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).
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.
Northern Gateway ($7.9 billion), cancelled in 2016
These projects were cancelled due to regulatory challenges, environmental opposition, and shifting political decisions on both sides of the border. This left Canada without key infrastructure to support energy exports.
For years, companies have tried to build the infrastructure needed to move Canadian oil and gas across the country and to sell to global markets. Billions of dollars have been invested in projects that never materialized, stuck in regulatory limbo, weighed down by delays, or cancelled altogether.
The urgency of this issue is growing.
Last week, 14 CEOs from Canada’s largest pipeline and energy companies issued an open letter urging federal leaders from all parties to streamline regulations and establish energy corridors, warning that delays and policy uncertainty are driving away investment and weakening Canada’s position in global energy markets.
The U.S. recently imposed tariffs on Canadian energy, adding new pressure to an already lopsided trade relationship. According to the 2024-2025 Energy Fact Book from Natural Resources Canada, the U.S. accounted for 89% of Canada’s energy exports by value, totalling $177.3 billion. This leaves the economy vulnerable to shifts in American policy. Expanding access to other buyers, such as Japan, Germany, and Greece, would help stabilize and grow the economy, support jobs, and reduce reliance on a single trading partner.
At the heart of this challenge is infrastructure.
Without reliable, efficient ways to move energy, Canada’s ability to compete is limited. Our existing pipelines run north-south, primarily serving the U.S., but we lack the east-west capacity needed to supply our own country and to diversify exports. Energy corridors (pre-approved routes for major projects) would ensure critical infrastructure is built fast, helping Canada generate revenue from its own resources while lowering costs and attracting investment.
This matters for affordability and reliability.
Our research shows engaged women are paying close attention to how energy policies affect their daily lives — 85 per cent say energy costs impact their standard of living, and 77 per cent support the development and export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to help provide energy security and to generate revenue for Canada.
With increasing concern over household expenses, food prices, and economic uncertainty, energy corridors have become part of the conversation about ensuring long-term prosperity.
What are energy corridors, and why do they matter?
Energy corridors are designated routes for energy infrastructure such as pipelines, power lines, and transmission projects. With an energy corridor, environmental assessments and stakeholder consultations are completed in advance, allowing development to proceed without ongoing regulatory hurdles which can become costly and time consuming. This provides certainty for energy projects, reducing delays, lowering costs, and encouraging investment. They are also not a new concept and are applied in other parts of the world including the U.S.
In Canada, however, this isn’t happening.
Instead, each project must go through an extensive regulatory process, even if similar projects have already been approved. Energy companies spend years trying to secure approvals that don’t come to fruition in a reasonable time and as a result projects are cancelled due to sky-rocketing costs.
“Getting regulatory approval for energy transportation projects in Canada takes so long that investors are increasingly looking elsewhere,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the Montreal Economic Institute. “Energy corridors could help streamline the process and bring back much-needed investment to our energy industry.”
Jackie Forrest, executive director at the ARC Energy Research Institute, pointed out that the time it takes to get projects approved is a major factor in driving investment away from Canada to other countries.
“Projects are taking five or more years to go through their regulatory review process, spending hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars to do things like environmental assessments and studies that sometimes need to be carried out over numerous seasons,” she said.
The cost of missed projects
Over the past decade, multiple major energy projects in Canada have been cancelled or abandoned. Among them:
Keystone XL ($8 billion), cancelled in 2021
Energy East ($15.7 billion), cancelled in 2017
Northern Gateway ($7.9 billion), cancelled in 2016
These projects were cancelled due to regulatory challenges, environmental opposition, and shifting political decisions on both sides of the border. This left Canada without key infrastructure to support energy exports.
LNG projects have faced similar setbacks. More than a dozen LNG export proposals were once on the table, but these same issues made most of these projects not viable.
Meanwhile, the United States rapidly expanded its LNG sector, now exporting far more than Canada, capturing global markets that Canada could have served.
“Ten to 15 years ago, there were about as many LNG projects proposed in Canada as in the U.S.,” said Forrest. “We have not been able to get those projects going. The first Canadian project is just starting up now, while the Americans are already shipping out far more.”
She cited a report that shows LNG development in the U.S. has added $408 billion to GDP since 2016 and created 270,000 direct jobs.
“That’s a major economic impact,” she said. “And Canada hasn’t been able to take part in it.”
The case for energy corridors: Creating prosperity, keeping costs in check
Energy corridors could help Canada build long-term prosperity while addressing affordability, job creation, and energy reliability.
“More efficient infrastructure reduces supply chain delays, helping to lower consumer energy costs and related expenses like food and transportation,” said Wittevrongel.
Wittevrongel notes that projects that cross provincial borders face both provincial and federal impact assessments which leads to duplication of effort and delays. Reducing this overlap would shorten approval timelines and provide more certainty for investors.
“One of the ways to improve this process is having the federal government recognize provincial environmental assessments as being good enough,” she said. “There has to be a way to balance that.”
Forrest said investors have already taken note of Canada’s high project costs and long approval timelines.
“TC Energy just built a pipeline to connect the BC gas fields with the West Coast that cost about twice as much as originally expected and took a lot longer,” she said. “Meanwhile, they recently completed a $4.5-billion natural gas project in Mexico under budget and ahead of schedule. Now they’re looking at where to put their next investment.”
Forrest explained that energy corridors could help de-risk infrastructure projects by front-loading environmental and stakeholder work.
“If we just had a pre-approved corridor for things like pipelines and transmission lines to go through, where a lot of this groundwork had already been done, it would really reduce the timeline to get to construction and reduce the risk,” she said. “That would hopefully get a lot more capital spent more quickly in this country.”
The path forward
Without changes, investment will continue to flow elsewhere.
“Energy corridors can go a long way to restoring Canada’s attractiveness for energy transportation and infrastructure projects as it cuts down on the lengthy bureaucratic requirements,” said Wittevrongel.
And Forrest agrees.
“We need to pick key projects that are going to be important to the sovereignty and economic future of Canada and get them done,” Forrest said. “I don’t think we can wait for long-term legislative reform — we need to look at what the Americans are doing and do something similar here.”
Energy corridors are about ensuring Canada remains competitive, lowering costs for consumers, and creating the infrastructure needed to support long-term economic prosperity.
For engaged women, this translates into a stronger economy, lower costs, and more reliable energy for their families.
“The two areas that this will be felt for every family are in lower energy costs and also in lower grocery or food prices as transportation of these things becomes easier on rail, or exporting grain reduces the price, for instance, ” said Wittevrongel.
Whether policymakers take action remains to be seen, but with growing trade pressures and investment uncertainty, the conversation around energy corridors is needed now more than ever.
A majority of Americans say it is more important for the U.S. to establish energy independence than to fight climate change, according to new polling.
The poll from Napolitan News Service of 1,000 registered voters shows that 57% of voters say making America energy independent is more important than fighting climate change, while 39% feel the opposite and 4% are unsure.
Those surveyed also were asked: Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change, or keeping the price of cars low enough for families to afford them?
Half of voters (50%) said keeping the price of cars low was more important to them than reducing emissions, while 43% said emissions reductions were more important than the price of buying a car.
When asked, “Which is more important, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or reducing the cost and improving the reliability of electricity and gas for American families?”, 59% said reducing the cost and increasing the reliability was more important compared to 35% who said reducing emissions was more important.
The survey was conducted online by pollster Scott Rasmussen on March 18-19. Field work was conducted by RMG Research. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points
Dan McCaleb is the executive editor of The Center Square. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dan at [email protected].
