Suchergebnisse

Energy consumers are facing cost pressures from multiple directions. Wholesale natural gas prices have been climbing substantially from their record lows. Oil prices have only recently cooled slightly after reaching nearly $100 a barrel (WTI) earlier this year. That makes it that much more important to minimize costs to wholesale consumers of energy, and ultimately, retail buyers, wherever possible. There is little room in the energy network for unnecessary costs. But in a regulated system, profits for utilities must remain healthy, too, if we expect them to stay active in the market. But the way that government agencies regulate oil and gas pipelines in Canada, and elsewhere, appears to be increasing costs beyond where they need to be in order to fairly serve both utilities and customers. By relying on traditional rate-of-return regulation models — which calculate price-rates based on the regulated firm's cost of capital (that is, how much it costs the company to finance its operations) — regulators, including the National Energy Board and the Alberta Utilities Commission, reward firms for over-investing in their operations, rather than reducing costs. Utilities are motivated to prolong the period in which they can earn a return on their capital, since it is one of the few opportunities they have to increase profits under the widely used rateof-return regulatory model. That results in utilities keeping assets on the books — and paying for them — longer than they might otherwise need to be. The end result is a distortion of the decisions made by regulated firms and higher prices for consumers than might occur under a different regulatory model. Regulators that take a more passive role in setting the rate of return for their client industries, however, are likely to see their idleness pay off. Firms with a freer hand to do so will seek to accelerate the depreciation of capital assets, reducing costs more quickly. The result may see end-consumers pay more in the short term, but substantially less over the long term.

Challenged by remote locations, small populations, rugged terrain and (at times) difficult climate conditions, Canada's territories rely heavily on imported goods to maintain their standards of living. At the same time, industries in the territories are highly reliant on access to export markets – especially the large and growing resource sectors of the region. But these trade flows face significant costs that improved infrastructure may help mitigate. A northern transportation corridor could help, and has recently gained prominence following recent reports and hearings by the Senate of Canada. The potential gains are large. This paper estimates trade costs in Canada's North. We find policy-relevant trade costs (those trade costs that policy changes may help lower) are substantial. The regulatory differences, time delays and lower infrastructure quality that inhibit trade add between 20 to 30 per cent to the cost of a delivered good for Yukon and Northwest Territories and over 60 per cent for Nunavut. Infrastructure may be a large cause of higher trade costs. We find that distance-related costs are 45 per cent higher per kilometre for trade with a territory than for trade between two provinces.The region's economy, productivity, income and investment are significantly lower as a result. Using a detailed model of the Canadian economy, we find that lowering these barriers – such as through improving northern transportation infrastructure – could add up to $6.5 billion to Canada's GDP, with most of that gain occurring in the territories. For the Yukon, Nunavut and Northwest Territories the gains equal about $40,000 per person, which is a 50 per cent increase in productivity.The Senate's advocacy for reducing trade barriers is encouraging and the federal government broadly supports knocking down these barriers. It is time for all three levels of government to work together to create policies on, and funding for, improved infrastructure in Canada's North and near-North.

We present a consumption-based greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting model for Canada, based on a multiregional input–output formulation. The outputs resulting from this model comprise a set of detailed input–output tables displaying trade in embodied emissions across regions and sectors (in contrast to the usual financial value input–output tables). After a complete exposition of our embodied GHG emission accounting model, we provide a brief analysis of production- and consumption-based GHG emission footprints and the related interregional trade in embodied emissions across Canadian provinces for 2004–2011. Our initial analysis is intended to present the model and illustrate general conclusions to highlight the utility of the resulting detailed GHG input–output tables as a resource for future research.

This communiqué provides a summary of the production- and consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions accounts for Alberta, as well as their associated trade flows. It is part of a series of communiqués profiling the Canadian provinces and territories.1 In simplest terms, a production-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions produced in Alberta. In contrast, a consumption-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions generated during the production process for final goods and services that are consumed in Alberta through household purchases, investment by firms and government spending. Trade flows refer to the movement of emissions that are produced in Alberta but which support consumption in a different province, territory or country (and vice versa). For example, emissions associated with the production of Alberta crude oil that is exported to British Columbia for refining and sale as motor gasoline are recorded as a trade flow from Alberta to British Columbia. Moving in the opposite direction, emissions associated with the production of Saskatchewan crops that are exported to Alberta for processing and sale in Alberta grocery stores are recorded as a trade flow from Saskatchewan to Alberta. For further details on these results in a national context, the methodology for generating them and their policy implications, please see the companion papers to this communiqué series: (1) Fellows and Dobson (2017); and (2) Dobson and Fellows (2017). Additionally, the consumption emissions and trade flow data for each of the provinces and territories are available at: http://www.policyschool.ca/embodied-emissions-inputs-outputs-datatables-2004-2011/.

This communiqué provides a summary of the production- and consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions accounts for Saskatchewan, as well as their associated trade flows. It is part of a series of communiqués profiling the Canadian provinces and territories.1 In simplest terms, a production-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions produced in Saskatchewan. In contrast, a consumption-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions generated during the production process for final goods and services that are consumed in Saskatchewan through household purchases, investment by firms and government spending. Trade flows refer to the movement of emissions that are produced in Saskatchewan but which support consumption in a different province, territory or country (and vice versa). For example, emissions associated with the production of Saskatchewan crops that are exported to Alberta for processing and sale in an Alberta grocery store are recorded as a trade flow from Saskatchewan to Alberta. Moving in the opposite direction, emissions associated with the production of Alberta natural gas that is sold to a Saskatchewan utility and used to heat Saskatchewan homes are recorded as a trade flow from Alberta to Saskatchewan. For further details on these results in a national context, the methodology for generating them and their policy implications, please see the companion papers to this communiqué series: (1) Fellows and Dobson (2017); and (2) Dobson and Fellows (2017). Additionally, the consumption emissions and trade flow data for each of the provinces and territories are available at: http://www.policyschool.ca/embodied-emissions-inputs-outputs-datatables-2004-2011/.

This communiqué provides a summary of the production- and consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions accounts for Prince Edward Island, as well as their associated trade flows. It is part of a series of communiqués profiling the Canadian provinces and territories.1 In simplest terms, a production-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions produced in Prince Edward Island. In contrast, a consumptionbased emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions generated during the production process for final goods and services that are consumed in Prince Edward Island through household purchases, investment by firms and government spending. Trade flows refer to the movement of emissions that are produced in Prince Edward Island but which support consumption in a different province, territory or country (and vice versa). For example, emissions associated with the production of Prince Edward Island crops that are exported to Nova Scotia for processing and sale are recorded as a trade flow from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia. Moving in the opposite direction, emissions associated with the generation of electricity in New Brunswick that is exported to Prince Edward Island for sale to a Prince Edward Island homeowner are recorded as a trade flow from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. For further details on these results in a national context, the methodology for generating them and their policy implications, please see the companion papers to this communiqué series: (1) Fellows and Dobson (2017); and (2) Dobson and Fellows (2017). Additionally, the consumption emissions and trade flow data for each of the provinces and territories are available at: http://www.policyschool.ca/embodied-emissions-inputs-outputs-datatables-2004-2011/.

This communiqué provides a summary of the production- and consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions accounts for Manitoba, as well as their associated trade flows. It is part of a series of communiqués profiling the Canadian provinces and territories.1 In simplest terms, a production-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions produced in Manitoba. In contrast, a consumption-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions generated during the production process for final goods and services that are consumed in Manitoba through household purchases, investment by firms and government spending. Trade flows refer to the movement of emissions that are produced in Manitoba but which support consumption in a different province, territory or country (and vice versa). For example, emissions associated with the production of Manitoba crops that are exported to Ontario for processing and sale in an Ontario grocery store are recorded as a trade flow from Manitoba to Ontario. Moving in the opposite direction, emissions associated with the production of motor gasoline in Alberta that is exported to Manitoba for sale are recorded as a trade flow from Alberta to Manitoba. For further details on these results in a national context, the methodology for generating them and their policy implications, please see the companion papers to this communiqué series: (1) Fellows and Dobson (2017); and (2) Dobson and Fellows (2017). Additionally, the consumption emissions and trade flow data for each of the provinces and territories are available at: http://www.policyschool.ca/embodied-emissions-inputs-outputs-datatables-2004-2011/.

This communiqué provides a summary of the production- and consumption-based greenhouse gas emissions accounts for Quebec, as well as their associated trade flows. It is part of a series of communiqués profiling the Canadian provinces and territories.1 In simplest terms, a production-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions produced in Quebec. In contrast, a consumption-based emissions account measures the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions generated during the production process for final goods and services that are consumed in Quebec through household purchases, investment by firms and government spending. Trade flows refer to the movement of emissions that are produced in Quebec but which support consumption in a different province, territory or country (and vice versa). For example, emissions associated with the production of a Quebec manufactured good that is exported to Ontario for sale are recorded as a trade flow from Quebec to Ontario. Moving in the opposite direction, emissions associated with the production of motor gasoline in New Brunswick that is exported to Quebec for sale are recorded as a trade flow from New Brunswick to Quebec. For further details on these results in a national context, the methodology for generating them and their policy implications, please see the companion papers to this communiqué series: (1) Fellows and Dobson (2017); and (2) Dobson and Fellows (2017). Additionally, the consumption emissions and trade flow data for each of the provinces and territories are available at: http://www.policyschool.ca/embodied-emissions-inputs-outputs-datatables-2004-2011/.