Connect with us

Energy

Resource Works Margareta Dovgal on B.C. Climate Policies, and Their Implications

Published

8 minute read

From EnergyNow.ca

By Margareta Dovgal

In the midst of a memorable polar cold snap in January, British Columbia faced a stark reality that should serve as a valuable lesson for climate activists and policymakers alike. As Stewart Muir, the founder of our organization, aptly pointed out at the time, “When it’s cold like now, BC gets two thirds of its energy for heating, etc., from natural gas. Promises to ditch the fuel by 2030, 2035, 2050, are political theatre to be taken with a large scoop of road salt.”

The deep freeze eventually thawed, but it left behind a lingering question about the feasibility of ambitious climate policies in a province heavily reliant on natural gas for its energy needs. The provincial government responded with a proposal to ban conventional gas equipment in new residential, commercial, and institutional buildings by 2030. This move would not only prohibit the sale and installation of gas water heaters but also impose restrictions on new gas furnaces and boilers, permitting them only as part of a hybrid dual-fuel system that integrates electric or gas heat pumps with conventional gas combustion appliances.

While the government embarked on consultations with natural gas contractors, First Nations, and other stakeholders, the public sentiment was reflected in a Castanet news service poll in the Okanagan region. The poll asked, “Should BC ban the use of conventional natural gas for home heating as of 2030?” The results were strikingly clear:

  • No: 12,460 (91%)
  • Yes: 725 (5.3%)
  • Unsure: 501 (3.7%)

However, the proposal to shift away from natural gas raised concerns about BC’s electricity infrastructure. During the cold snap, the province had to import 15% of its electricity, and when Alberta faced even colder temperatures, BC had to step in and send power across the border. Contractors like Al Russell of Prince George questioned the province’s ability to meet increased electricity demands, especially with the limitations of existing infrastructure.

Russell pointed out the need for significant upgrades to the electricity grid, including more and larger transmission lines and transformers. The pressing question remained: “Where are we getting this power from and how are we getting it there? When does this expansion start, and how much will it cost?”

These concerns are not unique to BC. A recent report from the Public Policy Forum emphasized that to achieve its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, Canada must invest heavily in expanding its electricity generation capacity. This ambitious undertaking comes with a potentially significant cost, with the report envisioning a landscape filled with new dams, turbines, nuclear plants, and solar panels.

Even though BC’s BC Hydro once maintained that no additional power generation was needed, the province now anticipates a shift from a surplus to a deficit of power by 2030, even with the Site C power dam set to be operational by 2025. Consequently, BC Hydro plans to seek new clean and renewable energy sources through a competitive process, inviting power providers to contribute to the province’s energy needs.

Premier David Eby has also announced a significant update to Hydro’s 10-year capital plan, earmarking nearly $36 billion for community and regional infrastructure projects by 2034. However, building new transmission lines in the past has proven to be a lengthy process, taking anywhere from eight to ten years. Eby himself acknowledged that such delays were unacceptable.

Chair of the Energy Futures Initiative, Barry Penner, highlighted the findings of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which forecasted increased energy risks for BC in 2026 due to rising demand and the retirement of natural-gas-fired generation.

All these developments transpire as BC advances its CleanBC policy and program. Yet, the BC Business Council voiced concerns about the economic implications, stating that the provincial government’s policies could potentially shrink BC’s economy by $28 billion by 2030, setting prosperity back more than a decade.

The cold snap served as a reminder that the impact of these policies goes beyond mere comfort or convenience. In northern climates like BC’s, extreme cold can pose significant hazards to human health, wellness, and survivability. It also underscores the importance of stable and secure infrastructure, especially with the risk of water pipes bursting during freezing temperatures.

As BC strives to replace some natural gas services with electricity, affordability becomes a pressing concern. There are three key aspects to consider:

  1. Capital and Operating Costs: Transitioning to electricity comes with increased costs compared to running natural gas systems.
  2. Heat Pump Installation: Installing heat pumps adds to the financial burden.
  3. Housing and Rent Costs: The ripple effect of increased costs may result in higher housing and rent expenses, exacerbating affordability challenges in the region.

An editorial from The Orca labeled BC’s natural gas plan as ‘all hot air,’ expressing concerns about making new homes more expensive to build and live in, especially during a housing crisis.

The climate policies in BC carry significant implications, not only for the affordability of living in the province but also for its economic growth and stability. These policies have the potential to impact the types of jobs available, their associated wages, and the province’s global competitiveness.

The net outcome of these policies could determine the fate of industries deeply rooted in BC’s history. If these industries can no longer thrive due to regulatory changes, it may have far-reaching consequences for the well-being of the province’s residents.

As BC navigates this complex landscape, there is an opportunity for the provincial government to engage with and consider the concerns of the public. With an election year on the horizon, the public should continue to ask questions, seek clarity, and actively participate in shaping the future of their province.


Margareta Dovgal is Managing Director of Resource Works. Based in Vancouver, she holds a Master of Public Administration in Energy, Technology and Climate Policy from University College London. Beyond her regular advocacy on natural resources, environment, and economic policy, Margareta also leads our annual Indigenous Partnerships Success Showcase. She can be found on Twitter and LinkedIn.

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

2025 Federal Election

Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Poilievre will create the ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor to rapidly approve & build the infrastructure we need to end our energy dependence on America so we can stand up to Trump from a position of strength.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre announced today he will create a ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor to fast-track approvals for transmission lines, railways, pipelines, and other critical infrastructure across Canada in a pre-approved transport corridor entirely within Canada, transporting our resources within Canada and to the world while bypassing the United States. It will bring billions of dollars of new investment into Canada’s economy, create powerful paycheques for Canadian workers, and restore our economic independence.

“After the Lost Liberal decade, Canada is poorer, weaker, and more dependent on the United States than ever before,” said Poilievre. “My ‘Canada First National Energy Corridor’ will enable us to quickly build the infrastructure we need to strengthen our country so we can stand on our own two feet and stand up to the Americans.”

In the corridor, all levels of government will provide legally binding commitments to approve projects. This means investors will no longer face the endless regulatory limbo that has made Canadians poorer.  First Nations will be involved from the outset, ensuring that economic benefits flow directly to them and that their approval is secured before any money is spent.

Between 2015 and 2020, Canada cancelled 16 major energy projects, resulting in a $176 billion hit to our economy. The Liberals killed the Energy East pipeline and passed Bill C-69, the “No-New-Pipelines” law, which makes it all but impossible to build the pipelines and energy infrastructure we need to strengthen the Canadian economy. And now, the PBO projects that the ‘Carney cap’ on Canadian energy will reduce oil and gas production by nearly 5%, slash GDP by $20.5 billion annually, and eliminate 54,400 full-time jobs by 2032. An average mine opening lead time is now nearly 18 years—23% longer than Australia and 38% longer than the US. As a result of the Lost Liberal Decade, Canada now ranks 23rd in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index for 2024, a seven-place drop since 2015.

“In 2024, Canada exported 98% of its crude oil to the United States. This leaves us too dependent on the Americans,” said Poilievre. “Our Canada First National Energy Corridor will get us out from under America’s thumb and enable us to build the infrastructure we need to sell our natural resources to new markets, bring home jobs and dollars, and make us sovereign and self-reliant to stand up to Trump from a position of strength.”

Mark Carney’s economic advice to Justin Trudeau made Canada weaker while he and his rich friends made out like bandits. While he advised Trudeau to cancel Canadian energy projects, his own company spent billions on pipelines in South America and the Middle East. And unlike our competitors Australia and America, which work with builders to get projects approved, Mark Carney and Steven Guilbeault’s radical “keep-it-in-the-ground” ideology has blocked development, killed jobs, and left Canada dependent on foreign imports.

“The choice is clear: a fourth Liberal term that will keep our resources in the ground and keep us weak and vulnerable to Trump’s threats, or a strong new Conservative government that will approve projects, build an economic fortress, bring jobs and dollars home, and put Canada First—For a Change.”

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Cover up of a Department of Energy Study Might Be The Biggest Stain On Biden Admin’s Legacy

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

News broke last week that the Biden Department of Energy (DOE), led by former Secretary Jennifer Granholm, was so dedicated to the Biden White House’s efforts to damage the dynamic U.S. LNG export industry that it resorted to covering up a 2023 DOE study which found that growth in exports provide net benefits to the environment and economy.

“The Energy Department has learned that former Secretary Granholm and the Biden White House intentionally buried a lot of data and released a skewed study to discredit the benefits of American LNG,” one DOE source told Nick Pope of the Daily Caller News Foundation.. “[T]he administration intentionally deceived the American public to advance an agenda that harmed American energy security, the environment and American lives.”

And “deceived” is the best word to describe what happened here. When the White House issued an order signed by the administration’s very busy autopen to invoke what was supposed to be a temporary “pause” in permitting of LNG infrastructure, it was done at the behest of far-left climate czar John Podesta, with Granholm’s full buy-in. As I’ve cataloged here in past stories, this cynical “pause” was based on the flimsiest possible rationale, and the “science” supposedly underlying it was easily debunked and fell completely apart over time.

But the ploy moved ahead anyway, with Granholm and her DOE staff ordered to conduct their own study related to the advisability of allowing further growth of the domestic LNG industry. We know now that study already existed but hadn’t reached the hoped-for conclusions.

The two unfounded fears at hand were concerns that rising exports of U.S. LNG would a) cause domestic prices to rise for consumers, and b) would result in higher emissions than alternative energy sources. As the Wall Street Journal notes, a draft of that 2023 study “shows that increased U.S. LNG exports would have negligible effects on domestic prices while modestly reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. The latter is largely because U.S. LNG exports would displace coal in power production and gas exports from other countries such as Russia.”

An energy secretary and climate advisor interested in seeking truth based on science would have made that 2023 study public, and the “pause” would have been a short-lived, temporary thing. Instead, the Biden officials decided to try to bury this inconvenient truth, causing the “pause” to endure right through the final day of the Biden regime with a clear intention of turning it into permanent policy had Kamala Harris and her “summer of joy” campaign managed to prevail on Nov. 5.

Fortunately for the country, voters chose more wisely, and President Trump included ending this deceitful “pause” exercise as part of his Day One agenda. No autopen was involved.

So, the thing is resolved in favor of truth and common sense now, but it is important to understand exactly what was at stake here, exactly how important an industry these Biden officials were trying to freeze in place.

In an interview on Fox News Monday, current Energy Secretary Chris Wright did just that, pointing out that, fifteen years ago, America was “the largest importer of natural gas in the world. Today, we’re the largest exporter.”

He went onto add that, “the Biden administration put a pause on LNG exports 14 months ago, January of 2024, sending a message to the world that maybe the US isn’t going to continue to grow our exports. Think of the extra leverage that gives Russia, the extra fear that gives the Europeans or the Asians that are dying for more American energy.”

Then, Wright supplied the kicker: “They did this in spite of their own study that showed increasing LNG exports would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and have a negligible impact on price.” It was an effort, Wright concludes, to kill what he says is “America’s greatest energy advantage.”

This incident is a stain on the Biden administration and its senior leaders. The stain becomes more indelible when we remember that, when asked by Speaker Mike Johnson why he had signed that order, Joe Biden himself had no memory of doing so, telling Johnson, “I didn’t do that.”

Sadly, we know now there’s a good chance Mr. Biden was telling the speaker the truth. But someone did it, and it’s a travesty.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Trending

X