What doubling the grid really means

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

” imagine if someone said in the next 25 years and 11 months, we must twin every single freeway, highway, grid road, street and alleyway, across the entire country, at the same time. And along the way, we have to replace up to 89 per cent of the existing infrastructure, as well, because it is no longer considered adequate “

Recently my daughter called me while on her way back from a Costco run in Regina, heading home to Weyburn.

She noted that it appears they are twinning the highway between Regina and Weyburn. Indeed, they are, I explained. And several years later, they’ll probably get it all the way to Weyburn. Maybe by the time I retire, if I live that long, they’ll get as far as Estevan.

Indeed, those timelines are likely pretty close to reality, if the twinning of Highway 16, from Saskatoon to Lloydminster, was any indication. I used to drive from Saskatoon to North Battleford to get the newspaper I was working for printed, with road construction for much of that. And it took several more years to complete the Battlefords to Lloydminster portion. I was fortunate enough to be present at the ceremony for that. It was significant enough that Premier Lorne Calvert came out.

Twinning a major highway is a substantial undertaking. Historically, Saskatchewan could usually only afford to work on three separate areas at a time, typically doing 20 kilometres per year in each stretch. That was all the provincial finances could handle.

By adding an additional two lanes, you are effectively doubling the capacity of that major piece of infrastructure. It’s not easy, not cheap, and not fast.

Now imagine if someone said in the next 25 years and 11 months, we must twin every single freeway, highway, grid road, street and alleyway, across the entire country, at the same time. And along the way, we have to replace up to 89 per cent of the existing infrastructure, as well, because it is no longer considered adequate.

You’d probably think they were living in a dreamland, or quite possibly stark raving mad.

And yet this is precisely what the federal government is proposing, nay, demanding, of Canadians from St. Johns to Victoria to Tuktoyaktuk.

In order to save the world from anthropogenic (manmade climate change) and attain a “Net Zero by 2050” economy, we must increase the size of the electrical grid by a factor of 2.5x. And for Saskatchewan and Alberta, who on any given day get up to 88 and 94 per cent of their power, respectively, from fossil fuels, they must also replace that existing gas and coal power generation with non-emitting sources, at the same time as they’re building out the truly massive expansion.

The first reference I saw of the federal Liberal government’s intentions of this was in the 2023 budget, which noted expanding the electrical grid by a factor of 2.2 to 3.4 times. By August, when they released the proposed Clean Electricity Regulations, the government seemed to settle on a factor of 2.5 times for the high demand scenario.

So in the highway twinning example, that would be adding three lanes, not two, to every two lane highway, grid road, street and alleyway. For an existing four lane highway, you would need to add six lanes. For a six lane freeway like Ontario’s 401, you’d need to add an additional nine lanes, finding the right of way space, concrete, rebar, gravel, and asphalt for all of this. Again, all at the same time, in 25 years and 11 months.

There are several thrusts that the federal government is pushing. First, by 2035, they want to totally eliminate gasoline and diesel from new light vehicle sales. There’s currently only eight retail hydrogen fueling stations listed by the federal government and Shell in the entire country. There could be more, but they’re not listed. Realistically this means battery-powered electric vehicles (EVs). But nearly all of those EVs will require charging at home each night (and especially during winter, pre-conditioning those batteries, keeping them warm).

So every residence in the country will require 30 amp chargers for cars, and 80 amp chargers for pickups.

But the government is also now moving away from fossil fuels for home, heating, too. This was indicative of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s pause on the carbon tax for home heating oil (primarily used in Atlantic Canada, although I grew up in a house with that system). To do so, the feds are offering “free” installations of heat pumps (which are wholly inadequate at -30 temperatures, let alone the -44 seen in Alberta in mid-January). And those could be up to another 50 amps, per heat pump.

And that’s just residential, never mind commercial or industrial.

The Clean Electricity Regulations are meant to force fossil fuel power generation to go away. And since wind frequently drops to nothing, and the sun goes down every day, the only real alternative is massive expansion of nuclear power across Canada. We’re talking small modular reactors by the dozen in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

On Jan. 30, SaskPower announced a formalized agreement with General Electric-Hitachi for small modular reactors. But when I asked how many they plan on building, the CEO wouldn’t say. But he did speak of increasing the provincial grid from 5,400 megawatt now to 13,000 to 15,000 megawatts.

Hydro Quebec just released their plans to double their grid. Yet, perhaps miraculously, they’re not saying how many, if any, new dams will need to be built.

This doubling of the grid (actually 2.5x, but that’s not easy to say), means we’re going to need not only additional generation, but transmission lines, distribution lines, back alley pedestals, and wiring to every home, business and factory in the country. Where the materials come from? The contractors and workers? Will Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) be universally trampled on by eminent domain orders, for the good of the planet? Or will it be a continuation of Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything Syndrome (BANANAS)?

A very real example is the Trans Mountain Pipeline. The original was built in something like 16 months, from scratching dirt to oil flowing. The expansion is taking a hell of a lot longer. Work started in 2018, and it is still not done. Any change in the plan had to go back to the Canadian Energy Regulator. Some First Nations fought it every step of the way.

Now do this for every single piece of existing power infrastructure. Wrap your head around that for a minute.

This supposed energy transition, from fossil fuels to electric everything, does not work if you cannot build out the electrical infrastructure, everywhere, and essentially all at in the next 25 years and 11 months. Either the timelines need to be stretched to a generational scale, or more realistically, the whole concept needs to be entirely rethought.

As Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has said more than once, “We will not attempt the impossible when it comes to power production.”

Brian Zinchuk is editor and owner of Pipeline Online, and occasional contributor to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Related Topics:#BrianZinchuk #DoublingTheGrid #ElectricalGrid #FrontierCentreForPublicPolicy #PipelineOnline feature

Up Next

Emissions cap “will not be tolerated in Alberta” – Letter to Environment Minister Guilbeault

Don't Miss

From swaggering to staggering – Canada’s decline into irrelevance

Todayville

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

Resurfaced Video Shows How Somali Scammers Used Day Care Centers To Scam State

Business / 4 hours ago

Disclosures reveal Minnesota politician’s husband’s companies surged thousands-fold amid Somali fraud crisis

Alberta / 5 hours ago

The Canadian Energy Centre’s biggest stories of 2025

Alberta

The Canadian Energy Centre’s biggest stories of 2025

Published on December 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Canada’s energy landscape changed significantly in 2025, with mounting U.S. economic pressures reinforcing the central role oil and gas can play in safeguarding the country’s independence.

Here are the Canadian Energy Centre’s top five most-viewed stories of the year.

5. Alberta’s massive oil and gas reserves keep growing – here’s why

The Northern Lights, aurora borealis, make an appearance over pumpjacks near Cremona, Alta., Thursday, Oct. 10, 2024. CP Images photo

Analysis commissioned this spring by the Alberta Energy Regulator increased the province’s natural gas reserves by more than 400 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.

Even with record production, Alberta’s oil reserves – already fourth in the world – also increased by seven billion barrels.

According to McDaniel & Associates, which conducted the report, these reserves are likely to become increasingly important as global demand continues to rise and there is limited production growth from other sources, including the United States.

4. Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

Photo courtesy Coastal GasLink

Canada could be on the cusp of a “golden age” for building major energy projects, said Kevin O’Donnell, executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada.

That eagerness is shared by the Edmonton-based Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which launched a “Let’s Get Building” advocacy campaign urging all Canadian politicians to focus on getting major projects built.

“The sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy,” said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong.

3. New Canadian oil and gas pipelines a $38 billion missed opportunity, says Montreal Economic Institute

Steel pipe in storage for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2022. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

In March, a report by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) underscored the economic opportunity of Canada building new pipeline export capacity.

MEI found that if the proposed Energy East and Gazoduq/GNL Quebec projects had been built, Canada would have been able to export $38 billion worth of oil and gas to non-U.S. destinations in 2024.

“We would be able to have more prosperity for Canada, more revenue for governments because they collect royalties that go to government programs,” said MEI senior policy analyst Gabriel Giguère.

“I believe everybody’s winning with these kinds of infrastructure projects.”

2. Keyera ‘Canadianizes’ natural gas liquids with $5.15 billion acquisition

Keyera Corp.’s natural gas liquids facilities in Fort Saskatchewan, Alta. Photo courtesy Keyera Corp.

In June, Keyera Corp. announced a $5.15 billion deal to acquire the majority of Plains American Pipelines LLP’s Canadian natural gas liquids (NGL) business, creating a cross-Canada NGL corridor that includes a storage hub in Sarnia, Ontario.

The acquisition will connect NGLs from the growing Montney and Duvernay plays in Alberta and B.C. to markets in central Canada and the eastern U.S. seaboard.

“Having a Canadian source for natural gas would be our preference,” said Sarnia mayor Mike Bradley.

“We see Keyera’s acquisition as strengthening our region as an energy hub.”

1. Explained: Why Canadian oil is so important to the United States

Enbridge’s Cheecham Terminal near Fort McMurray, Alberta is a key oil storage hub that moves light and heavy crude along the Enbridge network. Photo courtesy Enbridge

The United States has become the world’s largest oil producer, but its reliance on oil imports from Canada has never been higher.

Many refineries in the United States are specifically designed to process heavy oil, primarily in the U.S. Midwest and U.S. Gulf Coast.

According to the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the top five U.S. refineries running the most Alberta crude are:

Marathon Petroleum, Robinson, Illinois (100% Alberta crude)
Exxon Mobil, Joliet, Illinois (96% Alberta crude)
CHS Inc., Laurel, Montana (95% Alberta crude)
Phillips 66, Billings, Montana (92% Alberta crude)
Citgo, Lemont, Illinois (78% Alberta crude)

Energy

Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026

Published on December 29, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Andrew Rice

Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.

Several cases have been dismissed while others advanced through court systems, with some being considered before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2026. Critics of the litigation call it “woke lawfare” and an attempt to force progressive political policies via the judicial system.

Critics also argue the lawsuits threaten U.S. energy independence and, depending on outcomes, will have sweeping impacts on every American.

Here are some of those cases.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

On Jan. 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, vs. Chevron USA Inc. The case questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil.

The litigation challenges activities of the oil companies dating back to World War II in some cases. Chevron argued the lawsuit was flawed, claiming that the activities in question were permitted, legal, and often conducted under federal direction – particularly those tied to national security during World War II.

A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands. Environmental activists celebrated the verdict. It was the first of 42 lawsuits filed since 2013 by parishes across coastal Louisiana to go to trial.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department stepped in on Chevron’s side, urging the Supreme Court to move the case from state court to federal court.

Business groups and energy advocates warned the verdict will drive jobs and investment out of Louisiana. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry called the decision “shortsighted,” saying it would “brand Louisiana as a state that will extort the most recognizable companies on earth for billions of dollars, decades later.”

O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square the case seeks to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.

“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder

The nation’s highest court is still deciding whether it will hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder; a case to decide whether state and local governments can use nuisance laws to sue energy companies for activities that may cause climate change.

The case, originating in Colorado, centers around a City of Boulder and Boulder County lawsuit in state court against Suncor Energy claiming it misled the public in its activities that the local governments claim led to climate change effects.

Lawyers for Suncor Energy argue that allowing a case like this one to play out goes against protections in the Clean Air Act that prevent lawsuits from occurring against emitters from across state lines.

“Public nuisance can’t be used for global problems. It can be used for local problems,” Skinner told The Center Square. “That’s what it’s supposed to be used for.”

However, Skinner said many organizations that are pursuing climate change litigation are seeking to bankrupt energy companies with large monetary settlements. He said litigants will likely attempt to drain energy companies of their resources and use the funds to advocate certain ideological causes.

“These are highly ideological dark-money-funded, multi-faceted legal campaigns to bankrupt an entire industry and confiscate it for ideological reasons,” Skinner said.

City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco

Similarly, in 2020, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco was one of the first examples of public nuisance lawsuits pursued in a state court. The city and county of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in 2020 accusing oil and gas companies, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by burning fossil fuels.

The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, but the court, without ruling on the merits, declined to do so in January.

While the case is based in Hawaii, Skinner said litigants there hope it will have far-reaching effects across the country.

“They’re not trying to stop behavior just in those states,” Skinner said. ”The thing that really freaks me out is how people in regular, everyday, real America are going to potentially be affected.”

The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Going a step further than Boulder and Honolulu, California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint against ExxonMobil in 2024 for what he says are its contributions to “the deluge of plastic pollution” affecting the state.

Exxon countersued, alleging “Bonta and the US Proxies – the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests – have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.,” American Tort Reform Foundation reported.

One of the foreign interests is IEJF, an Australian nonprofit that’s connected to an Australian mining conmpany “that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets, ATRF reported.

Skinner said the litigants in this case are attempting to significantly reduce plastic use throughout the state of California and potentially beyond.

“That’ll make your average person’s life dramatically harder, and it’ll make a lot of things a lot more expensive, and it’ll make having kids, like, brutal,” Skinner said.

Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Aside from monetary settlements, petitioners in this case also are seeking wrongful death claims against energy companies for their contributions to climate change. The case stems from a woman in Washington state who said her mother died from heat-related illness due to the exacerbated effects of climate change.

She is suing energy companies for their alleged creation of conditions over a period of decades that led to increased temperatures on the day her mother died.

Skinner told The Center Square this case is one of the more blatant examples of ideology affecting the way a litigant pursues cases.

“I think they care because a death is worth a lot of money,” Skinner said. “The climate homicide cases are one of the more far-fetched legal theories I’ve ever seen, because you’re leveling this incredibly staggering charge.”

Climate cases will continue to move through the court system, with one to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2026.

Skinner is urging the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to rule in favor of energy companies across the country.

“We want the energy companies to win, not because they are perfect actors, but because the alternative is that our lives are governed day in and day out by woke trial lawyers, woke [nongovernmental organizations] and local governments,” Skinner said.