Government policies diminish Alberta in eyes of investors

Canada’s economy has stagnated, with a “mild to moderate” recession expected this year. Alberta can help Canada through this economic growth crisis by reaping the benefits of a strong commodity market. But for this to happen, the federal and provincial governments must eliminate damaging policies that make Alberta a less attractive place to invest.

Every year, the Fraser Institute surveys senior executives in the oil and gas industry to determine what jurisdictions in Canada and the United States are attractive—or unattractive—to investment based on policy factors. According to the latest results, red tape and high taxes are dampening the investment climate in the province’s energy sector.

Consider the difference between Alberta and two large U.S. energy jurisdictions—Wyoming and Texas. According to the survey, oil and gas investors are particularly wary of environmental regulations in Alberta with 50 per cent of survey respondents indicating that “stability, consistency and timeliness of environmental regulatory process” scared away investment compared to 14 per cent in Wyoming and only 11 per cent in Texas.

Investors also suggest that the U.S. regulatory environment offers greater certainty and predictability compared to Alberta. For example, 42 per cent of respondents indicated that “uncertainty regarding the administration, interpretation, stability, or enforcement of existing regulations” is a deterrent to investment in Alberta, compared to only 9 per cent in Wyoming and 13 per cent in Texas. Similarly, 43 per cent of respondents indicated that the cost of regulatory compliance was a deterrent to investment in Alberta compared to just 9 per cent for Wyoming and 19 per cent for Texas.

And there’s more—41 per cent of respondents for Alberta indicated that taxation deters investment compared to only 21 per cent for Wyoming and 14 per cent for Texas. Overall, Wyoming was more attractive than Alberta in 14 out of 16 policy factors assessed by the survey and Texas was more attractive in 11 out of 16.

Indeed, Canadian provinces are generally less attractive for oil and gas investment compared to U.S. states. This should come as no surprise—Trudeau government policies have created Canada’s poor investment climate. Consider federal Bill C-69, which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects. While this bill was declared unconstitutional, uncertainty remains until new legislation is introduced. During the COP28 conference in Dubai last December, the Trudeau government also announced its draft framework to cap oil and gas sector greenhouse gas emissions, adding uncertainty for investors due to the lack of details. These are just a few of the major regulations imposed on the energy industry in recent years.

As a result of these uncertain and onerous regulations, the energy sector has struggled to complete projects and reach markets overseas. Not surprisingly, capital investment in Alberta’s oil and gas sector plummeted from $58.1 billion (in 2014) to $26.0 billion in 2023.

The oil and gas sector is one of the country’s largest industries with a major influence on economic growth. Alberta can play a key role in helping Canada overcome the current economic challenges but the federal and provincial governments must pay attention to investor concerns and establish a more competitive regulatory and fiscal environment to facilitate investment in the province’s energy sector—for the benefit of all Canadians.

Authors:

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Tegan Hill

Associate Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #JulioMejía #OilAndGasInvestment #OilAndGasPolicies #TeganHill canadianenergy

Up Next

Yes, B.C.’s Land Act changes give First Nations veto over use of Crown Land

Don't Miss

Taxpayer watchdog slams Trudeau gov’t for increasing debt ceiling: ‘Put down the credit card’

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

“Modernization,” They Call It: How Ottawa Redefined Fraud as Progress

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Calgary’s High Property Taxes Run Counter to the ‘Alberta Advantage’

Digital ID / 10 hours ago

Thousands protest UK government’s plans to introduce mandatory digital IDs

Carbon Tax

Back Door Carbon Tax: Goal Of Climate Lawfare Movement To Drive Up Price Of Energy

Published on October 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

The energy sector has long been a lightning rod for policy battles, but few moments crystallize the tension between environmental activism and economic reality quite like David Bookbinder’s recent admission. A veteran litigator who’s spent years spearheading lawsuits against major oil companies on behalf of Colorado municipalities — including Boulder — Bookbinder let the cat out of the bag during a recent Federalist Society panel.

In an all-too-rare acknowledgement of the lawfare campaign’s real goal, Bookbinder admitted that he views the lawsuits mainly as a proxy for a carbon tax. In other words, the winning or losing of any of the cases is irrelevant; in Bookbinder’s view, the process becomes the punishment as companies and ultimately consumers pay the price for using oil and gas and the industry’s refined products.

“Tort liability is an indirect carbon tax,” Bookbinder stated plainly. “You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable. The oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products … The people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products. … [This is] somewhat of a convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

The cynicism is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

On one hand, the fact that winning is irrelevant to the plaintiff firms who bring the cases has become obvious over the last two years as case after case has been dismissed by judges in at least ten separate jurisdictions. The fact that almost every case has been dismissed on the same legal grounds only serves to illustrate that reality.

Bookbinder’s frank admission lands with particular force at a pivotal juncture. In late September, the Department of Justice, along with 26 state attorneys general and more than 100 members of Congress, urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in one of the few remaining active cases in this lawfare effort, in Boulder, Colorado.

Their briefs contend that allowing these suits to proceed unchecked would “upend the constitutional balance” between federal and state authority, potentially “bankrupt[ing] the U.S. energy sector” by empowering local courts to override national energy policy.

For the companies named in the suits, these cases represent not just a tiresome form of legal Kabuki Theater, but a financial and time sink that cuts profits and inhibits capital investments in more productive enterprises. You know, like producing oil and gas to meet America’s ravenous energy needs in an age of explosive artificial intelligence growth.

“I’d prefer an actual carbon tax, but if we can’t get one of those, and I don’t think anyone on this panel would [dis]agree Congress is likely to take on climate change anytime soon—so this is a rather convoluted way to achieve the goals of a carbon tax,” Bookbinder elaborated in his panel discussion.

John Yoo, the eminent UC Berkeley law professor and former Bush-era official, didn’t hold back in his analysis for National Review. He described the lawfare campaign as a “backdoor” assault on the energy industry, circumventing the federal government’s established role in environmental regulation.

“There are a variety of cities and states that don’t agree with the federal government, and they would like to see the energy companies taxed,” Yoo explained. “Some of them probably like to see them go out of business. Since they can’t persuade through the normal political process of elections and legislation like the rest of the country, they’re using this back door,” he added.

What we see in action here is the fact that, although the climate alarm industry that is largely funded by an array of dark money NGOs and billionaire foundations finds itself on the defensive amid the aggressive policy actions of the Trump 47 administration, it is far from dead. Like the Democrat party in which they play an integral role, the alarmists are fighting the battle in their last bastion of power: The courts.

As long as there are city and county officials willing to play the role of plaintiffs in this long running Kabuki dance, and a Supreme Court unwilling to intercede, no one should doubt that this stealth carbon tax lawfare effort will keep marching right along.

Energy

Minus Forty and the Myth of Easy Energy

Published on October 20, 2025

Todayville

By Stewart Muir

It’s not about ideology at forty degrees below zero. It’s about survival

When the thermometer plunges to forty below, ideology no longer matters. Survival does.

That lesson was driven home in January 2024, when a brutal cold snap swept across America’s Pacific Northwest and western Canada. For four days, the region’s interconnected energy system teetered on the brink of collapse. Power lines snapped, gas pipelines strained, and four states of emergency were declared. In Portland, a falling power line killed three people and injured a baby.

This was no ordinary winter storm. It quickly became known as the January 2024 Event – a capital-letter crisis that planners are still analyzing nearly two years later. As recently as August 2025, experts continued to hold panels to ask the same question: how did the grid survive? Their verdict is grim.

Hydropower, long the Northwest’s reliable backup, faltered. Wind turbines stood still as the winds died at exactly the wrong time. Solar panels offered little under heavy gray skies. Natural gas supplied about two-thirds of the energy as furnaces worked around the clock – but even gas has limits.

The Real Problem: Capacity, Not Cold

Here’s the twist: post-event analysis shows the real problem wasn’t the cold. It was demand growth colliding with a system stripped of firm capacity. The cold snap may not have been unprecedented, but the risks were, BC Hydro’s Powerex reported.

They also warned that fashionable fixes like batteries and pumped hydro aren’t the cavalry many hope for. These technologies can even worsen shortages by competing for scarce electricity when it’s needed most. One Alberta utility estimated it would take a battery bigger than 13 years of the world’s entire EV battery output to cover its customers’ electricity needs for those few days.

Meanwhile, the renewables lobby was left scrambling for answers. Investigations by ProPublica and Oregon Public Broadcasting highlighted the obvious: Oregon and Washington had set “100% green” targets without solving the transmission bottlenecks needed to deliver that power. Instead of addressing the flaw, advocates doubled down, calling for more wind, more solar, more batteries without any credible plan for the impossibly large quantities required.

And so, in the depths of that frigid January, reality intruded. Gas-fired generation carried the essential load. Imports were pulled in. Utilities called for conservation, and households responded. System operators dug deep, showing remarkable resilience under pressure. Heroic efforts kept the lights on. But it should never have come to that.

The lesson is not that renewables are bad or that we should cling to the past. It is that energy policy must begin with humility. Weather is unpredictable. In a cross-border region of 26 million people, demand is also growing much faster than once forecast.

A Wake-Up Call Ignored

When lives are on the line, nothing replaces firm, dispatchable power. A balanced system – yes, with more renewables, but anchored by natural gas and supported by robust transmission – is essential. Pretending we can run an advanced economy on press releases and hope is how ideology masquerades as policy, and how families end up shivering in the dark.

The January 2024 event should have been a wake-up call. Yet too many leaders remain captivated by slogans and blind to physics. The grid doesn’t read legislation. It doesn’t listen to speeches. It responds only to supply, demand, and the weather. And when the weather turns deadly, the reckoning is swift.

Dreamers will keep promising a painless transition. British Columbia, for example, is shutting down domestic gas generation in what’s branded a “pivot” to renewables – even as the province ships its first LNG cargoes to a world hungry for reliable gas. At the same time, the explosive growth of data centres driven by artificial intelligence has experts agog at what this means for an already strained system.

Eighteen months after the event, the people we expect to have answers are still asking questions.

Questions Still Unanswered

Here’s one more: is our energy system’s fragility the result of wishful thinking colliding with reality? To many experts, the answer seems obvious.

At minus forty, there is no spin, no ideology—only survival.

If Canada and the Northwest want to avoid a repeat of January 2024, the path is clear: double down on reliability, build the neglected transmission, and keep firm power in the system. Because the next deep freeze—or heat wave—will not wait for us to get our politics straight.