Energy
When Vancouver reverses ban on natural gas appliances, it’s time to talk about energy choices
From EnergyNow.ca
By Stewart Muir of Resource Works
More News and Views From Resource Works Here
The Practicality of Energy Choice in Vancouver
Vancouver’s decision to reverse the ban on natural gas appliances in new homes should serve as the beginning of a necessary conversation about energy system choices
In a city like Vancouver, where the mountains meet the sea and the urban skyline reflects both our history and our aspirations, policy decisions are often a reflection of our values. Yet, sometimes, even the best intentions can lead us down a perilous path. The recent decision by the City of Vancouver to restore freedom of choice for heating water and space in our homes, reversing an earlier ban on natural gas, is a move I support.
Housing affordability was a major deciding factor, but to me this turn of events – one the nation is watching – also marks a step away from a simplistic and potentially regressive approach to climate action, one that could have stymied our efforts to decarbonize in a meaningful way.
Let me be clear: climate change is real, and the need to reduce emissions is urgent. However, the original gas ban, while well-intentioned, was not the answer. Banning natural gas from our homes might have seemed like a bold move, but it ignored the nuances of our energy system and the challenges we face in transitioning to a low-carbon future.
The gas ban was a decision that felt good for those deeply concerned about climate action; a personal stand against fossil fuels. But feelings alone do not build resilient energy systems, nor do they account for the complex interplay of technologies and fuels that will be necessary to achieve our climate goals. Natural gas, particularly when blended with renewable gases like hydrogen, can and should play a role in our energy future. The idea of banning it outright was akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Consider this: hydrogen, a zero-emissions fuel, is already the focus of enormous national and international investment. Canada is positioning itself as a leader in hydrogen production and technology, recognizing its potential to decarbonize sectors that are otherwise difficult to electrify. Banning natural gas infrastructure would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to integrate hydrogen into our energy mix when the technology matures.
Similarly, renewable natural gas, produced from organic waste, relies on the very distribution networks that a gas ban would have dismantled. The infrastructure for delivering gas to our homes is not a relic of the past but a vital component of our future energy system, one that could deliver clean, low-carbon fuels to millions of Canadians.
Let’s not forget the practical realities of energy demand. Suppose gas was revoked as an option for homes in Canada; the energy required to replace it would necessitate the entirety of our current solar and wind capacity several times over. This is not hyperbole—it’s a fact. And it doesn’t even account for the intermittency of these renewable sources, which means they cannot be relied upon to meet demand at all times.
In British Columbia, we’re already seeing the strain on our electricity system. We’ve become net importers of electricity, a situation that underscores the limits of our current infrastructure. As demand continues to rise—for electric vehicles, air conditioning, and the energy-hungry applications of artificial intelligence—our grid is buckling under the pressure. Tens of billions of dollars in upgrades are required, and these projects will take years to complete. Meanwhile, our neighboring provinces and states are facing similar challenges, leading to a regional energy crunch.
This diagram of Canada’s energy system provides, under close examination, a sober realization of how things work:
There is a lot to take in here, showing as it does the sources of all the energy in Canadian life (on the left) and how they flow into particular uses (right).
In grey shading on the right, the box labelled “Rejected Energy” represents energy that goes to waste. It is a staggering five times the amount of all types of energy used in our homes. I can understand that this area of high potential is hard to create excitement about. Nonetheless, it is a real source of ongoing progress, represented by ever more efficient ways of using fuels and upgrading equipment, and we aren’t talking about it.
Energy experts understand that banning a single type of energy without considering the broader system is not just imprudent; it’s dangerous. It could lead to shortages, higher costs, and ultimately, a failure to achieve our climate goals. Yet, I also recognize the appeal of actions that seem to offer immediate, tangible results. There’s a strong emotional pull in taking control of what happens in our own homes, in feeling like we’re doing our part.
This is why I’m calling for more energy education and diverse conversations that are constructive, respectful, and grounded in reality. We need to move beyond the tired narrative of “faceless corporations” versus the environment. The truth is, the people in both policy and industry are striving for the same outcome: a world with lower emissions and better outcomes for all.
The City of Vancouver’s decision to reverse the gas ban is a wise one, but it should be just the beginning. I urge the city to initiate a robust process of energy education, one that equips residents with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their energy use. And as a resident of this city, I am more than willing to take part in this vital conversation.
Our future depends on it.
Stewart Muir is the Founder and CEO of Resource Works.
Energy
What does a Trump presidency means for Canadian energy?
From Resource Works
Heather-Exner Pirot of the Business Council of Canada and the Macdonald-Laurier Institute spoke with Resource Works about the transition to Donald Trump’s energy policy, hopes for Keystone XL’s revival, EVs, and more.
Do you think it is accurate to say that Trump’s energy policy will be the complete opposite of Joe Biden’s? Or will it be more nuanced than that?
It’s more nuanced than that. US oil and gas production did grow under Biden, as it did under Obama. It’s actually at record levels right now. The US is producing the most oil and gas per day that any nation has ever produced in the history of the world.
That said, the federal government in the US has imposed relatively little control over production. In the absence of restrictive emissions and climate policies that we have in Canada, most of the oil production decisions have been made based on market forces. With prices where they’re at currently, there’s not a lot of shareholder appetite to grow that significantly.
The few areas you can expect change: leasing more federal lands and off shore areas for oil and gas development; rescinding the pause in LNG export permits; eliminating the new methane fee; and removing Biden’s ambitious vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which would subsequently maintain gas demand.
I would say on nuclear energy, there won’t be a reversal, as that file has earned bipartisan support. If anything, a Trump Admin would push regulators to approve SMRs models and projects faster. They want more of all kinds of energy.
Is Keystone XL a dead letter, or is there enough planning and infrastructure still in-place to restart that project?
I haven’t heard any appetite in the private sector to restart that in the short term. I know Alberta is pushing it. I do think it makes sense for North American energy security – energy dominance, as the Trump Admin calls – and I believe there is a market for more Canadian oil in the USA; it makes economic sense. But it’s still looked at as too politically risky for investors.
To have it move forward I think you would need some government support to derisk it. A TMX model, even. And clear evidence of social license and bipartisan support so it can survive the next election on both sides of the border.
Frankly, Northern Gateway is the better project for Canada to restart, under a Conservative government.
Keystone XL was cancelled by Biden prior to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Do you think that the reshoring/friendshoring of the energy supply is a far bigger priority now?
It absolutely is a bigger priority. But it’s also a smaller threat. You need to appreciate that North America has become much more energy independent and secure than it has ever been. Both US and Canada are producing at record levels. Combined, we now produce more than the Middle East (41 million boe/d vs 38 million boe/d). And Canada has taken a growing share of US imports (now 60%) even as their import levels have declined.
But there are two risks on the horizon: the first is that oil is a non renewable resource and the US is expected to reach a peak in shale oil production in the next few years. No one wants to go back to the days when OPEC + had dominant market power. I think there will be a lot of demand for Canadian oil to fill the gap left by any decline in US oil production. And Norway’s production is expected to peak imminently as well.
The second is the need from our allies for LNG. Europe is still dependent on Russia for natural gas, energy demand is growing in Asia, and high industrial energy costs are weighing on both. More and cheaper LNG from North America is highly important for the energy security of our allies, and thus the western alliance as it faces a challenge from Russia, China and Iran.
Canada has little choice but to follow the US lead on many issues such as EVs and tariffs on China. Regarding energy policy, does Canada’s relative strength in the oil and gas sector give it a stronger hand when it comes to having an independent energy policy?
I don’t think we want an independent energy policy. I would argue we both benefit from alignment and interdependence. And we’ve built up that interdependence on the infrastructure side over decades: pipelines, refineries, transmission, everything.
That interdependence gives us a stronger hand in other areas of the economy. Any tariffs on Canadian energy would absolutely not be in American’s interests in terms of their energy dominance agenda. Trump wants to drop energy costs, not hike them.
I think we can leverage tariff exemptions in energy to other sectors, such as manufacturing, which is more vulnerable. But you have to make the case for why that makes sense for US, not just Canada. And that’s because we need as much industrial capacity in the west as we can muster to counter China and Russia. America First is fine, but this is not the time for America Alone.
Do you see provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan being more on-side with the US than the federal government when it comes to energy?
Of course. The North American capital that is threatening their economic interests is not Washington DC; it’s Ottawa.
I think you are seeing some recognition – much belated and fast on the heels of an emissions cap that could shut in over 2 million boe of production! – that what makes Canada important to the United States and in the world is our oil and gas and uranium and critical minerals and agricultural products.
We’ve spent almost a decade constraining those sectors. There is no doubt a Trump Admin will be complicated, but at the very least it’s clarified how important those sectors are to our soft and hard power.
It’s not too late for Canada to flex its muscles on the world stage and use its resources to advance our national interests, and our allies’ interests. In fact, it’s absolutely critical that we do so.
Energy
What Will Be the Future of the Keystone XL Pipeline Under President Trump?
From EnergyNow.ca
By Terry Winnitoy, EnergyNow
The Keystone XL Pipeline, proposed in 2008, was designed to transport Canadian crude oil from Alberta to refineries in the United States, specifically to Steele City, Nebraska, and onward to refineries in Illinois and Texas, as well as to an oil pipeline distribution center in Cushing, Oklahoma.
Spanning approximately 1,179 miles and designed to transport up to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the pipeline promised significant economic and energy security benefits. However, it became a focal point of political and environmental controversy, leading to its eventual cancellation by Presidents Obama and Biden.
Here’s a brief look at its history, the reasons it should have been built, the political dynamics that led to its cancellation and will President-elect Trump revive it?
Why the Keystone XL Pipeline Should Have Been Built
Economic and Job Creation
The pipeline was projected to create thousands of construction jobs and several hundred permanent jobs, providing a significant boost to the economy. It was also expected to stimulate economic activity through the development of related infrastructure and services.
Energy Security
By facilitating the efficient transport of a large volume of oil from a stable and friendly neighboring country, the pipeline would have reduced American dependence on oil imports from more volatile regions, enhancing national energy security.
Environmental Safety
Pipelines are generally safer and more environmentally friendly for transporting oil compared to rail or truck, with lower risks of spills and accidents. The Keystone XL was designed with the latest technology to minimize leaks and environmental impact.
Regulatory Oversight
The project underwent extensive environmental reviews and was subject to strict regulatory standards to ensure it adhered to environmental protection and safety measures.
Political Reasons for Cancellation
Environmental Activism
The pipeline became a symbol for environmentalists who opposed further development of fossil fuel infrastructure. They argued it would contribute to climate change by enabling the extraction and consumption of oil sands, which are more carbon-intensive than other oil sources.
Obama’s Cancellation
President Obama rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing environmental concerns and its potential impact on global climate change. He argued that approving the pipeline would have undercut America’s leadership on climate change.
Trump’s Reversal and Biden’s Final Cancellation
President Trump revived the project in 2017, citing economic benefits and energy security. However, President Biden canceled it again on his first day in office in 2021, fulfilling a campaign promise to prioritize climate change issues and transition towards renewable energy.
Political Symbolism
For both Obama and Biden, the decision to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline was also a symbolic gesture, demonstrating a commitment to environmental sustainability and a shift away from fossil fuel dependence in line with their administrations’ climate policies.
Will President-Elect Trump Reinstate It?
Currently, there is no definitive answer on whether President-elect Trump will reinstate the Keystone XL Pipeline. His previous administration showed support for the project, citing its potential economic and energy security benefits. However, reinstating the pipeline would require navigating significant political, legal, and environmental challenges that have developed over the years.
It would also depend on the current geopolitical, economic, and environmental priorities at the time of his taking office. The Keystone XL Pipeline’s history is a complex tapestry of economic aspirations, environmental concerns, and political maneuvers.
Its cancellation has been a contentious issue, reflecting the broader national and global debates over energy policy and climate change strategy. Whether it will be reinstated remains a significant question, contingent on a multitude of factors including political will, environmental policies, and market dynamics.
That all said, re-instating its approval might be the perfect “in your face” moment for Trump to Obama and Biden as he begins his second term of presidency. We’ll have to wait and see.
-
Business2 days ago
Carbon tax bureaucracy costs taxpayers $800 million
-
Alberta1 day ago
Province considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel1 day ago
Green Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Alberta24 hours ago
Early Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
Business2 days ago
From ‘brilliant’ to ‘aghast’: Reactions to RFK Jr.’s nomination for HHS secretary run the gamut
-
MAiD2 days ago
Over 40% of people euthanized in Ontario lived in poorest parts of the province: government data
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Addictions1 day ago
BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies