Connect with us

Economy

Next federal government should discard harmful energy policies—tariffs notwithstanding

Published

11 hours ago

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets

While the full extent of the damage from President Trump’s trade war remains unknowns, Canadians should understand that, with a federal election looming, shortsighted policies here at home have left Canada in a vulnerable position.

Oil and gas are Canada’s main exports and the U.S. is their primary destination. In 2023, nearly 97 per cent of Canada’s oil exports went to our southern neighbour, and the U.S. is our sole foreign market for our natural gas. This concentration of exports to a single destination has given the U.S. significant leverage. For example, Canada exports natural gas at discounted prices—up to 60 per cent lower than what American producers receive in U.S. markets. Similarly, our oil has been sold for less than what U.S. producers receive, with price differences exceeding 40 per cent in recent years. Selling our energy at discounted prices to the U.S. has cost Canadians tens of billions of dollars in lost revenues.

And yet, over the last decade, the Trudeau government missed countless opportunities to reduce Canada’s heavy reliance on the United States and instead introduced regulatory hurdles that hindered our energy sector and limited access to new markets. To unleash Canada’s oil and gas sector, the next government must reverse a whole set of harmful energy policies.

For example, the Northern Gateway pipeline designed to transport crude oil from Alberta to British Columbia’s coast. In 2016, one year after taking office, the Trudeau government cancelled this previously approved $7.9 billion project, which would have greatly expanded Canada’s access to Asian markets.

Then there’s the Energy East and Eastern Mainline pipelines from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the east coast. The Trudeau government effectively made the project economically unfeasible by introducing new regulatory hurdles, ultimately forcing the TransCanada energy company to withdraw from the project, which would have expanded access to European markets.

The record is equally bleak for liquified natural gas (LNG) export facilities, which could open access to overseas markets. Regulatory barriers and long approval timelines under the Trudeau government significantly hindered the development of the Énergie Saguenay LNG project in Quebec, the Repsol LNG plant in New Brunswick and the Pacific NorthWest LNG facility in B.C.

And when opportunity knocked to diversify our trading partners, the government failed to seize it. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, political leaders from Latvia, Ukraine, Germany, Greece and Poland turned to Canada seeking new LNG supply, but Trudeau insisted there was “no business case for LNG” and missed the chance to open new markets.

Finally, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-69 created massive uncertainty in project reviews and approvals by introducing vague assessment criteria including “gender implications” for major energy projects including pipelines and LNG export facilities. In fact, according to a recent report, which analyzed 25 major projects that entered the federal government’s review process between 2019 and 2023, almost every project submission remained stuck in the early stages (phase 1 or 2) of the four-phase process, underscoring the inefficiency of the review process.

Meanwhile, the Trudeau government’s Bill C-48 restricts Canadian exports to Asia by banning large oil tankers from B.C.’s northern coast. And its targeted emissions cap, which requires only the oil and gas sector to cut greenhouse gases by 35 per cent below 2019 levels by 2030, is designed to curtail energy production, further limiting Canada’s ability to meet global energy demands.

During the upcoming election campaign, Canadians should demand to hear how (or if) each party will remove barriers that hinder the development of energy projects and streamline approvals to unlock Canada’s untapped potential. Tariffs or not, Canada can’t afford to keep undermining its key export sector with regulatory barriers.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

 

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
Alberta / 29 mins ago

Leading proponent of Alberta Independence predicts provincial referendum in 2025

Economy / 38 mins ago

Latest dire predictions about Carney’s emissions cap

Fraser Institute / 4 hours ago

Time to finally change the Canada Health Act for the sake of patients

Economy

Latest dire predictions about Carney’s emissions cap

Published on March 22, 2025

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

According to a new report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO), the federal government’s proposed oil and gas emissions cap will curtail production, cost a not-so-small fortune and kill a lot of jobs. This news will surprise absolutely no one who’s been paying attention to Ottawa’s regulatory crusade against greenhouse gases over the past few years.

To be precise, according to the PBO’s report of March 2025, under the proposed cap, production for upstream industry oil and gas subsectors must be reduced by 4.9 per cent relative to their projected baseline levels out to 2030/32. Further, required reduction in upstream oil and gas sector production levels will lower GDP (inflation-adjusted) in Canada by an estimated 0.39 per cent in 2032 and reduce nominal GDP by $20.5 billion. And achieving the legal upper bound will reduce economy-wide employment in Canada by an estimated 40,300 jobs and fulltime equivalents by 54,400 in 2032.

The federal government is contesting the PBO’s estimates, with Jonathan Wilkinson, federal minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Canada, claiming that the “PBO wasted their time and taxpayer dollars by analyzing a made up scenario.” Of course, one might observe that using “made up scenarios” is what making forecasts of regulatory costs is all about. No one, including the government, has a crystal ball that can show the future.

But the PBO’s projected costs are only the latest analysis. A 2024 report by Deloitte (and commissioned by the federal Treasury Board) found that the proposed “cap results in a significant decline in GDP in Alberta and the Rest of Canada.” The main impacts of the cap are lower oil and gas activity and output, reduced employment, reduce income, lower returns on investment and a higher price of oil.

Consequently, according to the report, by 2040 Alberta’s GDP will be lower by 4.5 per cent and Canada’s GDP will be lower by 1 per cent compared to a no-cap baseline. Cumulatively over the 2030 to 2040 timeline, Deloitte estimated that real GDP in Alberta will be $191 billion lower, and real GDP in the Rest of Canada will be $91 billion lower compared to the no-cap (business as usual) baseline (in 2017 dollars). Employment also took a hit in the Deloitte report, which found the level of employment in 2040 will be lower by 2 per cent in Alberta and 0.5 per cent in the Rest of Canada compared to a no-cap baseline. Alberta will lose an estimated 55,000 jobs on average (35,000 in the Rest of Canada) between 2030 and 2040 under the cap.

Another 2024 report by the Conference Board of Canada estimated that the “oil and gas productions cuts forecasted lead to a one-time, permanent decline in total Canadian real GDP of between 0.9 per cent (most likely outcome) to 1.6 per cent (least likely outcome) relative to the baseline in 2030. This is equivalent to a loss of $22.8 to $40.4 billion (in 2012 dollars)… In Alberta, real GDP would fall by between $16.3 and $28.5 billion—or by 3.8 per cent and 6.7 per cent, respectively.”

Finally, a report by S&P Global Commodity Insights (and commissioned by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) estimated that a “production cut driven by a stringent 40% emission cap could cause $75 billion lower upstream spend and $247 billion lower GDP contribution (vs. a no cap reference case).”

All of these estimates, by respected economic analysis firms, raise serious questions about the government’s own 2024 Regulatory Impact Analysis, which suggested that the proposed regulations will only have incremental impacts on the economy—namely, $3.3 billion (plus administrative costs to industry and the government, estimated to be $219 million). According to the analysis, the “proposed Regulations are expected to result in a net decrease in labour expenditure in the oil and gas sector of about 1.6% relative to the baseline estimate of employment income over the 2030 to 2032 time frame.”

But according to the new PBO report, the costs of the government’s proposed cap on greenhouse gas emission from Canada’s oil and gas sector will be costly and destructive to the sector, it’s primary province (Alberta), and its employees in Alberta and across Canada. All this in the face of likely-resurgent U.S. oil and gas production.

Now that policymakers in Ottawa have seemingly recognized the unpopularity of the consumer carbon tax, a good next step would be to scrap the cap.

Continue Reading

Economy

Welcome to the Era of Energy Realism

Published on March 22, 2025

By

Key figures from JP Morgan’s 2025 Energy Report

From Truth in Energy and Climate 

The Honest Broker Roger Pielke Jr.

Every year for the past 15 years, JP Morgan publishes an outstanding annual energy report by Michael Cembalest. Last week JP Morgan published its 2025 edition and today I share five important figures from the many in the report, which I highly recommend.

Cembalest’s top line:

[A]fter $9 trillion globally over the last decade spent on wind, solar, electric vehicles, energy storage, electrified heat and power grids, the renewable transition is still a linear one; the renewable share of final energy consumption is slowly advancing at 0.3%–0.6% per year.

You can see that in the figure below — my graph using data from the 2024 EI Statistical Review of World Energy — which shows the proportion of global energy consumption from all carbon-free sources. Since 2012, that proportion has increased from about 14% to a bit over 18%. Exactly as Cembaest observes — that increase has been linear. At that rate of change the world would hit 100% carbon-free sometime after 2200.

Let’s take a look at some of the figures I found most interesting in the JP Morgan Report.

Solar Reality Check

“. . . when you boil it all down, solar power accounts for ~2% of global final energy consumption, a figure we expect to reach 4.5% by 2027. Even if these solar trends continue into the 2030’s, human prosperity will be inextricably linked to affordable natural gas and other fossil fuels for many years.

Human prosperity, in places where it thrives, relies heavily on steel, cement, ammonia/fertilizer, plastics, glass, chemicals and other industrial products which are energy- intensive to produce. . . these products currently rely on fossil fuels for 80%-85% of their energy.

And remember, prosperity itself is energy-intensive: among the tightest relationships in economics is the connection between a country’s per capita GDP and its per capita energy consumption.”

I remain very bullish on solar, but it won’t displace much fossil fuels anytime soon.

Electrify Everything is Proceeding Slowly

“Remember this key aspect of the energy transition: until an energy use is electrified, it’s hard to decarbonize it using green grid electrons. And while grid decarbonization is continuing at a steady pace, the US has made little progress increasing the electricity share of final energy consumption for the reasons discussed in last year’s “Electravision” piece. One major obstacle: transmission line growth is stuck in a rut, way below DoE targets for 2030 and 2035. Another obstacle: shortages of transformer equipment, whose delivery times have extended from 4-6 weeks in 2019 to 2-3 years. . . “

The panel on the rgiht above indicates that the U.S. was never going to meet the emissions reduction targets of the Biden Administration — which has been clear for several years now.

“The US is not unique with respect to the slow pace of electrification, although a few countries are making faster progress. Over the last decade China made the largest advance, bringing it in line with the OECD.

Part of the challenge may simply be the long useful lives of existing industrial plants, furnaces, boilers and vehicles. In other words, electrification might accelerate as their useful lives are exhausted. But the high cost of electricity compared to natural gas (particularly in places without a carbon tax) is another impediment to electrification that is not easy to solve since this ratio reflects relative total costs of production and distribution.”

(In order to coerce users, a carbon tax is necessary)

Energy Dependence and Independence

“The US has achieved US energy independence for the first time in 40 years while Europe and China compete for global energy resources. China’s imports are similar to Europe in energy terms but half as much as a share of domestic energy consumption. Energy intensive manufacturing has shifted to the developing world since the mid 1990’s. China is negotiating with Russia and Turkmenistan regarding future gas pipeline projects. China has the benefit of time: China gas imports are projected to reach 250 bcm by 2030 vs 170 bcm in 2023, almost all of which can be met by already contracted supplies. What was Taiwan thinking by shutting down nuclear power which has fallen from 50% to 5% of generation? Taiwan is now one of the most energy dependent countries in the world, resulting in rising economic costs if China were to impose a blockade.”

The Trump administration’s trade war with Canada risks upending North America’s energy dominance. What can they be thinking?

Fossil Fuels Falling and Rising

“Fossil fuel shares of final energy are falling faster in China, Japan and Europe than in the US. Growth in fossil fuel consumption is slowing but no clear sign of a peak on a global basis. Hydraulically fractured oil and gas account for 60%+ of US primary energy consumption. Global LNG export capacity is set to expand by one third by 2030. Coal consumption is roughly flat in final energy terms as rising EM consumption offsets falling OECD consumption.”

US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright spoke at an energy conference in Houston, and his remarks have been transcribed by Robert Bryce. Here is an excerpt:

Let’s do a quick survey of energy access today. Roughly one billion people live lives remotely recognizable to us in this room. We wear fancy clothes, mostly made out of hydrocarbons. We travel in motorized transport. The extra lucky of us fly across the world to attend conferences. We heat our homes in winter, cool them in summer, store myriad foods in our freezers and refrigerators, and have light, communications and entertainment at the flip of a switch.

Pretty awesome.

This lifestyle requires an average of 13 barrels of oil per person per year. What about the other seven billion people? They want what we have. The other seven billion people, on average, consume only three barrels of oil per person per year versus our 13. Africans average less than one barrel.

We need more energy. Lots more energy. That much should be obvious.

Read Wright’s speech alongside Cembalest’s energy analysis — We are at long last in an era of energy realism.

The Honest Broker

THB is reader supported.

Please consider a subscription or an upgrade to support work like that you just read.

Continue Reading

Trending

X