Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act, Bill 20 Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act
The Guardian (9 May 2024) asked the question: ‘What are the most powerful climate actions you can take?’ From the leading experts queried, the fourth top response was to reduce home heating and cooling emissions. SAGE agrees, and would add that this also speaks to affordability.
Infrastructure Canada data indicates that the average expected useful life of a single detached home in Alberta is 65 years. The data collected was based on social and affordable housing assets in both urban and rural settings. This means that a home built today is expected to still be part of the building stock in 2090. We know that, between now and 2090, there are expectations that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to net-zero. We have to ask ourselves: Are we building homes today for yesterday’s climate? And is this affordable in the long term?
It appears, in the absence of robust public discussion, that the Provincial Priorities Act (Bill 18) is designed to restrict Municipalities and other provincial entities to enter agreements with any other entity without prior approval from the Government of Alberta. One might imagine this approval process could include grants from corporate sponsors or the Government of Canada that are directed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. If, say, climate change mitigation and adaptation were not a priority for the Government of Alberta, much needed funding for municipalities and public research may or may not be allowed. Such gatekeeping of the public good may unintentionally restrict our collective ability to explore and innovate solutions for energy transition, building performance and, ultimately, long-term affordable housing.
Similarly, the proposed Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 20) limits the ability of municipalities to require “non-statutory studies as requirements for building and development permits.” Again, ‘non-statutory studies’ is a loosely defined category, but could include performance modelling for homes that are expected to meet higher standards as established by a municipality.
One of the motives expressed by the Government of Alberta for components of these Bills was to ‘standardize’ building in the province to make it more ‘affordable’. The standard would be the National Building Code, which (though being updated) currently sets a performance standard that will not only fail to achieve greenhouse emission targets, but also leave the homeowner with an unaffordable liability if energy prices continue to rise.
To achieve net-zero in our built environment, the Government of Alberta must set standards that exceed the National Building Code so that homes operate with lower emissions and are built to withstand extreme weather events already being observed, and as anticipated by climate models. This means using high-quality building materials and investing in innovative designs of building envelopes; reducing heating and cooling demands by increasing insulation and installing high-performance glazings; utilizing high-efficiency technologies that favour electricity that can most effectively be de-carbonized; and designing homes for disassembly to improve the reuse of materials. It should be further noted that the decisions on home design and performance depend largely on local climate, potential extreme weather events, and energy prices. This suggests that building codes and standards should be more locally nuanced than what would be regulated in a monolithic national code.
Resilient, high-performance homes can be realized with current knowledge in building design – but the transition needs to be supported with innovative financing, climate-appropriate incentives, and collaborative partnerships with all levels of government. And it is necessary to support those most in need during an affordability crisis by providing long-term solutions. Bills 18 and 20 appear to create barriers to achieving these goals. SAGE maintains that properly designed and properly financed housing with collaborative corporate and intergovernmental participation is the locus of long-term affordability while meeting climate emission targets and improving our collective ability to position the economy and enhance social well-being for a challenging future.
The Southern Alberta Group for the Environment has been a leading voice for a health and environmentally sustainable community in southern Alberta for the past 40 years. We encourage Government of Alberta to evaluate the impact of Bill 18 and aspects of Bill 20 that limit building standards and performance expectations for short-term notions of affordability at the expense of long-term liabilities to the homeowner. We look forward to your response to our concerns and invite Lethbridge MLA Neudorf and/or MLA Phillips to meet and discuss this matter further.
Minister’s Response:
Thank you for your letter of May 21, 2024, regarding Alberta’s introduction of Bill 20: the Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, Bill 18: the Provincial Priorities Act, and their potential impact on net zero building standards and initiatives. I am pleased to provide you with the following information.
As you have noted, Bill 20 includes amendments to the MGA that will encourage housing development in municipalities. Affordable and attainable housing has become one of the most urgent concerns across the country, and the Government of Alberta is unlocking options for municipalities to consider as they take local action to address housing affordability. The amendments to the MGA will create balance between appropriate engagement with residents and stakeholders and prompt municipal planning and development decisions. This ensures municipalities have greater flexibility to tackle their housing priorities while providing residents with the opportunity to have their say about development plans in their communities.
In addition, the recently passed Bill 18 supports the Government of Alberta in pushing back against overreach by the federal government. Bill 18 will ensure the federal government is not undermining the provincial jurisdiction to make decisions about what is best for Alberta.
Bill 18 will require provincial entities to obtain prior approval from the Government of Alberta before entering into, amending, extending, or renewing an agreement with the federal government. This supports Alberta in getting its fair share of funding when it comes to roads, infrastructure, housing, and other priorities. Any agreement subject to Bill 18 not receiving prior approval from the province would be invalid.
Now that bills 18 and 20 have passed, Municipal Affairs will be engaging with municipalities and stakeholders over the coming months to explain the changes each will require at a local level, and develop regulations as required.
Bill 18 will be implemented through supporting regulations, which will set out the approval process, any requirements which must be met before an organization can enter into an agreement with federal government, as well as any exemptions to this legislation. These regulations will be developed through a stakeholder engagement process, which is expected to take place this summer. For more information, please visit: Defending Alberta’s Provincial Priorities and Strengthening Local Elections and Councils.
Finally, I understand your concerns surrounding green house gas emissions in the built environment. Alberta’s safety codes establish a minimum standard for the safe construction of buildings in the province. The 2023 editions of Alberta’s building and fire safety codes and the 2020 National Energy Code for Buildings have been adopted and came into force on May 1, 2024. These provincial codes reflect the most recent standards and best practices and include five energy efficiency tiers identified in the national codes, with Tier 5 being net‑zero ready.
The Government of Alberta has adopted Tier 1 as the minimum standard for houses and buildings in Alberta. Tier 1 allows Alberta to set a consistent framework for achieving improved levels of energy efficiency in housing and small buildings, while maintaining affordability. This approach was intended to recognize jurisdictions may have different perspectives, and it allows the jurisdiction to choose the tier level most appropriate for their needs and interests. There was broad consensus among stakeholders to implement Tier 1, as it preserves housing affordability and business competitiveness. These tiers may also result in a more energy efficient home that reduces air leakage and improves insulation.
Builders may construct to higher energy efficiency standards, but municipalities do not have the authority to adopt higher energy efficiency tiers or more stringent building codes. Tiers 2-4 are included within the provisions of the codes and a person may choose to build to a higher tier but cannot be required by a municipality or local authority to build to a tier higher than Tier 1. For more information, please visit:
Alberta Building Codes and Standards.
Thank you again for writing and discussing these important topics.
Sincerely,
Ric McIver
Minister
SAGE’s Request for Clarification:
Thank you very much for the considered reply.
If possible, I would seek one clarification before I share your response with out membership:
You say: ” This approach was intended to recognize jurisdictions may have different perspectives, and it allows the jurisdiction to choose the tier level most appropriate for their needs and interests”, but then say: “Tiers 2-4 are included within the provisions of the codes and a person may choose to build to a higher tier but cannot be required by a municipality or local authority to build to a tier higher than Tier 1.”
Are these contradictory statements, or am I misunderstanding something?
Also, if possible, would you share any life-cycle analyses supporting the notion that Tier 1 building is the most cost-effective (‘affordable’) approach to residential building? Or is this mainly the most profitable approach for the building industry? (“There was broad consensus among stakeholders to implement Tier 1, as it preserves housing affordability and business competitiveness.”)
Minister’s Response:
Thank you for your follow-up questions, and the opportunity to provide additional clarity.
With regard to the contradiction you reference in your email, I regret any confusion. The statement “this approach was intended to recognize jurisdictions may have different perspectives, and it allows the jurisdiction to choose the tier level most appropriate for their needs and interests” was meant to reflect the fact each provincial and territorial jurisdiction may choose a tier from the National Building Code based on their needs and interests. This reflects the jurisdictional authority for safety codes which rests with provinces and territories.
The statement “Tiers 2-4 are included within the provisions of the codes and a person may choose to build to a higher tier but cannot be required by a municipality or local authority to build to a tier higher than Tier 1”, was meant to clarify that a municipality or local authority cannot set requirements above the minimum requirements of provincial legislation.
Full life-cycle analyses of the tiers are not readily available; however, the Building Industry and Land Development Association Alberta and Canadian Home Builders’ Association provided detailed analysis on cost impacts per home. For example, the estimated additional cost of Tier 1 is up to $1,100. The estimated costs increase significantly throughout the tiers, with Tiers 4 and 5 having an estimated additional cost of $22,000 and $77,000 respectively.
Given the current housing affordability crisis, Alberta focused on ensuring only modest cost increases in building construction and negligible red tape. Tier 1 is designed to be cost‑effective by establishing a balance between improved energy efficiency and manageable construction costs.
While Tier 1 was adopted, builders can choose the tier best reflecting their market. The Tier 1 standard serves as a foundation for energy efficient home building and allows others to build to a higher tier if they wish to pursue higher levels of energy efficiency.
I hope this provides the clarification you were looking for. Please feel free to reach out if you have any more questions or need further details.