Energy
Canadian Gas Association Writes a Letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Highlighting the Importance of Natural Gas Energy Choice for Canadians

From EnergyNow.ca
On January 29, 2024, the Canadian Gas Association (CGA) sent a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, emphasizing the significance of the natural gas energy option for Canadians, a need underscored by the recent severe weather conditions in Western Canada.
The letter reads as follows:
Canada’s energy delivery companies had their work cut out for them over the last few weeks, ensuring the country could get through a period of extreme cold temperatures. The polar vortex that locked in across the continent only underscored how important an energy system with many options is to our overall well-being. I thought I would expand on this point in my first letter to you in 2024.
The second week of January saw temperatures in parts of the country drop well into the minus 40s, with windchill in the minus 50s. This triggered alerts from various authorities to reduce electricity use. Around 4 pm in Alberta on January 12th wind and solar generation facilities were operating at only a few percentage points of their capacity. But power was desperately needed. Luckily, a combination of in-province and neighbouring jurisdiction power sources – like natural gas-powered plants – could help meet the power needs of the province.
It is worth drawing attention to the fact that the alerts were all about a single energy system – the electricity grid. While that grid was under strain due in part to low renewable energy generation availability, the natural gas delivery system (a separate system that delivers gas energy, not electrons) was delivering approximately 9 times the energy and operating without any alerts required.
The contribution of the gas system is really worth emphasizing.
Nationally, over an average year, electricity meets just over 20% of our energy needs. Natural gas directly delivered to customers – residential, commercial and industrial – meets almost twice that amount, or just under 40% and liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel meet the balance. But at certain times of the year, such as during the recent January freeze, the differential between what natural gas and electricity deliver grows dramatically. At points earlier this month Alberta had use of roughly 12,000 megawatts of electric power and over 110,000 megawatts of gas energy equivalent.
And yet it was the electric system, not the natural gas system, that was threatened.
Media coverage during and after the freeze referenced how the electric system is threatened by extreme weather and needs to be built out to meet demand. But to suggest that the electric system could ever meet the energy delivered by natural gas over the gas delivery system is simply unrealistic. Do those who advocate for the electrification of all energy, especially peak heating needs, pretend that we have either the means, the resources, or the dollars, to build out an electric system that could meet roughly nine times the load of the gas system? Do advocates of natural gas bans appreciate that banning natural gas power generation would leave us in situations of actual shortage – a terrifying spectacle in the event of minus 50 degree weather?
Again, the point here is to underscore the value proposition of natural gas and the infrastructure that delivers it: the reliability these provide is extraordinarily important. This value is particularly well demonstrated when severe weather – a Canadian reality – hits us. We have to stop talking about eliminating the choice of energy options like natural gas, and relying exclusively on one energy delivery system, like electricity. Each delivery system has its own advantages, and natural gas is particularly well suited to meet heating needs. That should never be overlooked, as this month’s weather events reminded us.
Prime Minister, when it comes to energy – in supply options, and in delivery systems – diversity truly is our strength in Canada. We must maintain natural gas as an option for reliability, for affordability, and for sustainability – all of which are essential for our country’s energy security and the wellbeing of the Canadian consumer.
Respectfully,
Timothy M. Egan
President and CEO, Canadian Gas Association
Chair, NGIF Capital Corporation
About CGA
The Canadian Gas Association (CGA) is the voice of Canada’s gaseous energy delivery industry, including natural gas, renewable natural gas (RNG) and hydrogen. CGA membership includes energy distribution and transmission companies, equipment manufacturers, and suppliers of goods and services to the industry. CGA’s utility members are Canadian-owned and active in eight provinces and one territory. The Canadian natural gas delivery industry meets 38 per cent of Canada’s energy needs through a network of almost 584,000 kilometers of underground infrastructure. The versatility and resiliency of this infrastructure allows it to deliver an ever-changing gas supply mix to 7.6 million customer locations representing approximately two-thirds of Canadians. CGA members ensure Canadians get the affordable, reliable, clean gaseous energy they want and need. CGA is also working to constantly improve that gaseous energy offering, by driving forward innovation through the Natural Gas Innovation Fund (NGIF).
SOURCE Canadian Gas Association
Energy
If Canada won’t build new pipelines now, will it ever?

Canada must not allow ideological dogma and indecision to squander a rare chance to lock in our energy sovereignty for good
Canada teeters on the edge, battered by a trade war and Trump’s tariff threats from its once-steady southern ally, yet held back by its own indecision. Trump’s 25 percent tariffs have exposed a brutal truth: Canada’s economy, especially its oil exports, is nearly 100 percent dependent on the U.S.
Voices are crying out to lament the regulatory chaos, ideological zeal, and whispers of “peak oil” that stall progress. If Canada won’t build pipelines when its sovereignty and prosperity are at stake, will it ever? The economics are clear, peak oil is a myth, and the only barriers are self-imposed: dogma, tangled rules, and bad thinking.
The infrastructure Canada can command is immense. Four million barrels of crude flow to the U.S. daily, and Trump’s threats have made that number look even bigger.
The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) is proof—linking Alberta to Asia’s markets, with royalties already filling public coffers.
But it’s a lone success. Energy East and Northern Gateway are buried, killed by delays and poor decisions. Private capital is gun-shy, scarred by TMX’s $34 billion price tag, ballooned by a broken system. Why risk billions when the path is a minefield?
The stakes are higher than ever. Forget the claim that oil demand peaks this year at 102 million barrels daily. Experts see a different horizon: Goldman Sachs predicts growth to 2034, OPEC to 2050, BP to 2035—some forecasts topping 80 million barrels.
Enbridge’s Greg Ebel sees “well north” of 100 million by mid-century, driven by Asia’s demand and the developing world’s hunger for energy. Peak oil is a ghost story, not a reality. Canada sits on the third-largest reserves in the world and could dominate the global market, not just feed one neighbour. Pipelines to every coast—east, west, and north—would unlock that future and secure riches for decades.
So what’s holding us back? Ideology, for starters.
Environmental lobbying and influence wrap resource projects in suffocating red tape—emissions caps and endless assessments that kill progress. Years of environmental studies and “net zero” hurdles that no pipeline can clear are choking off bold ideas.
Quebec’s stance has softened under Trump’s pressure, but problematic ideals still linger that blind leaders to reality. The regulatory mess makes it worse.
Today’s system demands a $1 billion bet upfront—engineering, consultations—before a shovel hits the dirt. Companies like TC Energy have been burned before, and others won’t play unless there’s reform. TMX worked because it was a government rescue, but its cost is a deterrent to others.
Then there’s the mess of bad ideas. Government officials will talk about pipelines one day and then express doubts about them the next, leaving a void of leadership. Former prime minister Jean Chrétien very strongly backed a West-East pipeline at the Liberal Party leadership convention.
New leader Mark Carney supports energy links but will not name pipelines, even though public support for them has surged. Four out of five Canadians back coast-to-coast pipelines—but leaders continue to waver.
If not now—when we’re in a trade war and facing annexation—when? Canada’s future is about the infrastructure it controls, not the excuses it clings to. The wealth is waiting, the demand is there, and the barriers are ours to break. Ditch the dogma, fix the rules, and build. Or remain a nation forever poised to rise but never brave enough to do it.
Energy
Why the EPA is right to challenge the ruinous “endangerment finding”

Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
The EPA just announced it’s challenging the single most destructive regulatory action in US history: the “endangerment finding.”
This bogus “finding” allowed Obama and Biden to ban gas cars, shut down power plants, slow US oil growth, and lock up our limitless natural gas.
- Ever wonder why the Biden EPA was able to become an economic dictator, prohibiting most Americans from buying a gas car after 2032 and effectively banning all coal plants and new natural gas plants after 2039?
It started with the Obama EPA’s bogus “endangerment finding.”¹
- In 2009, the Obama EPA issued a “finding” that GHGs “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
But GHGs mostly come from fossil fuels, which on net had clearly been enhancing health and welfare—and would continue doing so.²
- Since human beings began harnessing uniquely cost-effective energy from fossil fuels, human health and welfare have increased dramatically everywhere.
Why? Because the benefits of cheap, reliable energy for billions far outweigh any negative side-effects of fossil fuels.³
- Before and since the “endangerment finding,” which is supposedly about reducing climate danger, fossil fuels have on net made us far safer from climate danger by creating incredible climate resilience.
That’s why climate disaster deaths have declined 98% over 100 years!⁴
- In considering whether fossil fuels’ GHGs “endanger” us and thus should be restricted, EPA should have considered
1. Overall benefits of fossil fuels
2. Climate resilience benefits of fossil fuels
3. Both positive and negative climate impacts of GHGsEPA failed on all 3 counts.
- The “endangerment finding” was particularly inane because it concluded that the US restricting US GHG emissions would accomplish anything globally—when in fact all it accomplished was harming us and offshoring industry to China, which now has 300+ new coal plants in the pipeline!⁵
- By falsely claiming that fossil fuels “endanger” human health, welfare, and climate safety when they were—and have continued to be—a net benefit, EPA has justified giving itself totalitarian powers that, if not stopped, will crater the US economy.
- Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed GHG rules that effectively ban all coal plants and new natural gas plants—by requiring them to capture at least 90% of GHGs, which no plant has ever done at all, let alone cost-effectively.
How EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid
·May 22, 20244 reasons EPA’s power plant rule will destroy our grid:
Read full story - Drawing on its bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA passed “fuel economy standards” that would prevent more than 50% of Americans from buying a gasoline-powered vehicle after 2032—a complete violation of American freedom.⁶
- Drawing on the bogus “endangerment” finding, the Biden EPA and administration as a whole waged a “whole of government” war on fossil fuels that, if not reversed, will crater our entire economy—which has no near-term replacement for fossil fuels.⁷
- The Trump administration, especially EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, will be attacked relentlessly for challenging the bogus “endangerment finding”—but they should be praised for being willing to take on the most destructive regulatory action in American history.
Questions about this article? Ask AlexAI, my chatbot for energy and climate answers:
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental, and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
-
Bjorn Lomborg2 days ago
Despite what activists say, the planet is not on fire
-
Crime14 hours ago
BC Fentanyl Ring ‘Negotiated’ With Sinaloa Chief ‘El Mayo,’ Court Filings Allege
-
Business23 hours ago
Ontario Premier Doug Ford Apologizes To Americans After Threatening Energy Price Hike For Millions
-
Alberta15 hours ago
New gas reserves take Canada into global top 10
-
Business2 days ago
Ontario suspends electricity surcharge after Trump doubles tariffs
-
Energy14 hours ago
Why the EPA is right to challenge the ruinous “endangerment finding”
-
Daily Caller23 hours ago
Reality Finally Returns To Energy Industry
-
espionage15 hours ago
Why has President Trump not released the JFK, Jeffrey Epstein files?