Alberta UCP at odds with own consultant over attack on NDP electricity plan

The United Conservatives are standing by their claim the NDP's net-zero electricity grid plan would bring a catastrophic $87-billion hit to Albertans — an estimate the consultant the UCP hired to research the issue says is wildly overblown.

"No, we don't need to issue a correction," UCP Leader Danielle Smith told reporters in Calgary when asked to comment on the disagreement with Vancouver-based Navius Research.

"(The NDP net-zero plan) is the most expensive campaign promise that has been put forward in this election," she said.

The dispute stems from the UCP's first major policy attack on the NDP ahead of the May 29 election.

On Wednesday, the party said the NDP promise to convert the electricity grid to net-zero by the end of 2035 would cost Albertans $87 billion, leading to a 40 per cent spike in consumer electricity bills and posing a demonstrable threat to the long-term health of Alberta's economy.

• Member of Danielle Smith's new multiculturalism panel resigns over anti-semitic posts
• Alberta Premier Danielle Smith threatens CBC with legal action over Coutts blockade stories

To back up the claim, Smith referred to a report from the Alberta Electric System Operator and one from Navius.

AESO estimated in a report last year it would cost between $44 billion and $52 billion to decarbonize the electricity grid by 2040.

Navius was then recently asked by the United Conservative caucus to calculate the possible knock-on effects to the economy from a net-zero grid.

Navius reported back just over a month ago, estimating there would be a $35-billion impact on the GDP over two decades, amounting to about three-one-hundredths of one per cent decline annually.

UCP added 2 numbers together

The UCP has acknowledged it then added the two numbers together to come up with the $87-billion figure.

Within hours of the UCP announcement Wednesday, however, Navius tweeted that its $35-billion figure is not in addition to the $52 billion but is baked in already.

"The $35 billion already accounts for, and is not additive to, the ($52 billion) investment estimated in the AESO report," Navius said in the tweet.

"The cost to Alberta's economy reported in the media today is more than double what our model suggests it will be."

'Not a fair representation of the costs,' says UCP-hired firm

Navius refers to itself as a private consulting firm specializing in analyzing government and corporate policies designed to meet environmental goals as they relate to energy and greenhouse gas emissions.

On Thursday, Navius expanded on its position in a statement, saying, "The $35-billion GDP impact accounts for both the costs and benefits of this investment and provides an estimate of the net economic impact of decarbonizing the electricity sector in Alberta.

"Because of this, the $87-billion figure being communicated publicly by adding the $35 billion GDP impact and $52 billion investment together is not a fair representation of the costs of the policy."

UCP spokesman Dave Prisco disagreed.

"AESO's $52 billion (pays) to transform our energy grid, which is the direct cost to Albertans and Alberta businesses. Navius' estimate of $35 billion in GDP reduction (results) from doing this policy," said Prisco in a statement.

"We believe it's fair to combine these numbers as a representation of the policy costs, not the economic costs."

NDP Leader Rachel Notley said Smith is deliberately distorting the figures and said even the AESO report overestimates the costs and underplays the benefits of moving to the net zero grid.

"We've got Danielle Smith out there refusing to disavow what is at the very least a $40-billion piece of misinformation that she and her team took active steps to share with Albertans," Notley told reporters in Calgary.

"This is why Albertans can't trust Danielle Smith."

UCP did not respond to questions

The UCP did not respond to questions on why it appears to have redacted part of the Navius report.

The original Navius report indicates on its title page the research was commissioned by the United Conservative caucus.

The UCP linked to that report in its news release Wednesday but redacted that information even though the text of the report still clearly states the analysis was created at the direction of the UCP caucus.

Notley said if parties are going to deliver primary source material to voters, they need to be open about what they are including and excluding.

"If the UCP can't even be counted on to share transparently with voters their own work, how in heaven's name can we count on them to be transparent about everything in government should we give them four more years at the helm?"