Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Canadian Energy Companies Look South For Growth

Published

1 year ago

7 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Heather Exner-Pirot

Enbridge’s announcement in September that it was acquiring three U.S.-based utilities for USD$14 billion saw Canada’s largest energy company also become North America’s largest gas utility. The deal is significant not only on its own merits, but as part of a bigger trend: Canadian energy companies that are looking for growth prospects are finding them south of the border.

The trend is not new. In 2016, Canadian utilities went on an American shopping spree. Fortis acquired ITC for USD$11.3 billion; Ontario-based Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp acquired Missouri-based Empire District Electric Company for USD$2.4 billion; and Nova Scotia-based Emera acquired Florida-based TECO in a USD$10.4 billion deal.

Pipelines were in the mix too, with TC Energy acquiring Columbia Pipeline Group, a gas transmission network, that year for USD$13 billion.

In 2017, Hydro One purchased U.S. power supplier Avista for USD $3.4 billion, and AltaGas took over WGL Holdings (which supplies natural gas to the White House) for USD $4.6 billion. More recently, TriSummit acquired the Alaska gas distribution, transmission, and storage assets of SEMCO Energy for US$800 million in March.

As such, the Enbridge utility megadeal can be seen less as a harbinger and more of a culmination.

What is behind this Canadian appetite for American utilities and pipelines? At one level, it is a response to the inherent limitations of the Canadian utilities sector, which is heavily regulated and often provincially owned. Add in Ottawa’s torrent of climate policies aiming to cut growth in Canadian oil and gas, and pastures look greener elsewhere.

But it also speaks to the confidence the sector’s biggest players have in the long term prospects for natural gas. The Dominion deal adjusts Enbridge’s earnings from a 60-40 mix between crude oil & liquids, and natural gas & renewable energy respectively, to something closer to a 50-50 split. Enbridge, like many energy companies, is betting on natural gas being a bridge fuel in the energy transition rather than being phased out. And whatever fuel mix we use in the future, it will require pipelines and distribution, whether in the form of natural gas, renewable natural gas (RNG), hydrogen or otherwise.

“…it also speaks to the confidence the sector’s biggest players have in the long term prospects for natural gas.”

Two phenomena are worth emphasizing here. The first is that the United States is seen as a jurisdiction for growth; Canada, not so much. Our biggest energy companies are expanding to the south, but the reverse is not true. Enbridge and TC Energy are leading the way, but Cenovus, Cameco, Hydro-Québec and others are also making moves, on top of the long list of utilities above.

This is not just anecdotal. According to the U.S. State Department,1 Canadian foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States was about 26% higher than their reciprocal FDI in 2022, or USD$528 billion compared to their USD$406 billion. This is part of a broader trend that has been worsening since 2014. In that year, Canadian investment abroad was only about CAD$100 billion more than foreign investment in Canada. By 2022 the imbalance had grown to a whopping CAD$725 billion.2 Canadian companies are generating wealth; they are just generating a smaller proportion of it at home.

The second is that the Canadian and American energy markets are highly interdependent, and growing more so. In fact, 2022 saw record energy trade between our two countries, reaching USD$190 billion, almost triple what it was in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic, and beating the last high water mark of USD$178 billion in 2008. From natural gas and liquids pipelines to refineries and electricity grids, fundamentally we have a single North American energy system.

As such, we should be developing and coordinating energy and climate policy much more closely. It is inefficient, not to mention painful for the energy sector, when Canada and the United States – and many provinces and states on top of that – propose substantially different standards, goals, and regulations.  Energy is an area that needs closer policy collaboration and alignment between our two nations in order to achieve sustainability, reliability and affordability of supply.

This need is manifesting itself in a growing Canadian presence in the US capital. In the past year or so, TC Energy has established a policy team in Washington DC, and Cenovus and the Business Council of Canada have opened up offices there (as has my own think tank, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute). As entreaties to Ottawa fall on deaf ears, businesses are looking for reception elsewhere.

The Canadian energy sector is betting big on natural gas, be it through retail, pipeline transportation or LNG exports. Where possible, it’s betting on Canada too. But the United States and other markets are where growth is on offer.

We should all celebrate the success of Canadian companies abroad. But we should be creating a policy and business environment that allows them to grow in our own back yard too.

Heather Exner-Pirot is the Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Before Post

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Business / 44 mins ago

California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline

Business / 2 hours ago

Trump orders 10% baseline tariff on imports, closes de minimis loophole

Catherine Herridge / 2 hours ago

FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report

Business

California planning to double film tax credits amid industry decline

Published on April 3, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By Kenneth Schrupp

California legislators have unveiled a bill to follow through with the governor’s plan of more than doubling the state’s film and TV production tax credits to $750 million.

The state’s own analysis warns it’s likely the refundable production credits generate only 20 to 50 cents of state revenue for every dollar the state spends, and the increase could stoke a “race to the bottom” among the 38 states that now have such programs.

Industry insiders say the state’s high production costs are to blame for much of the exodus, and experts say the cost of housing is responsible for a significant share of the higher costs.

The bill creates a special carve-out for shooting in Los Angeles, where productions would be able to claim refundable credits for 35% of the cost of production.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his proposal last year and highlighted his goal of expanding the program at an industry event last week.

“California is the entertainment capital of the world – and we’re committed to ensuring we stay that way,” said Newsom. “Fashion and film go hand in hand, helping to express characters, capture eras in time and reflect cultural movements.”

With most states now offering production credits, economic analysis suggests these programs now produce state revenue well below the cost of the credits themselves.

“A recent study from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation found that each $1 of Program 2.0 credit results in $1.07 in new state and local government revenue. This finding, however, is significantly overstated due to the study’s use of implausible assumptions,” wrote the state’s analysts in a 2023 report. “Most importantly, the study assumes that no productions receiving tax credits would have filmed here in the absence of the credit.”

“This is out of line with economic research discussed above which suggests tax credits influence location decisions of only a portion of recipients,” continued the state analysis. “Two studies that better reflect this research finding suggest that each $1 of film credit results in $0.20 to $0.50 of state revenues.”

“Parks and Recreation” stars Rob Lowe and Adam Scott recently shared on Lowe’s podcast how costs are so high their show likely would have been shot in Europe instead.

“It’s cheaper to bring 100 American people to Ireland than to walk across the lot at Fox past the sound stages and do it and do it there,” said Lowe.

“Do you think if we shot ‘Parks’ right now, we would be in Budapest?” asked Scott, who now stars in “Severance.”

“100%,” replied Lowe. “All those other places are offering 40% — forty percent — and then on top of that there’s other stuff that they do, and then that’s not even talking about the union stuff. That’s just tax economics of it all.”

“It’s criminal what California and LA have let happen. It’s criminal,” continued Lowe. “Everybody should be fired.”

According to the Public Policy Institute of California, housing is the single largest expense for California households.

“Across the income spectrum, 35–44% of household expenditures go to covering rent, mortgages, utilities and home maintenance,” wrote PPIC.

The cost of housing due to supply constraints now makes it nearly impossible for creatives to get their start in LA, said M. Nolan Gray, legislative director at housing regulatory reform organization California YIMBY.

“Hollywood depends on Los Angeles being the place where anybody can show up, take a big risk, and pursue their dreams, and that only works if you have a lot of affordable apartments,” said Gray to The Center Square. “We’ve built a Los Angeles where you have to be fabulously wealthy to have stable and decent housing, and as a result a lot of folks either are not coming, or those who are coming need to paid quite a bit higher to make it worth it, and it’s destroying one of California’s most important industries.”

“Anybody who arrived in Hollywood before the 2010s, their story is always, ‘Yeah, I showed up in LA, and I lived in a really, really  dirt-cheap apartment with like $10 in my pocket.’ That just doesn’t exist anymore,” continued Gray. “Does the Walt Disney of 2025 not take the train from Kansas City to LA? Almost certainly not. If he goes anywhere, he goes to Atlanta.”

Continue Reading

Business

Trump orders 10% baseline tariff on imports, closes de minimis loophole

Published on April 2, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By 

Reciprocal tariffs higher on many nations

President Donald Trump on Wednesday put the biggest piece of his new trade policy in effect by signing executive orders that place a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and much higher rates on nations that put taxes on U.S. products.

It could be the opening salvo in a global trade war, or, as Trump sees it, the beginning of a “Golden Age” for U.S. trade.

Trump also closed the small value packages loophole that allowed China to avoid taxes on packages valued at less than $800. Companies such as Temu and Shein used the loophole to ship billions of dollars worth of products directly to U.S. consumers and avoid paying the tax, as The Center Square previously reported.

President Trump speaks about tariffs at a Make America Wealthy Again event
White House

Trump’s moves on Wednesday, which he termed “Liberation Day” for U.S. trade, marked the most significant shift in U.S. trade policy since the end of World War II.

In a speech from the White House’s Rose Garden, Trump said foreign nations for decades have stolen American jobs, factories and industries. He said the tariffs would bring in new jobs, factories and industries and return the U.S. to a manufacturing superpower.

“Our country and its taxpayers have been ripped off for more than 50 years,” Trump said. “But it is not going to happen anymore.”

Trump’s supporters praised the trade overhaul. U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said it was time for foreign nations to pay up.

“If you want to do business in America, you need to play by our rules,” she said. “For too long, American businesses, big and small, have been ripped off by bad trade deals and unfair competition. President Trump is putting a stop to it. He’s standing up for our workers, our companies and our consumers.”

Critics slammed Trump’s trade plans.

“Donald Trump may want to call this ‘Liberation Day,’ but there is nothing liberating for working families who are grappling with the high costs of food, housing, and utilities,” said Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat. “Tariffs are a tax. They are a tax on working families, a tax on groceries, and a tax on other everyday necessities.”

Other countries planned their own responses. The European Union plans to retaliate with its own measures.

“Europe has not started this confrontation,” EU boss Ursula von der Leyen said in a speech. “We do not necessarily want to retaliate but, if it is necessary, we have a strong plan to retaliate and we will use it.”

She said tariffs are taxes “paid by the people.”

“But Europe has everything to protect our people and our prosperity,” she wrote on X. “We will always promote & defend our interests and values. And we will always stand up for Europe.”

China, the world’s second-largest economy, said Monday that it was planning to coordinate its response to U.S. tariffs with Japan and South Korea.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said Tuesday that he was willing to fly to the U.S. to meet with Trump to get an exemption for Japanese vehicle makers. He also said the government will take steps to minimize the impact of U.S. tariffs on Japanese industries and jobs.

Trump will impose a 10% tariff on all countries that will take effect April 5, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. EDT. Trump will impose an individualized reciprocal tariff on the countries with which the United States has the largest trade deficits, including China, India and Vietnam, among others. All other countries will continue to be subject to the 10% tariff baseline, according to the White House.

“These tariffs will remain in effect until such a time as President Trump determines that the threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying nonreciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated,” according to a White House fact sheet.

Trump’s executive order also gives him authority to increase the tariffs

“if trading partners retaliate” or “decrease the tariffs if trading partners take significant steps to remedy non-reciprocal trade arrangements and align with the United States on economic and national security matters,” according to the White House.

“Foreign cheaters have stolen our jobs, ransacked our factories and foreign scavengers have torn apart our once beautiful American dream,” Trump said in the Rose Garden.

For China, the tariff rate will be about 34% on imports from the world’s most populous nation. For European Union countries, it will be 20%. For Japan, the duty will be 24%. Imports from India will get a 26% tariff. Cambodia will get hit with a 49% tariff, among the highest Trump outlined on Wednesday.

For months, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has warned that tariffs could increase costs for U.S. consumers and hurt businesses. Neil Bradley, the chamber’s chief policy officer, said businesses large and small don’t want tariffs.

“What we have heard from business of all sizes, across all industries, from around the country is that these broad tariffs are a tax increase that will raise prices for American consumers and hurt the economy,” he said.

Last week, Trump announced a 25% tariff on imported automobiles and auto parts, duties that he said would be “permanent.” The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue.

Trump said he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two. Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.

Continue Reading

Trending

X