Connect with us

Energy

Federal government’s ’carbon-free’ electricity target far-fetched

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jock Finlayson and Tegan Hill

recent report by the Canada West Foundation, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, found that all 25 were still stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process.

Did you know that the Trudeau government wants to “decarbonize” Canada’s electricity generation by 2035? That is, make carbon-free sources (e.g. wind, hydro and solar) the sole power source for electricity generation in Canada.

Is this possible? No.

As of 2023 (the latest year of available data), nearly 81 per cent of Canada’s electricity came from carbon-free sources. To replace the remaining 19 per cent that relies on fossil fuels over the next 10 years, Canada would need to add a massive amount of generation capacity.

Specifically, we would need approximately 23 new large hydroelectric dams similar in size to British Columbia’s Site C project. Of course, due to regulatory hurdles and approval processes, it takes a long time to plan and construct major electricity generation facilities in Canada. The Site C project took approximately 43 years (from initial feasibility and planning studies in 1971) to secure environmental certification in 2014. Construction finally began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015 with completion expected in 2025—at a cost of at least $16 billion.

Alternatively, we would need more than two large scale nuclear power plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Power, which took nearly two decades to complete with billions of dollars in cost overruns.

Or we’d need approximately 11,000 new large wind turbines, which would require clearing approximately 7,302 square kilometres of land (that’s larger than Prince Edward Island and nearly nine times larger than Calgary). The new turbines would also require substantial investments in backup power systems due to the wind’s intermittency, which of course would further drive-up costs across the electricity system.

And remember, as Canada’s population grows, electricity demand will increase significantly. The infrastructure mentioned above would only decarbonize Canada’s current electricity needs, without accounting for the additional capacity required to meet future demand.

And yet, despite its aggressive plan to decarbonize, the Trudeau government in 2019 introduced the Impact Assessment Act (IAA)—also known as Bill C-69—which added layers of uncertainty and complexity to project reviews. A recent report by the Canada West Foundation, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, found that all 25 were still stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process.

In other words, while Ottawa’s electricity decarbonization plan requires an unprecedented wave of new energy projects, the government’s own regulatory regime will make it harder for new projects to get off the ground.

The total costs of the federal government’s plan are incalculable. But we do know who will get hurt the most. Three provinces—Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia—depend most heavily on fossil fuels to generate electricity. In Alberta, approximately 85 per cent of electricity comes from fossil fuels, mainly natural gas, while carbon-free sources generate only 15 per cent. Clearly, Alberta and these other provinces will face the greatest challenges—and heaviest burdens—in decarbonizing their grids.

In light of the basic realities of project construction timelines, regulatory hurdles and the massive financial investment required, the Trudeau government’s target to achieve 100 per cent fossil fuel-free electricity by 2035 is far-fetched. But the costs of pursuing that target will be very real and felt by all Canadians, with the size of the costs depending largely on where you live.

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

Energy

Straits of Mackinac Tunnel for Line 5 Pipeline to get “accelerated review”: US Army Corps of Engineers

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

The Army Corps of Engineers on Tuesday announced an accelerated review of a Michigan pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac following President Donald Trump’s declaration of a “national energy emergency” on day one of his second term.

Enbridge’s Line 5 oil pipeline is among 600 projects to receive an emergency designation following Trump’s January executive order declaring a national energy emergency and expediting reviews of pending energy projects. The action instructed the Army Corps to use emergency authority under the Clean Water Act to speed up pipeline construction.

“An energy supply situation which would result in an unacceptable hazard to life, a significant loss of property, or an immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic hardship,” if not acted upon quickly, the public notice reads.

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order as (L-R) U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum look on in the Oval Office of the White House on April 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a signed executive order as (L-R) U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum look on in the Oval Office of the White House on April 09, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“Line 5 is critical energy infrastructure,” Calgary-based Enbridge wrote to the DCNF. The company noted that it submitted its permit applications to state and federal regulators five years ago and described the project as “designed to make a safe pipeline safer while also ensuring the continued safe, secure, and affordable delivery of essential energy to the Great Lakes region.”

Army Corps’ Detroit District did not respond to the DCNF’s request for a copy of the notice or for comment.

The pipeline has been active since 1953 and extends for 645 miles across the state of Michigan, according to the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy website. Line 5 supplies 65% of the propane needs in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 55% of the state’s overall propane demand, according to Enbridge.

Environmental organizations, Native American tribes and Democratic leadership have opposed the project due to concern regarding the risk of an oil spill in the Great Lakes. Enbridge and the Army Corps argue that the tunnel is a necessary addition to the long-standing pipeline. (RELATED: ‘Taking Away Local Control’: Whitmer Signs Massive Green Energy Mandate Into Law)

The project has faced legal trouble and permitting delays that have hindered its expansion. Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2019 used a legal opinion by Attorney General Dana Nessel to argue that the law that created the authority to approve the project “because its provisions go beyond the scope of what was disclosed in its title.”

The State of Michigan greenlit the project in 2021 and the Michigan Public Service Commission approved placing the new pipeline segment in 2023.

Trump has championed an American energy production revival, stating throughout his 2024 campaign that he wanted to “drill, baby, drill,” in reference to oil drilling on U.S. soil.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Trump Executive Orders ensure ‘Beautiful Clean’ Affordable Coal will continue to bolster US energy grid

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By

 

President Trump signed several executive orders Tuesday that will allow coal-fired power plants to stay online past planned retirement dates, identify coal resources on federal lands, and bolster the reliability of the electric grid. The orders may help the U.S. face an uncomfortable truth: wind turbines and solar panels can’t cost-effectively meet the U.S.’ growing electricity needs.

Coal provides an important source of the reliable and fuel-secure energy needed to keep the lights on. Our organization’s research shows that it is more affordable than wind and solar, too.

Mr. Trump’s executive orders will allow coal operators the flexibility to delay the premature closures caused in part by President Biden’s policies. May 2024 rule from the Biden Environmental Protection Agency would have forced coal plants to spend billions on unproven technology to capture 90% of their carbon dioxide emissions. If coal plants failed to comply by 2035, they would be forced to shutter by 2039. The Trump EPA has since announced it will reconsider this rule, but the process could take years.

Coal should be allowed to help keep the lights on, especially because U.S. electricity demand is rising. The North American Electric Reliability Council’s 2024 long-term reliability assessment warns that “resource additions are not keeping up with generator retirements and demand growth” in most regions of the U.S. Coal produced 16% of the U.S.’ electricity in 2023, and coal, natural gas and petroleum together produced 60%. Nuclear comprised another 18%. It is folly to believe that the U.S. can meet its growing power demands while kneecapping a significant source of its baseload power.

Not only is reliable baseload power a must for the grid, but electricity generated by coal is less expensive than intermittent resources like wind and solar. It’s easy to understand why: the cheapest source of electricity is from plants that have already been built. Most of the U.S.’ coal fleet is like houses where the mortgages have been paid off. With no loans or interest left to repay, operating costs for existing coal plants typically consist of property taxes, insurance, labor, maintenance, and fuel.

Our organization models the full costs of building enough wind, solar, and battery storage to replace coal, natural gas, and nuclear plants. Powering a grid on wind, solar, and batteries is more expensive than coal because connecting wind turbines and solar panels to the grid entails system-wide costs like constructing new transmission lines. The intermittency of wind and solar means you need more power plant capacity to generate the same amount of power. More power plant infrastructure means more property taxes. More weather-dependent resources means more costs to managing the grid, like turning off wind turbines and solar panels when they are producing too much electricity for the grid to absorb — or conversely, ramping up natural gas generation on cloudy and still days when wind and solar aren’t producing.

Our research incorporates system-wide costs and shows that a realistic midpoint estimate for wind turbines is $72 per MWh. Electricity from new solar can range between $50 per MWh to $85 per MWh. Data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shows that the average coal plant generated electricity for only $34 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2020 (the last year of available data). It could be even less expensive for coal plants to generate electricity if states and utilities allowed coal plants to operate more often. In 2024, the coal fleet generated electricity only about 43% of the time. If that approached 80%, costs could go as low as $29.

Keeping America’s “beautiful, clean coal” plants online is the right thing for the country and it is good news for consumers that the U.S. has recognized the electric grid’s reliability hole and decided to stop digging.

Isaac Orr is vice president of research, and Mitch Rolling is the director of research at Always On Energy Research, a nonprofit energy modeling firm.

Continue Reading

Trending

X