The Quebec government announced on Wednesday a draft regulation aimed at reducing the pollution fees paid free to companies participating in the Carbon Exchange. A project deemed “too lax” by Greenpeace, which believes that Quebec has backed down in the face of corporate lobbying.
Posted at 7:00 a.m.
According to the Ministry of the Environment and the Fight against Climate Change (MELCC), which is piloting the draft regulation, the objective is to “gradually reduce, from 2024, the overall level of free allocation of units paid, consistent with Québec’s GHG emission reduction objectives.
“We have seen in the past that free allowances have been granted in a completely disproportionate way,” explains Patrick Bonin, head of the Climate-Energy campaign at Greenpeace Canada. However, the more pollution rights are in circulation, the less pressure there is on the price to be paid to emit a ton of greenhouse gases (GHG).
PHOTO MARTIN CHAMBERLAND, ARCHIVES LA PRESSE
Patrick Bonin
According to Mr. Bonin, the draft regulations submitted by the MELCC are “too lax”. “We are going to reduce the number of free allowances a little, but it will not be enough. The proof that this is not enough, it is expected that the price per ton of GHG [au marché du carbone] will be $97 in 2030 while at the federal level, the price will be $170. »
International competition
The current Regulation concerning the cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emission allowances provides that a certain number of companies subject to international competition receive a free allocation of GHG emission units . These allowances would be fewer as of 2024, if the draft regulation is adopted.
” [La concurrence internationale]it’s the scarecrow brandished by the industry for years to obtain free allowances”, maintains Patrick Bonin, who believes that Quebec was influenced by the lobbying work of the industry, which “worked”. .
“This is a draft regulation that has been long awaited,” points out Pierre-Olivier Pineau, holder of the Chair in Energy Sector Management at HEC Montréal. This was contested by some companies, because it reduces the benefits they received – but the additional burden is not very significant: what they “pay” can only be spent by themselves, on projects of improving their carbon footprint. It’s more of a mandatory green savings system than adding a carbon price. »
“I believe that these adjustments are acceptable, insofar as it still reduces free allocations while preserving their existence, which is useful in a context of international competition where all emitters do not yet pay a price on carbon” , adds Mr. Pineau.
A public consultation period on the draft regulation is scheduled until June 18.