Energy
Next federal government should close widening gap between Canadian and U.S. energy policy

From the Fraser Institute
After accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
At a recent energy conference in Houston, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration will end the Biden administration’s “irrational, quasi-religious policies on climate change that imposed endless sacrifices on our citizens.” He added that “Natural gas is responsible for 43 per cent of U.S. electricity production,” and beyond the obvious scale and cost problems, there’s “simply no physical way that wind, solar and batteries could replace the myriad uses of natural gas.”
In other words, as a federal election looms, once again the United States is diverging from Canada when it comes to energy policy.
Indeed, wind power is particularly unattractive to Wright because of its “incredibly high prices,” “incredibly huge investment” and “large footprint on the local communities,” which make it unattractive to people living nearby. Globally, Wright observes, “Natural gas currently supplies 25 per cent of raw energy globally, before it is converted into electricity or some other use. Wind and solar only supply about 3 per cent.”
And he’s right. Renewables are likely unable, physically or economically, to replace natural gas power production to meet current or future needs for affordable, abundant and reliable energy.
In a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, for example, we observed that meeting Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 using only wind power (with natural gas discouraged under current Canadian climate policies) would require the construction of approximately 575 wind-power installations, each the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupré wind farm, over 25 years. However, with a construction timeline of two years per project, this would equate to 1,150 construction years. This would also require more than one million hectares of land—an area nearly 14.5 times the size of Calgary.
Solar power did not fare much better. According to the study, to meet Canada’s predicted electricity demand through 2050 with solar-power generation would require the construction of 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a two-year construction time per facility, this adds up to 1,680 construction years to accomplish.
And at what cost? While proponents often claim that wind and solar sources are cheaper than fossil fuels, they ignore the costs of maintaining backup power to counter the unreliability of wind and solar power generation. A recent study published in Energy, a peer-reviewed energy and engineering journal, found that—after accounting for backup, energy storage and associated indirect costs—estimated solar power costs skyrocket from US$36 per megawatt hour (MWh) to as high as US$1,548, and wind generation costs increase from US$40 to up to US$504 per MWh.
The outlook for Canada’s switch to renewables is also dire. TD Bank estimated that replacing existing gas generators with renewables (such as solar and wind) in Ontario could increase average electricity costs by 20 per cent by 2035 (compared to 2021 costs). In Alberta, electricity prices would increase by up to 66 per cent by 2035 compared to a scenario without changes.
Under Canada’s current greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime, natural gas is heavily disfavoured as a potential fuel for electricity production. The Trudeau government’s Clean Electricity Regulations (CER) would begin curtailing the use of natural gas beginning in 2035, leading largely to a cessation of natural gas power generation by 2050. Under CER and Ottawa’s “net-zero 2050” GHG emission framework, Canada will be wedded to a quixotic mission to displace affordable reliable natural gas power-generation with expensive unreliable renewables that are likely unable to meet expected future electricity demand.
With a federal election looming, Canada’s policymakers should pay attention to new U.S. energy policy on natural gas, and pull back from our headlong rush into renewable power. To avoid calamity, the next federal government should scrap the Trudeau-era CER and reconsider the entire “net-zero 2050” agenda.
Energy
OPEC Delivers Masterful Rebuke To Global Energy Agency Head

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By
Some readers will remember the infamous May 2021 report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) titled ‘Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.’ The report projected a roadmap for transforming the world’s $300 trillion oil-and-coal-based energy system into one that runs on unreliable, intermittent alternatives like wind and solar.
Most educated observers viewed the report as a piece of propaganda coming from an agency then in the process of transforming itself from a historically reliable source of real data and analysis into just another advocate for the climate alarm narrative. It surprised no one when, just a few years later, Fatih Birol, head of the IEA, publicly boasted about that exact transformation as being the agency’s overt mission now.
One passage in the report’s set of recommendations immediately caught everyone’s eye due to its boldness and transparent illogic. That passage says, “There is no need for investment in new fossil fuel supply in our net zero pathway.”
To reinforce this stunningly absurd notion, Birol, in an interview published by the Guardian upon the study’s release, insisted that, ”If governments are serious about the climate crisis, there can be no new investments in oil, gas and coal, from now – from this year.”
It was a moment when the formerly respected agency shed a great deal of its credibility.
Making matters worse for Birol and IEA, barely a month later a spokesperson for the IEA urged OPEC to “open the spigots” to raise oil production to meet rising global demand that was outstripping the agency’s forecasts as the world recovered from the COVID-19 insanity. Three months after that, Wood MacKenzie, Rystad, and Moody’s had all issued studies directly contradicting IEA’s absurd assessment, and Birol was joining former President Joe Biden in calling for U.S. oil producers to drill more wells and produce more oil.
This sort of ill-advised posturing and self-contradiction is what happens when a scholarly enterprise consciously lurches into advocacy.
At this past week’s CERAWeek conference in Houston, Birol contradicted himself one more time, telling attendees, “I want to make it clear … there would be a need for investment, especially to address the decline in the existing fields. There is a need for oil and gas upstream investments, full stop.”
This latest impulse to respond to the next new thing surely surprised no one. But it was a bridge too far for officials at OPEC to sit by and absorb silently. In a March 13 statement posted on the OPEC website, the cartel reviewed Birol’s and IEA’s recent history of inconsistency and urged Birol to take a step back and consider the impacts it has had and will continue to have on investments for the future.
“Aside from the risk of whiplash that such severe yo-yoing between positions could cause, a serious point needs to be stressed,” OPEC writes. “The world needs unambiguous clarity on the realities of the future of supply and demand. Agencies that recognize the responsibility that comes from offering analysis of the long-term perspectives of the industry should not be shifting positions or mixing messages and narratives every couple of years on this matter, particularly ones that were founded to ensure the security of oil supplies.”
Oof. Blunt, but true. It is a dressing down that is well-deserved and long overdue.
Does Birol’s latest shift signal a recognition that the energy transition for which it has advocated has failed? It’s hard to know.
Regardless, once an agency like IEA makes a public decision to transform itself away from sterile analysis into the realm of advocacy, going back will be hard. Aside from the loss of credibility, which has only increased as Birol has lurched from one position to another and back again, such a transformation completely shifts the organization’s culture. Going back now will require time and a great deal of organizational pain.
Here, another obvious question arises: Is Fatih Birol the right person for this job? It is a question that should have arisen before the loss of so much credibility and trust. For the 32 member countries who subscribe to the agency and pay its bills, there is no time like the present to determine the answer.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Energy
Trump asserts energy dominance, set to meet oil titans amid trade war

MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Donald Trump is taking decisive action to strengthen America’s energy sector, set to meet with top oil executives next week at the White House. The 47th president, who has prioritized energy independence and economic growth, is working to expand domestic oil and gas production while countering foreign market pressures and trade challenges. Industry leaders recognize Trump’s commitment to unleashing U.S. energy dominance, a stark contrast to the regulatory stranglehold of the Biden years.
Key Details:
-
Trump’s upcoming meeting with oil and gas leaders will be his first major sit-down with the industry since his second inauguration, reinforcing his commitment to energy independence.
-
The president’s policies have already slashed regulations and boosted U.S. energy production, but industry leaders seek further collaboration to ensure continued growth.
-
While some executives have voiced concerns over crude price fluctuations, Trump remains focused on lowering energy costs for American consumers while keeping the industry thriving.
Diving Deeper:
President Trump has long championed American energy as the backbone of economic prosperity and national security. Unlike his predecessor, who waged a war on fossil fuels in favor of radical climate policies, Trump has embraced U.S. oil and gas, calling it “liquid gold” and positioning it as a cornerstone of his administration’s economic agenda.
The meeting, set to include top oil executives and members of the American Petroleum Institute, will focus on advancing U.S. energy production. Trump’s newly formed National Energy Dominance Council, led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, will also play a key role in shaping policy discussions.
Industry leaders like Harold Hamm of Continental Resources and Kelcy Warren of Energy Transfer LP, both of whom backed Trump’s 2024 campaign, recognize the president’s unwavering support for the oil and gas sector. Trump’s administration has already implemented critical reforms to streamline permitting, cut bureaucratic red tape, and expand drilling opportunities—moves that starkly contrast with the Biden administration’s hostility toward domestic production.
Despite global economic factors influencing oil prices—such as increased OPEC+ output and weak Chinese demand—Trump’s policies have laid the groundwork for sustained industry success. While some executives argue that crude prices must remain above $80 per barrel for optimal production, Trump’s focus remains on ensuring affordable energy for American families and businesses.
Trade policy has also been a point of discussion, with some in the industry concerned about Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, which are critical for drilling operations. However, Trump has consistently prioritized fair trade and American manufacturing, refusing to allow foreign competitors to undermine U.S. industry. Unlike the Biden administration, which caved to globalist interests, Trump is leveraging tariffs as a tool to strengthen domestic production.
Bethany Williams, spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, emphasized Trump’s impact: “President Trump’s energy agenda has set our nation on a path toward energy dominance. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss how American oil and natural gas are driving economic growth, strengthening our national security, and supporting consumers with the president and his team.”
As Trump continues to roll back Biden-era climate mandates and prioritize U.S. energy independence, his administration is making clear that American oil and gas will once again lead the global market. With the full backing of industry leaders, Trump is proving that energy dominance isn’t just a slogan—it’s a reality under his leadership.
-
Business2 days ago
Brookfield’s Deep Ties to Chinese Land, Loans, and Green Deals—And a Real Estate Tycoon With CCP Links—Raise Questions as Carney Takes Over from Trudeau
-
Alberta1 day ago
Highway twinning from Sylvan Lake to Rocky Mountain House among dozens of infrastructure projects beginning in Alberta
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta power outages and higher costs on the way with new federal electricity regulations, AESO says
-
Energy1 day ago
Trump asserts energy dominance, set to meet oil titans amid trade war
-
National1 day ago
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre reacts to new PM and Federal Cabinet
-
Canadian Energy Centre2 days ago
Experts urge caution with Canadian energy in response to Trump tariffs
-
International19 hours ago
‘Lot Of Nonsense’: Kari Lake Announces Voice Of America Is Dumping Legacy Outlets
-
Business1 day ago
Vice President Vance expects framework of TikTok deal by April 5