Natural gas key to withstanding winter and Ottawa’s assault

From the Fraser Institute

Mother Nature has reminded everyone that the stakes in the battle to preserve and expand Alberta’s natural gas power production are very high—basically, life or death.

Last week’s polar vortex drove temperatures into record negative territory across western Canada. Nighttime temperatures in Alberta, for example, reached -51 degrees Celsius at Keg River. Without sufficient power for running the heat on high, these are killing temperatures. Demand for electricity in Alberta soared, pushing the power grid toward potential need for rolling blackouts. Only voluntary cutbacks in electricity use by Albertans allowed the system to avoid curtailment.

What did the grid look like last week?

On Jan. 13, according to one report, natural gas generated 80.5 per cent of power on Alberta’s grid followed by coal (7.9 per cent), biomass (2.9 per cent), hydropower (2.5 per cent), solar power (1.3 per cent) and wind (0.99 per cent). But wind and solar’s low combined output was not the major cause of Alberta’s energy crunch last week—two of Alberta’s natural gas power plants were down for maintenance and not generating what they otherwise would have.

And yet, while gas and coal combined produced nearly 90 per cent of Alberta’s life-saving electricity, these fuels remain in the crosshairs of Ottawa and the Trudeau government’s proposal that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity production in Canada must decline to “net zero” by 2035.

In the battle over the Trudeau government’s plan, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith argues that Ottawa intends to shut down natural-gas power generation, and because alternatives such as wind and solar power are unaffordable, Alberta will be unable to generate sufficient electricity for Albertans. Meanwhile, federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault denies that Ottawa wants to end fossil fuel use and argues that his government’s proposed regulations already allow for natural gas power production, so long as GHG emissions are “mitigated” via carbon capture and storage. Even unmitigated natural gas power would be allowed in emergency situations, according to Guilbeault, who recently accused Premier Smith of “trying to tear Canada down.”

Guilbeault’s argument, however, rests on what he likely knows is a false hope—that carbon capture and storage technology will evolve and be deployed at sufficient speed and capacity to allow Alberta to attain the net-zero emission target by 2035. This is highly unlikely. Carbon capture and storage has many critics including the International Energy Agency (IEA), which recently published a report suggesting that carbon capture and storage is inadequate for capturing carbon dioxide at the scale necessary to reach net-zero emissions by 2035 or beyond. Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, threw cold water on the idea, saying the oil and gas industry must help the “world meet its energy needs and climate goals—which means letting go of the illusion that implausibly large amounts of carbon capture are the solution.”

The potential peril of power outages during a polar vortex shows the importance of ensuring that Alberta has a reliable dispatchable electrical generation capacity able to meet even extreme demand. Wind and solar power, favoured under the Trudeau government’s proposed clean electricity regulations, can’t supply that. Premier Smith is right to bank on natural gas generation for Alberta’s future, and she should stand fast. As remaining coal power plants are closed, natural gas will be the foundation of Alberta’s energy stability and it must be defended.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#ElectricalGrid #FraserInstitute #KennethGreen #NaturalGas

Up Next

Completing Trans Mountain, Indigenous LNG: What to watch in Canadian energy in 2024

Don't Miss

Federal government consistently spends beyond high spending targets

Todayville

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

Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos

Alberta / 4 hours ago

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

International / 5 hours ago

Biden Lied About Everything, Including Nuclear Risk, During Ukraine Operation

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on April 6, 2025

Todayville

David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

Subscribe to The Audit

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:

Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Carbon Tax

The book the carbon taxers don’t want you to read

Published on April 5, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

Prime Minister Mark Carney wrote a 500-page book praising carbon taxes.

Well, I just wrote a book smashing through the government’s carbon tax propaganda.

It tells the inside story of the fight against the carbon tax. And it’s THE book the carbon taxers don’t want you to read.

My book is called Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax.

Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax

Every now and then, the underdog wins one.

And it looks like that’s happening in the fight against the carbon tax.

It’s not over yet, but support for the carbon tax is crumbling. Some politicians vow to scrap it. Others hide behind vague plans to repackage it. But virtually everyone recognizes support for the current carbon tax has collapsed.

It wasn’t always this way.

For about a decade now, powerful politicians, government bureaucrats, academics, media elites and even big business have been pushing carbon taxes on the people.

But most of the time, politicians never asked the people if they supported carbon taxes. In other words, carbon taxes, and the resulting higher gas prices and heating bills, were forced on us.

We were told it was good for us. We were told carbon taxes were inevitable. We were told politicians couldn’t win elections without carbon taxes, even though the politicians that imposed them didn’t openly run on them. We were told that we needed to pay carbon taxes if we wanted to leave a healthy environment for our kids and grandkids. We were told we needed to pay carbon taxes if we wanted to be respected in the international community.

In this decade-long fight, it would have been understandable if the people had given up and given in to these claims. It would have been easier to accept what the elites wanted and just pay the damn bill. But against all odds, ordinary Canadians didn’t give up.

Canadians knew you could care about the environment and oppose carbon taxes. Canadians saw what they were paying at the gas station and on their heating bills, and they knew they were worse off, regardless of how many politicians, bureaucrats, journalists and academics tried to convince them otherwise. Canadians didn’t need advanced degrees in economics, climate science or politics to understand they were being sold a false bill of goods.

Making it more expensive for a mom in Port Hope to get to work, or grandparents in Toronto to pay their heating bill, or a student in Coquitlam to afford food won’t reduce emissions in China, Russia, India or the United States. It just leaves these Canadians, and many like them, with less money to afford everything else.

Ordinary Canadians understood carbon taxes amount to little more than a way for governments to take more money from us and dictate how we should live our lives. Ordinary Canadians also saw through the unfairness of the carbon tax.

Many of the elites pushing the carbon tax—the media, politicians, taxpayer-funded professors, laptop activists and corporate lobbyists—were well off and wouldn’t feel the brunt of carbon taxes. After all, living in a downtown condo and clamouring for higher carbon taxes doesn’t require much gas, diesel or propane.

But running a business, working in a shop, getting kids to soccer and growing food on the farm does. These are the Canadians the political class forgot about when pushing carbon taxes. These are the Canadians who never gave up. These are the Canadians who took time out of their busy lives to sign petitions, organize and attend rallies, share posts on social media, email politicians and hand out bumper stickers.

Because of these Canadians, the carbon tax could soon be swept onto the ash heap of history. I wrote this book for two reasons.

The first is because these ordinary Canadians deserve it. They worked really hard for a really long time against the odds. When all the power brokers in government told them, “Do what we say—or pay,” they didn’t give up. They deserve to know the time and effort they spent fighting the carbon tax mattered. They deserve all the credit.

Thank you for everything you did.

The second reason I wrote this book is so people know the real story of the carbon tax. The carbon tax was bad from the start and we fought it from the start. By reading this book, you will get the real story about the carbon tax, a story you won’t find anywhere else.

This book is important because if the federal Liberals’ carbon tax is killed, the carbon taxers will try to lay blame for their defeat on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. They will try to say that carbon taxes are a good idea, but Trudeau bungled the policy or wasn’t a good enough salesman. They will try to revive the carbon tax and once again make you pay more for gas, groceries, and home heating.

Just like with any failed five-year plan, there is a lingering whiff among the laptop class and the taxpayer-funded desk rulers that this was all a communication problem, that the ideal carbon tax hasn’t been tried yet. I can smell it outside my office building in Ottawa, where I write these words. We can’t let those embers smoulder and start a fire again.

This book shows why the carbon tax is and always will be bad policy for ordinary Canadians.

Franco’s note: You can pre-order a copy of my new book, Axing the Tax: The Rise and Fall of Canada’s Carbon Tax, here: https://www.amazon.ca/Axing-Tax-Rise-Canadas-Carbon