resilient moving forward. Great. Thank you. And to councilor

Alt, thank you very much, Mayor Guthrie, through you to the delegate. Ms. Gasconmarco, thank you very much. I've read your letter and I appreciate your expertise on this, so I want to ask a couple of economics questions. If you don't. Mind. With regards to the cost of construction and your comments with regards to resilience. I was wondering if you could perhaps provide a little bit of data off the top of your. Head. About the cost of actually installing natural gas pipeline for the household, for the subdivision, and whether that funding could actually be better used through developing, as you said, more resilient houses. I'm not aware of that specific cost. That you're asking. However. Again, just shifting how we think of our buildings. Historically, our buildings. They have not required to be built. To very high standards. So even today, we can still. Build

very housing and other buildings. Still have a lot of energy. That will be needed to operate those buildings and create those buildings. So again, if policies are made to shift away, From. What we are doing right now. As for what I share. Like developers embrace this type of. Opportunities, especially if they see a return like dollar benefit on what they do. And. They will really provide a truly affordable option. Again, those projects are the ones that I share. Are only projects that are affordable housing options. So. If it can basically work in this type of project. My belief is that it can work for any type of project that are being designed and built. Today. Thank you. Just a quick one. I don't know if you know this, but I hope. You do? I think if I'm correct and I'm up on my building standards,

We are building. Houses to an r 40 standard. Approximately. But I understand we should likely be building them to an r 60 standard. Is that part of what you see? As a potential alternative to natural gas. So again. That's one of the things. So as we think, just so you can see it clearly. As we think of putting. More. When we want to warm up, we usually put a boat around our bodies, so this would be. The same for our houses, just like. A slightly bigger coat than what we are doing today. And the other piece, which, again, is something that. Our current quotes requires, but it's still four times higher than other building standards that are more stringent is how much air flows to our envelope. So those are really the main things. That will make sure that our buildings, they don't have a load of holes. Basically, we're not building guru year. Chiefs are buildings. Because there's not a lot of air. Moving through our building. Energy will be contained. So more like

a thermos. If we think of edge, like everything. That we put either hot or cold. Will be really maintained better. In this better. Building. Hence, that is really our resiliency piece right there. And because, again, we are reducing how much energy the building requires. Again, if we talk about Nep serial, that is. One really makes sense because. We are putting just enough to meet the lower requirements. So, as I say at first, reduce energy. Then put something that generates energy. So that is really the optimum scenario. As I see it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. And seeing nothing further. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you. And so last, I think, also joining by video will now be Keith Brooks. On behalf of Adrian Curry. And I think we just need your video to be turned on there, Keith. Yeah, I'm just working on it here. No problem. We can hear you. There we go. We see and

hear you. Excellent. There you go. Don't move. Perfect. You have five minutes as well. Go right ahead. Mayor and council members, thanks so much for having me here today. My name is Keith Brooks. I'm the programs director for environmental Defense Canada. We were interveners in the hearing at the Ontario Energy board on this matter and were firmly of the opinion that the OEB ruling is a good decision and one that should stand. Reversing this decision will. Increase costs for existing gas users, it will incentivize builders to continue to install gas furnaces into new homes, which will actually lead to higher costs for those new homeowners. Because cold climate aerosource heat pumps are cheaper to use and. Will of course reverse the decision would also of course worsen the climate crisis and challenge guelph's ability to meet its own climate targets. The only entity that benefits from reversing this decision is Enbridge. In addition to getting new customers, it can sell gas to keeping the subsidy would increase Enbridge's capital budget and therefore embraces profits. Now, I know. That Ember is arguing that this is not a subsidy, though it clearly is a subsidy. The cost to connect new homes are paid upfront by Enbridge, costing

the builder nothing. Ambridge raises the money to pay this by raising gas rates, which is what the rebasing hearing at the OEP was all about, and the new homeowners do not have to pay. A premium to cover the cost. Of getting this gas net for free. They pay the same rate as everybody else. Now, Enbridge. And the Ontario Ministry of Energy are arguing that this was a rash and unreasonable decision from the OEB. But it was anything but that. The OEB decision was. The sound decision arrived after a year long hearing. The decision is 147 pages long. It's a thorough hearing on the matters at hand, which led to the realization that the energy transition is afoot. New technologies have emerged, and home builders should consider that when building new homes to ensure they are suited both to a warmer climate and they are consistent with the global effort to decarbonize, and in this case, it simply means that home builders should ask whether they should install gas. Or go with a heat pump instead. You see, the subsidy created what's called a split. Incentive. The builders just go with gas because that's what they've always done and it's free for them because Enbridge pays for it, whereas the homeowner would. Benefit, though, if they had a heat bump instead, because it's cheaper to operate. And of course, it means that their home can be heated without using fossil fuels, without. Contributing to the climate

crisis. It also avoids the cost down the road of having to switch from a gas furnace to a decarbonized solution, like a heat pump, and it doesn't. Add to the price of the home. This is a conclusion arrived at by professors at University of Toronto, by lawyers at Galings. I know some of this materials have been circulated to council. Bodies have arrived independently, and if the builders decide to add gas at all, the costs are small. And essentially a wash. And the builder is kind of avoid those costs altogether by not installing gas. Enbridge is acting as though this is the beginning of the end of gas, and I actually hope that it is. But we should not overstate what the OEB ruling is, which is to say it's not a gas ban. Any developer is still free to install a gas hookup and a gas furnace. Amber does overstating the impacts here and fear mongering. About the impact to the electricity sector. Though tupacs are important. This ruling doesn't ban gas. It has no impact on existing gas users other than saving the money. It's also not going to have an abrupt impact on electricity demand and also the ISO, the grid manager is planning for increased demand electricity because of a switch to heat pumps. So I would urge, well, city council to vote in favor of the resolution supporting the OEB. It will. Protect the existing gas users from a rate increase

to pay for the subsidy. It will protect new homeowners from getting hooked on gas, fossil fuel, which will cost them more to heat with and need to be switched out at some point, and it will also imperil wells ability. To meet the city's climate targets other cities. Like Toronto. Sorry, like Montreal. Nanaimo, Vancouver. Are actually banning gas from. New homes. This position does not do that. But that is something we should be getting to talk. About in Ontario. The first step today, though, is supporting the Oeb ruling, and I think wealth counsel for considering it. Thank you so much, Keith, for joining us. Is there any follow up for Keith at all? Yes. Of course, councilor Ald. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. Through you to the delegate, Mr. Brooks. Mr. Brooks, you stated clearly this is a subsidy. And I also heard you say that this is not a gas ban. I was wondering if you would have. Any idea of the numbers in terms of what you argue is the subsidy, how much does this cost. Per household. For piping, so on and so forth. Well, the OEB ruling in their decision, they concluded that it costs about $4,000. On average, for the

average home to connect to gas. Thank you. Great. Is there any more questions for the. Okay. Yeah. Councilor Kron. Thank you through Mr. Mayor to the delegate. Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for being here. You struck upon two questions that I was curious about. New homeowners and no surcharge for hookup. So in that case. The gas infrastructure prior to development in Greenfields has nothing to do with DCS. There's. No DC charge here that homeowners are not. Being charged more in their development charge. And their building fees. There's no additional cost to a homeowner to get gas infrastructure into a development. Is that correct? And no charge to the developer either. That's right. Embridge applies for money from the OEB. They ask to increase their rates to be able to pay to expand the gas network to new homes in areas already serviced by gas, and they're bringing pipelines basically right up to, into the subdivisions to the homes themselves. It's. Not covered by development charges. It's paid for by Enbridge at no cost to the homeowner,

no cost to the home builder. And this was the subsidy that we want removed. It's paid for by Enbridge, but. Enbridge, of course, only raises money by increasing gas rates. And that's why we say it's a subsidy. It's paid for by all existing gas users, and that was. The OEb's ruling. As they said, this would reduce cost for existing gas users, which is the OEB's prime mandate as an economic regulator, their man. Mandate is to control costs for energy users, so it would reduce costs for them. It would reduce cost for new homeowners who would get a heat pump, which is cheaper to operate and of course, it's also consistent with the province's articulated goals around decarbonization. And I know those are goals that guelph City council shares as well. So years ago, and I'm trying to equate this to years ago when Ontario Hydro. Put stranded assets on our hydro bills. We could all see what that stranded asset was costing. Us on our utility bills. This is not visible like that. This is inside a base rate of some kind. This is inside the rate that we don't see. Is it invisible to the average customer? That's right. Yes. We can't see those

rates. We can't see. The costs of what existing users are paying in terms of subsidizing enbridges activities, including its expansion activities. We subsidize other activities that Enbridge partakes in. Fact, the letters sent to Guel City council under other municipal councils across Ontario were paid for by Enbridge, which were paid for from the rate base. So existing gas. Users were paying, in fact, lobbyists to send you letters to tell you to vote against the OEB decision on this. But yes, we can't see those rates and we can't. See how much of that goes into the cost. But the OEB did warn about stranded. Assets. That was one of their concerns, is that Enbridge would not, in fact, recoup the costs from this. Because the horizon for using gas is not as long as enrich thinks, because we're in an energy transition and because the climate crisis is becoming increasingly dire. Thank you. And actually, one last question. Energy transition. Energy transition is scary for a lot of people. Because. It's a once or once and two generation type of thing, but I think we forget. That we've actually done this five times before in the last hundred years. We've gone from wood to coal, coal to

coal gas, coal gas to oil, and now oil to fossil. Gas and now fossil gas to heat pump. So we're in our fifth energy transition in less than 100. Years. Really? So are you aware of any other utility? Any other energy system other than. Fossil gas, natural gas. That has been allowed to have this kind of subsidization, like when we transition from oil to natural gas or coal to oil. Was this level of subsidization for a dying energy system ever part of our previous way of being. That's a good question, and I'm afraid. I can't answer as to whether or not it was in previous cases. I mean, the Government of Canada. And also all the OECD countries have committed to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. Though, because we see that there's an uneven playing field, because we are favoring the incumbent energy sources, the fossil fuel sources in these cases, and we need to be phasing out those subsidies. Getting rid of this subsidy would be consistent with that, but. On the energy transition. I just think it's important to understand. Again, as I said it's not a banning of gas, though. That is

what's happening in some jurisdictions, and we think we should be talking about that in Ontario. That's what they're talking. About ask you what they're doing in Montreal, what they're doing in Nanaimo. In Victoria in New York state. But all this is doing is saying. We should not be installing gas as a matter of course, in new subdivisions, free of charge. The builders need to stop and think about whether they should install gas, and they may then decide to put in a heat pump instead, which would save everybody money. And of course, much better for the climate. Okay, just for clarity, if I'm building a new subdivision of 1000 homes, And 500 of those homes choose heat pumps over gas. I've got 50% excess capacity. Is that kind of. What your definition of overbuilt is. I'm not sure I follow. I'm building a subdivision, 1000 homes, and I hook up gas infrastructure for 1000 homes. But half of those homes have heat pumps. Right, so the system is overbuilt by 50%. Yeah. And Enbridge is justifying. Raising the rate under the assumption that all of these people are going to hook up to gas and that they're going to use gas for a long time, and that's a faulty assumption. And there's the risk of stranded

assets, which is what the OEB. Said, and that Enbridge is actually behaving irresponsibly. From a business perspective as well, but that's a separate matter from the decision in front. Of council today. That makes it clear. Thanks. Great. And thank you so much for joining us. And you have a good day as well. Thank you for having me. Okay, that's it for delegations. I will move it back. To the mover to present. The motion in front of council today and look for a second. Seconder, so I know that you'll move it, Councilor Koran. Councilor Altel second. And over to you, Councilor Koran. Do you want it up on the screen for you? To read. I do. I'm worried about my time limit, just in case there are questions from my fellow counselor. So I wonder if I could ask you or the clerks or my seconder to read the preamble in the motion so I don't use up my time. Yes, I'm happy to put up on the screen. Sorry, the clerk is just talking to me. Just 1 second. Through you. Mr. Merritt to the mover. I'm not sure that I have a final copy

of the motion submitted. There was a draft copy circulated, but if I could get confirmation from the mover of the wording, then we can certainly get that pulled up on. Yes, the one I sent you on. March the 14th is the final. Thanks. It's just coming up. I mean. Councilor Kron. Sorry. So just 1 second. And let me read it out for you, okay? Yes. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. I wonder if my seconder is willing to use up some of this time. The whereas statements are significant part of the motion. Sure. Would you like to read them? Okay, you can go right ahead. Thank you, Councilor Koran. It's now a reading exercise. I think I have the correct. Whereas. Whereas residents are struggling with energy bill increases and need relief, whereas natural gas is no longer the cheapest way to eat homes because electric heat pumps are now much more efficient, can provide all heating needs even in cold climates, and result in far lower energy bills over the long term compared to gas heating, whereas

natural. Gas is methane gas, which is a fossil fuel, causing approximately one third of Ontario's greenhouse. Gas emissions and must be phased out because it's inconsistent with climate targets. While heat pumps result in the lowest GHD emissions and are consistent with zero carbon future. Whereas the Ontario Energy Board decided to end a subs. Subsidy for methane gas pipelines to be built in new construction developments effective 2025. Finding this would lower energy bills for existing gas customers and improve affordability for new homebuyers. But this decision is at risk of being overturned by the provincial government. Whereas the OEB decision will help lower energy bill. Bills and encourage heating systems that are consistent with climate targets and plans. Whereas the construction of new methane gas pipelines, which have 60 year lifetimes, should not be subsidized because they are inconsistent with the city's climate targets and will result in higher carbon emissions. Higher energy. Bills, higher future decarbonization retrofit cost to get off fossil fuel heating and a continued financial drain as dollars leave the province to pay

for fossil fuels extracted in other jurisdictions. Whereas Guelph City Council has recognized a climate emergency, whereas transforming our buildings by supporting actions that improve the energy efficiency in greenhouse gas. Profile of new buildings within the city is one of the five low carbon transformations that can occur, whereas. The city of Hamilton, city of Guelph is actively working to support the decarbonization. Of heating and cooling systems. Which will provide. And we have engaged in. I think you're reading the wrong one. The one I'm reading is on board. Five. Page. Leanne is up. That's what I wasn't certain of after my best. Bob munch interpretation, too. Councilor Quran. I apologize. It's the only one I have in front of me. I bought the other one. You're wonderful. Okay. Where we start going into the city. So whereas Gulf City council acknowledges the climate crisis in May, 2019 passed a resolution to support the phase out of gas fired energy plants by 2030 and we made that motion

in December 2020 and passed a resolution to support the United nations race to. Zero commitment in December of 2021, whereas transforming our existing and new buildings by supporting actions that improve the energy efficiency and greenhouse the GHG. That's what the motion says. Profile within the city is a stated goal of our community energy initiative and our official plan and. Our strategic plan. And whereas the city of Gulf is actively working to support the decarbonization. Of heating and cooling systems in existing and future building stock within the community, as demonstrated by the Gulf Green Homes Energy Retrofit program, which will provide 0% interest loans to gulf homeowners to enable them to transition away from fossil. Fuel powered heating and cooling equipment to low carbon air ground source heat pump system. Therefore, be it resolved that the city of Gulf expresses its support for the decision of the Ontario Energy Board to end the fossil gas infrastructure subsidy and request that the Ontario government withdraw bill one six. Five and allow for the OAB decision to stand and that this resolution be circulated to the president of

the association of Municipalities of Ontario, Colin Best, premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, Minister of Energy Todd Smith, Minister of Finance, Peter Bethelen Falvy. MPP Mike Shriner and Olive, Ontario municipalities requesting support for the proposed changes. Great. Thank you to you both. So that. Sets it up pretty well there. Do you mind, Councilor Koran? I just want to make sure I'm acknowledging and. Respecting you at this time. Would you like to continue to address the issue or may I go? To council colleagues if they have any questions. I think questions because I may have to use up some of my time for questions. All right. So are there any questions? And you know what? As the chair, I'm just going to. Encourage everyone. I think probably everyone might kind of know where they're sitting on this. This is a political statement. This is nothing to do with our staff. We either agree or we don't. So. I would like. Us to try to get to a vote. Okay, councilor Gor. You worship. Our comments in order.

Now, if there's no questions. Yes, I'm fine. If there's no. Comment. Okay. Any questions then? Okay, I have one question from councilor Gibson, and then we'll go to comments and. I'll start with you. Okay. Go ahead. Councilor Gibson. I don't know if this is for the mover or for staff. Unfortunately, it's. Related to the building code. I'll pose it to councilor Koran, and perhaps staff can weigh in a little. Bit. About five years ago. I built a home. And when I went to the insurance company, the insurance company asked me, what are your heat sources? And I said, we have baseboard heating and we have. Baseboard heating. And they said, well, what's your backup? And I asked the question because they said I needed to have a backup energy source or a backup heat source at the time. I don't know if that's changed. According to the billing code. If they have some redundancy in your heating, but I do remember back in 2014 or maybe even earlier. There's a pretty bad winter storm in Guelph, and power was knocked out for four or five days. It was right around Christmas time, actually. And that was the time where we were really thankful for our gas fireplace because it actually heated. Our house because the

electricity was out. So I guess my question to staff is, when it comes to building code. What is the redundancy on electric heat? Is there a requirement to have two sources of heat in the home? And if there is so. What are the options? If we're completely removing ourselves from gas homes. So through the chair to Councilor Gibson. I'm sorry, I don't have that. Information on hand as the conversation continues. I can try and get some information from staff, but I don't have it on hand right now, Councilor Gibson. No, that's fine. I expected that. And that's been consistent with staff's. Comments so far on this motion. They don't have an opinion or a recommendation to offer counsel. So I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. If I start comments and. Go ahead, councilor Gohar, I have you first. Councilor Gab. Point of order. Yeah, I believe he also addressed it to me as well. Am I understanding in my research is no. And that the heat source and a heat pump isn't. Electric. The only electric component is the pump that pumps it through

your home. And. That the generators, there's other forms of backup, but that it is not required is my understanding. And I did ask that question when I was doing my research. Great. Thank you. Okay. To comments then before the vote. Go ahead. Councilor Gohard, thank you for your worship. I just wanted to take a moment to thank all the folks in the community that wrote letters to us and. All the people that came today to delegate and online. It's really important that we speak up and that we express our opinions in these cases. I fully support this motion, and I wanted to thank you for your time. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Councilor alt would like to make a comment. Thank you very much. And then katen after you. Go ahead. Thank you, mayor. Guthrie. And like my colleague, Councilor Galler, I do support this. I am very much concerned. About issues associated with greenhouse gases, but I'm equally concerned about something else that I think runs parallel to an MZO, and that is the provincial government weighing in on the Ontario Energy Board in a way that I consider. Is political rather than something

that. Is institutional and. Is policy related. This strikes me as the same sort of thing that we oppose with mzettos. And consequently, I think we owe it to the OEB in this situation to actually take a position. Great. Thank you. And katen, thank you. For you. The province. Interfering with a regulatory board decision is bad policy. Ignoring. Interfering with the advice. Of experts is the new normal. Across the country, we see it in changing availability for medical options. And school funding in our province and in trans healthcare policies and other provinces doing the right thing. And changing service models to. Coincide with new learnings is an important part of growth, and if we want to protect the planet and our help. We need to support policies that meet those goals. I'm supporting the motion for those reasons. Great. Thank you. And busatill. Thank you very much. And thank you to all the delegations. The first one. Samantha Hicks delegation really resonated with me, and we're all here. With the same goal and need in mind, and I know the community work that I do. And

public health that climate change doesn't impact our community equally. It's disproportionate. And the elderly, the youth, children. Our first nations are vulnerable community. And that's not who is making up the decision makers. So that is really important to me to make a stand on that. The second piece on this, and thank you to Mr. Brooks. Is around the affordability. I have learned a lot about the OEB and all of this. That I didn't know before, and I will also be supporting the motion, so thank you. Thank you. Is there anything further? Okay, I'll go to the mover. Yeah, just rounding things up, and I just want. To thank the delegations. And specifically Abigail and Indigo really hit home for me. Because when I do the math of where they are now in their life cycle. 40 to 60 years, which is the time frame for this subsidy. They will be grandparents. And that. Is significant legacy for the next generation, and this is being framed as housing versus the environment. When we get the letters that we've received from other organizations building homes. This is

not about housing versus the environment. I have seen no evidence that the OEB decision to end fossil gas infrastructure subsidization. And I've been digging. I've been looking for it. In order to be fully informed. There's nothing to support the statement that that is going to impact housing starts. In fact, I think, I believe it's going to be the opposite. In my opinion, heat pumps can be installed without multimillion dollar new infrastructure. There's battery backups to address councilor Gibson's fears. Developers don't pay for gas infrastructure. It's not in the DCS. It's. Directly on the users. This is an economic development issue as much as it's an environmental issue. We need stability. Reliability, affordability. And overbuilt infrastructure and rising rates means that. Our monthly utility bills for the next 40 to 60 years. Heat pumps are the solution. The technology we know is widely available, widely proven, and has significant monthly costs for homeowners. And as we make the energy transition, This isn't just about homeowners. It's businesses and commercial and institution. This is the energy transition

that we're in right now. Gas. We know from everything I've read, is on its downward death spiral. And why would we enable it to be propped up on our bills. When we know that it's the dying energy system. This really is our moment. It's. Our moment to show our community that we're serious about our race to zero 2050. Goals. It's our moment to make sure that future home ownership and rental are more affordable for those who are living there through monthly utility bills. And it's our moment to show leadership. On climate action and economic growth in our city. This. Motion was designed only to state our support for the OEB decision. And we could have gone. Much further, we could have put in more direct. Specific support for other forms of energy or the governance of the OEB. But this is just a decision to support the OEB decision, because, as our delegates, some of our delegates told us, this was a year long process with loads of research and data behind it. So if it passes, we're going to be joining a number of municipalities. I was on Ontario climate caucus meeting last week,

and more and more communities are coming out in support of the OEB decision. That getting the letter from Embridge has actually sparked something in our municipal leaders across the province. Saying that. We just can no longer go on supporting this energy subsidy. So I'll leave it in. The hands. As you said, Mr. Mayor, I'm sure everyone kind of knows where they're. Landing, and I'll leave it in the hands of the vote. To determine what our council's position is. On supporting the independent regular. They're on their well researched decision back over to you. Great. Thank you. Is there anything further at all? No. Okay, well, I'll just state my opinion right before the vote, then, so I find that this issue is much more complicated and I'm not fully informed on what's actually happening here to the degree that I feel comfortable in voting in favor. So I will not be voting in favor. Also. This has been appealed to the OEB board by Embridge, which is their right. And that appeal has been, there's been some. Stayed. Issues in regards to the OEB decision until

the end of April. It's in an appeal process right now. For me to give opinions on something I don't feel I'm fully informed on. And there's also an appeal already occurring. I just don't feel appropriate to give my support to something through an appeal process. However. I will state that I agree that the political interference shouldn't have been tabled on that part I actually agree on. But the OAB decision has a process which includes an appeal, which. This is under appeal, right? Now. So for that reason, I'm going to let the appeal and let this third party process go. That independence to me, to allow that independence of that process to move forward is actually important to me, and that's my position, so I'll call the vote. So, anyone against, please raise your hand. Okay. Chew billings. Myself and Gibson. Okay? So that passes. Thank you very much. And we are at. Bylaws now, I think. Oh, yes. I got to the consent too early.

I missed the minutes. The minutes held February 7, 13th, 14th. And 21st of 2024, and the committee, the whole meeting held February 6, 2024, be confirmed. As recorded and without being read. Would you be willing? Thank you, councilor alt. And Richardson will second that. Is there anything further on the minutes? No. Okay, I'll call the vote. Is anyone against the minutes? Okay, that's unanimous. That passes. Thank you. And then Gibson. We have you with the bylaws, please? Yes, thank you. Through Mr. Mayor. The bylaws. 2002 420902 through 2002 420906 and 2002 420930 be approved subject to section two eight 4.1 114. Of the Municipal Act. Thank you, Galler. Would you be willing to second that? Thank you very much. Any questions on those bylaws. Hearing and seeing Nanocol to vote as anyone against the bylaws. No one. Great. That passes as well. Unanimously. Thank you. And I have no other announcements, and so.

I am just looking. For. Adjournment, please. Busatill and Richardson will do that for us. And I'll call the vote on a German. Anyone against that? Nobody that passes as well. Just a reminder. To my Cao crew. We have our meeting this afternoon in regards to the CAO subcommittee. Okay, so. We'll see you for that meeting in a few hours. Great. Thank you so much, everyone. Take care and bye bye.