Alberta
The Most Expensive Campaign Promise Ever – Explainer
This article was submitted by Peter McCaffrey, President 0f the Alberta Institute
Over the coming weeks, I’ll be analyzing some of the big policy announcements that the major parties in the Alberta election make.
So, today, we’re going to kick things off with a look at an issue that made headlines yesterday – electricity policy.
I know, I can almost see your eyes glaze over through your webcam, but bear with me – this is important!
Last March, Justin Trudeau announced the release of the federal government’s “2030 Emissions Reduction Plan: Canada’s Next Steps for Clean Air and a Strong Economy”.
Who could be opposed to Clean Air and a Strong Economy, right?
The devil, as always, was in the details and, in this case, the details are called the “Clean Electricity Regulations”.
The federal government has been talking for some time about “transitioning” Canada’s entire electricity sector to being “net-zero” (ie: no net carbon emissions) by 2050.
The “Clean Electricity Regulations”, though, are the federal government’s plan to speed up this transition and require the provinces to have net-zero electricity grids by 2035 instead.
Now, for some provinces, that won’t actually be too challenging, as they already generate the vast majority of their electricity from Hydro.
But for Alberta (and Saskatchewan), it will be practically impossible – and insanely expensive.
That hasn’t stopped Rachel Notley and the NDP from promising to follow the federal government’s lead and do it, though.
So, let’s take a deep dive into exactly why this policy could be so harmful to Alberta.
First, in Alberta, about 85% of electricity on the commercial market comes from non-renewable resources.
That means that, in order to achieve net-zero here, we’d have to rebuild almost literally the entirety of our electricity market in the next 12 years.
If that sounds expensive to you – you’d be right!
In July 2020, when the federal government first started floating this idea, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) wrote a report that calculated that transitioning Alberta to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 would cost $52 billion in additional capital investments and generation operating costs.
Yes, you read that right – $52 billion.
And, to be clear, that $52 billion isn’t the entire price of transitioning to net-zero – that would be much more – the $52 billion is just the extra price of doing it faster, by 2035 instead of 2050!
Next, fast forward to yesterday, and a new report was been released that assesses those direct capital and infrastructure costs calculated by AESO, and works out what the additional indirect economic harm to Alberta would be of being forced to make this rapid transition.
This new report was written by a group called Navius, who are traditionally seen as a left-leaning environmental economic research group, and even they say that the indirect impacts to Alberta’s economy will be enormous – $35 billion – and that’s before they even account for inflation.
So, now, thanks to these two reports, we know exactly what the federal government’s 2035 net-zero electricity grid plan will cost Alberta.
$52 billion in direct costs to upgrade and build infrastructure, plus at least $35 billion in indirect economic costs, for a total of at least $87 billion.
And, as I mentioned before, Rachel Notley and the NDP are fully on board.
They aren’t advertising their support, of course.
Just like with the carbon tax in 2015, they aren’t campaigning on this policy, and they haven’t mentioned it on their website or included it in their campaign material.
But, at a private NDP event last year and in a few occasional tweets, Rachel Notley has confirmed that the NDP is committed to this idea.
And, just like in 2015 with the carbon tax, they’re hoping Albertans won’t notice until after the election.
Let’s be clear, though – a policy of implementing a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 makes the carbon tax look like a bargain by comparison.
The carbon tax costs Albertans about $2 billion.
Don’t get me wrong, that’s a huge amount of money.
But $87 billion (or more) over just 12 years is more than $7 billion a year.
I really worry that people don’t understand just how much money we’re talking about here.
It’s an absolutely insane amount.
Let’s try to put it into scale…
$87 billion is more than the entire Alberta government budget ($63 billion).
$87 billion is 48 times the cost of the Red Deer Hospital.
$87 billion is 290 times as much as the province’s “controversial” Calgary arena investment.
$87 billion would pay for the salaries of every single nurse in Alberta for 70 years.
One more… just for fun…
$87 billion would buy a Tesla Model 3 for literally every household in the province.
Yes, seriously – you get a Tesla, you get a Tesla, everyone gets a Tesla!
This is honestly such an insane amount of money that I’m genuinely not even sure that the NDP realizes exactly what they’ve committed to here.
“Never has a politician committed to a policy that would cost this much to implement. This is not only unrealistic, but it is dangerous to the long-term health and viability of our economy,” said UCP Candidate Brian Jean.
It is the single biggest election promise in Alberta history, and it’s not even close.
Thankfully, here at the Alberta Institute, our team is working hard to assess and analyze campaign promises to make sure that you have the facts at your fingertips, and that you’re fully aware of just how much our politician’s promises are going to cost you.
I’d love to be able to bring you more of this type of analysis, so if you support our work, please help us continue to provide you with the level of in-depth policy research by making a donation to support our work:
The Alberta Institute is an independent, libertarian, public policy think tank that aims to advance personal freedom and choice in Alberta.
Founded in 2018, we work to develop and promote solutions to a wide range of municipal, provincial, and federal public policy issues in a strictly non-partisan way.
Our solutions are informed by our belief in a free and open society built on individual rights, private property, peace, voluntaryism, free markets, free minds, free trade, free movement, self-ownership, and reason.
We promote these beliefs through a wide variety of activities and actions, including research, data analysis, publications, newsletters, advocacy, events, conferences, and more.
Independence:
The Alberta Institute’s work is funded by thousands of small-dollar donors from across Alberta who believe in – and wish to support – our mission.
We don’t accept any government funding – and we never will – because we think Albertans should be free to choose, for themselves, which organizations to support.
The donations we receive from our supporters allow us to hire dedicated research staff and volunteer coordinators, publish and promote our findings, host events to help get the message out and connect with the community, offer internships and other opportunities to young Albertans, and much more.
We also depend on our grassroots volunteers, spread across nearly every community in the Province, to help with our mission of advancing personal freedom and choice across Alberta.
Alberta
Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).
The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.
Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.
As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.
Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).
The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.
Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.
Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.
The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.
Alberta
Alberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Oil sands could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years
Investor interest in Canadian oil producers, primarily in the Alberta oil sands, has picked up, and not only because of expanded export capacity from the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Enverus Intelligence Research says the real draw — and a major factor behind oil sands equities outperforming U.S. peers by about 40 per cent since January 2024 — is the resource Trans Mountain helps unlock.
Alberta’s oil sands contain 167 billion barrels of reserves, nearly four times the volume in the United States.
Today’s oil sands operators hold more than twice the available high-quality resources compared to U.S. shale producers, Enverus reports.
“It’s a huge number — 167 billion barrels — when Alberta only produces about three million barrels a day right now,” said Mike Verney, executive vice-president at McDaniel & Associates, which earlier this year updated the province’s oil and gas reserves on behalf of the Alberta Energy Regulator.
Already fourth in the world, the assessment found Alberta’s oil reserves increased by seven billion barrels.
Verney said the rise in reserves despite record production is in part a result of improved processes and technology.
“Oil sands companies can produce for decades at the same economic threshold as they do today. That’s a great place to be,” said Michael Berger, a senior analyst with Enverus.
BMO Capital Markets estimates that Alberta’s oil sands reserves could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years.
The long-term picture looks different south of the border.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that American production will peak before 2030 and enter a long period of decline.
Having a lasting stable source of supply is important as world oil demand is expected to remain strong for decades to come.
This is particularly true in Asia, the target market for oil exports off Canada’s West Coast.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region will go from 35 million barrels per day in 2024 to 41 million barrels per day in 2050.
The growing appeal of Alberta oil in Asian markets shows up not only in expanded Trans Mountain shipments, but also in Canadian crude being “re-exported” from U.S. Gulf Coast terminals.
According to RBN Energy, Asian buyers – primarily in China – are now the main non-U.S. buyers from Trans Mountain, while India dominates purchases of re-exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast. .
BMO said the oil sands offers advantages both in steady supply and lower overall environmental impacts.
“Not only is the resulting stability ideally suited to backfill anticipated declines in world oil supply, but the long-term physical footprint may also be meaningfully lower given large-scale concentrated emissions, high water recycling rates and low well declines,” BMO analysts said.
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Alberta2 days agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
Energy1 day agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
Business2 days agoCOP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand
-
armed forces2 days agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Indigenous2 days agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
-
Business1 day agoOttawa Pretends To Pivot But Keeps Spending Like Trudeau
-
Daily Caller1 day agoParis Climate Deal Now Decade-Old Disaster


