Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, I'll transfer to my....
To Mr. McCormick? Mr. McCormick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was an adjustment from the prior year. We moved some money from our controllable assets up into the computer hardware and software for the directorate.
Thank you, Mr. McCormick. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So I don't know what a controllable asset is, either, but this is some sort of accounting change? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. McCormick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's correct. Controlled assets are small, movable assets, so we moved that up from controllable up into the contracts. It's for the way the phones are being handled now.
Thank you, Mr. McCormick. I just want to remind all the Members and other witnesses to just indicate when you're finished talking so the audio techs can switch the microphones. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. No further questions on this page.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Any further questions on page 384? Seeing none. I'll call the page. Public Works and Services, directorate, operations expenditure summary, activity total, $11,936,000. Agreed?
Agreed.
Committee agrees. We'll move on to energy, page 386, page 387. We'll begin by discussing the detail on pages 388 and 389, interrelated pages. Do we have comments, questions, on pages 388 and 389 under energy? Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is the right place to ask this question from the opening remarks. The Minister mentioned a reduction of 24 per cent in total energy intensity. I just want a definition of that phrase so that I'm sure that I understand it. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll let the deputy minister answer that question.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Guy?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The energy intensity is really a way we measure the energy usage of a particular asset. In this case, in that example we had done the analysis of all the schools. It takes into both the heating energy requirement and the electrical energy. So those reductions that we found across the education assets were a result of the implementation of the biomass boilers as well as the projects through the capital asset retrofit program, the retrofits. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is not the other definition of energy intensity, which is calculated as a unit of energy per unit of GDP, so it's an economic efficiency measure. Is that correct, it's not related to that? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Mr. Guy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's correct, it's not a GDP. We're looking at normalizing the energy consumption across the portfolio so we work it out based on the degree days of the heating year, and then factor into the overall size of the building as well as its geographic location. So it is not related to GDP. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, that makes lots of sense. Thank you.
Next I have Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on 388 here. It seems like last year's consolidation went into this year with a slight increase here. More specifically, last year there was a number of programs with a budget figure attached to them. Now it's all consolidated into energy programs and policy development with an increase. Do I read it right, Mr. Chair? If I can get the Minister to -- ask clarification, was that the intent, was to consolidate everything into one line program item? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll let the deputy minister answer that.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Guy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I recognize this page is a little bit complicated. Last year what we had shown there was all the funding that came from the various departments through the consolidation of energy initiative that was completed last fiscal year. You’ll see where all the different pots of money show up as contributions. In fact, when this page was developed last year, some of those contributions turned out to be contract services. So some of it moved into contract services. The rest of it, the contributions, we've rolled up into the category of energy programs and policy development. Those are really the contributions agreements that we do to the Arctic Energy Alliance. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the guidelines for the delivery of this line item would remain the same, Mr. Chair?
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Guy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Anytime in the future where we have contributions, they would show up on this page. We will, in future, likely show more detail, but in a more accurate form than is shown here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Nothing further from Mr. McNeely. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also have questions about the roll-up into energy programs and policy development. I'm just looking at the description where it says, funding to support the Arctic Energy Alliance and develop policy to support broad GNWT energy objectives. Can the Minister clarify if we are funding the Arctic Energy Alliance to develop policy or if we're funding them to deliver programs, or are we doing both? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, we fund the Arctic Energy Alliance for energy supplements to the communities. The policy is for things such as our energy plan that we'll be developing, those types of things. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what percentage of this $3,530,000 is allocated to the policy development side of that line item? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
Mr. Guy will speak to that.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Guy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The funding for actual in-house work done on energy policy planning and developing things like energy plans would fall on the other page, under things like salaries and contract services where we would use contractors to provide it. This is purely the contributions and the contribution agreements that we do. And for administrative purposes, they fall under energy program and policy shop, so that's why they're show under that heading. The majority of that money is the $3.5 million that we're providing Arctic Energy Alliance this year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the department for that clarification. I'm just wondering -- and that's what I assumed looking on the other page, energy policy planning progress, but it is curious that this line item is called energy programs and policy development.
So, this contribution doesn't include any policy development related to the Energy Plan? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Mr. Guy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, it's not intended to be at all directly linked to the energy plan. Really, it is the contribution agreements we provide to the Arctic Energy Alliance for the alternative energy programs biomass. The Alternative Energy Technologies Program and that suite of programs and rebate programs that Arctic Energy Alliance operates and provides. It’s just shown under that because that is the administrative division of the department which it is funded through.
Going forward, we will commit to providing more clarification on how we denote that in the plan and this information item next year. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to commend the Department for committing to that clarification. The other item here is energy research and analysis. Is that also going to be undertaken by the Arctic Energy Alliance? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
