Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Federal regulations threaten Ontario’s ability to meet electricity demand

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

“Newer forms of supply, such as energy storage, are not ready to operate at the scale that would be needed to compensate; nor is there enough time or resources to build the necessary generation and transmission infrastructure to replace gas generation within an eight-year timeframe.”

A new report from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) suggests that electric vehicles and artificial intelligence facilities will drive a massive increase in demand for electricity in Ontario’s not-too-distant future.

The IESO estimates that overall electricity demand will grow by a projected 75 per cent by 2050, which is higher than the 60 per cent increase previously forecasted. The IESO attributes that growth in demand to a number of factors including industrial electric vehicle (EV) production and data centres (increasingly AI-driven). In fact, the IESO reportedly forecasts at least 16 new data centres will be in service by 2035, driving 13 per cent of the new electricity demand.

But where will all that electricity come from?

Under Canada’s current climate and energy policies, it won’t come from fossil fuels, which are to essentially regulated out of use by 2050 per the Trudeau government’s “net zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) plan and proposed Clean Electricity Regulations expected to be enacted by the end of this year. Assuming those frameworks remain in place in coming years, the increased demand for electricity must be met with low- or zero-GHG emitting forms of generation, which include wind power, solar power, hydropower, nuclear power and biomass power generation.

But Ontario already faces a stiff challenge in replacing existing fossil fuel electricity generation with renewables, even before all this new EV/AI-driven demand. In 2021, IESO released a study assessing the impacts of phasing out natural gas generation by 2030. It found that natural gas generation “provides a level of flexibility to respond to changing system needs that would be impossible to replace in the span of just eight years [the province’s current goal].”

The IESO also noted that natural gas power generation in Ontario provides almost three-quarters of the system’s ability to respond quickly to changes in demand. And that the proposed alternate energy technologies are not ready for widespread implementation: “Newer forms of supply, such as energy storage, are not ready to operate at the scale that would be needed to compensate; nor is there enough time or resources to build the necessary generation and transmission infrastructure to replace gas generation within an eight-year timeframe.”

In other words, meeting Ontario’s growing electricity demand by 2030 with low- and no-GHG emitting technologies—without raising electricity prices or destabilizing the grid—will be challenging to say the least.

In light of projected increased electricity demand from AI and EVs (not to mention newer technologies that AI might spawn), the Ontario government should demand relief from the Trudeau government’s forthcoming Clean Electricity Regulations. Without such relief, Ontario might not be able to meet future electricity demand, which would stifle not only the future EV market and the AI revolution, but all other electricity-consuming industries, costing Ontario a great deal of potential economic growth and the prosperity that accompanies it.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Ottawa’s emissions policies will impose huge costs on Albertans

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Elmira Aliakbari

The path Trudeau is forcing us down leads to a much poorer economy (completely cratering Canada’s energy industry while making everything more expensive) and negative environmental benefit (that’s right, it’s worse as developing nations use the energy that’s cheapest). So maybe it’s time to scrap the tax.

The federal NDP recently ended its support for the consumer carbon tax citing its significant cost to everyday Canadians. But Canada’s costly climate change policies extend beyond the carbon tax. Indeed, the Trudeau government has introduced numerous policies in an attempt to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which impose major costs on Albertans.

The consumer carbon tax is perhaps the most widely known GHG reduction policy, which places a price on carbon (currently at $80 per tonne) and is set to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030. However, the Trudeau government has also imposed other regulations and mandates, including clean fuel regulations, electric vehicle mandates, the phase-out of coal-based electrical generation and building efficiency mandates.

The costs? According to a recent study, these GHG policies will shrink the Alberta economy (as measured by GDP) by an estimated 6.0 per cent by 2030. And employment in the province is expected to decline by 0.9 per cent. To put these figures into perspective, a 6.0 per cent contraction in 2024 would have shrunk the provincial economy by $27.7 billion, while a 0.9 per cent decrease in employment would have meant a loss of approximately 22,837 jobs (based on data for August 2024).

While these policies are expected to reduce GHG emissions, they fall short of meeting the government’s national GHG reduction targets. As a result, further economic pain will be required if the federal government implements additional measures to further reduce GHGs emissions.

These findings echo other studies that measure the effects of various climate change policies. According to a report by Deloitte, for instance, Trudeau’s policy to cap GHG emissions in the oil and gas sector (to 35 to 38 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030) will lead to less investment, nearly 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in economic output (i.e. GDP) among the provinces by 2040. Unsurprisingly, Alberta is projected to be the hardest hit province.

And here’s the kicker—these huge economic costs come with little to no actual environmental benefit. Even if Canada shut down its entire oil and gas sector by 2030, thus eliminating all GHG emissions from the sector, the resulting reduction would equal four-tenths of 1 per cent of global emissions, which would have an undetectable impact on the climate. Meanwhile, as demand for fossil fuels continues to increase, constraining oil and gas production and exports in Canada merely shifts production to other countries, which have lower environmental and human rights standards such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela.

The Trudeau government’s climate change regulations are imposing huge costs on Albertans with little to no actual environmental benefit. While support for some of these policies—particularly the consumer carbon tax—is waning, federal policymakers should seriously rethink numerous other regulations.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

EXCLUSIVE: GOP Lawmakers Press Biden-Harris Admin Over Alleged Cover-Up Behind Major Fossil Fuel Crackdown

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation 

 

By Nick Pope

Forty-five GOP lawmakers are demanding answers from the Department of Energy (DOE) after a government watchdog group accused the agency of covering up a key study that would have interfered with one of the Biden-Harris administration’s most aggressive crackdowns on fossil fuels.

The lawmakers wrote to Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Thursday to address a watchdog’s allegations that her agency conducted or drafted — and then quietly buried — a study on the emissions impacts of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports in 2023 before pausing approvals for certain LNG export terminals in January on the grounds that the agency needed to conduct such a review. Government Accountability and Oversight (GAO), the watchdog making the allegations, is suing the agency under public records law to obtain the thousands of pages DOE concedes may fit GAO’s specific request searching for the 2023 study that the agency allegedly buried because it was producing politically inconvenient conclusions, as first reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“The Biden-Harris Administration’s attempt to conceal its findings on liquefied natural gas impacts is troubling. Despite evidence that U.S. LNG benefits both the economy and global energy security, the Department of Energy has imposed an indefinite ban on LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries without legal justification,” Republican Texas Rep. August Pfluger, one of the letter’s signatories, said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “The lack of transparency from DOE on existing studies, as well as the motivation behind the ongoing study, is unacceptable. The American people deserve accountability on the decision-making process surrounding our energy future.”

DOE Letter re: LNG studies, GAO accusations by Nick Pope on Scribd

If GAO’s allegations are ultimately substantiated, the Biden-Harris administration effectively misled the public in an election year to set up a policy that hurts American geopolitical interests and disincentivizes investment in major energy projects. However, the deep-pocketed environmentalist lobby aligning with Democrats in the 2024 election cycle celebrated the policy.

The lawmakers’ letter specifically asks Granholm to clarify whether the agency conducted any analysis of LNG exports’ emissions impacts before the Jan. 26 announcement of the freeze on approvals for LNG export terminals seeking to ship gas to non-free trade agreement (FTA) countries. The legislators also asked Granholm to detail whether top DOE officials or White House personnel ever received updates about such an analysis, even if preliminary, in the first ten months of 2023, as well as whether the agency still intends to publish its findings in January 2025.

“DOE is in receipt of this letter and is reviewing it,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement shared with the DCNF. “DOE’s process to update the analyses that informs its review of applications to authorize exports of US natural gas to non-free trade agreement countries is well underway. When the updated analyses are ready, we will publish them for the public to review and provide comment.”

The lawmakers gave Granholm until Nov. 8 to respond to their inquiry. Republican Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Dan Crenshaw of Texas, Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Lance Gooden of Texas and Buddy Carter of Georgia joined Pfluger as signatories, among others.

Notably, the House Oversight and Accountability Committee sent its own letter to Granholm on Wednesday demanding answers about the same exact issue.

Continue Reading

Trending

X