Canadian Energy Companies Look South For Growth

Enbridge’s announcement in September that it was acquiring three U.S.-based utilities for USD$14 billion saw Canada’s largest energy company also become North America’s largest gas utility. The deal is significant not only on its own merits, but as part of a bigger trend: Canadian energy companies that are looking for growth prospects are finding them south of the border.

The trend is not new. In 2016, Canadian utilities went on an American shopping spree. Fortis acquired ITC for USD$11.3 billion; Ontario-based Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp acquired Missouri-based Empire District Electric Company for USD$2.4 billion; and Nova Scotia-based Emera acquired Florida-based TECO in a USD$10.4 billion deal.

Pipelines were in the mix too, with TC Energy acquiring Columbia Pipeline Group, a gas transmission network, that year for USD$13 billion.

In 2017, Hydro One purchased U.S. power supplier Avista for USD $3.4 billion, and AltaGas took over WGL Holdings (which supplies natural gas to the White House) for USD $4.6 billion. More recently, TriSummit acquired the Alaska gas distribution, transmission, and storage assets of SEMCO Energy for US$800 million in March.

As such, the Enbridge utility megadeal can be seen less as a harbinger and more of a culmination.

What is behind this Canadian appetite for American utilities and pipelines? At one level, it is a response to the inherent limitations of the Canadian utilities sector, which is heavily regulated and often provincially owned. Add in Ottawa’s torrent of climate policies aiming to cut growth in Canadian oil and gas, and pastures look greener elsewhere.

But it also speaks to the confidence the sector’s biggest players have in the long term prospects for natural gas. The Dominion deal adjusts Enbridge’s earnings from a 60-40 mix between crude oil & liquids, and natural gas & renewable energy respectively, to something closer to a 50-50 split. Enbridge, like many energy companies, is betting on natural gas being a bridge fuel in the energy transition rather than being phased out. And whatever fuel mix we use in the future, it will require pipelines and distribution, whether in the form of natural gas, renewable natural gas (RNG), hydrogen or otherwise.

“…it also speaks to the confidence the sector’s biggest players have in the long term prospects for natural gas.”

Two phenomena are worth emphasizing here. The first is that the United States is seen as a jurisdiction for growth; Canada, not so much. Our biggest energy companies are expanding to the south, but the reverse is not true. Enbridge and TC Energy are leading the way, but Cenovus, Cameco, Hydro-Québec and others are also making moves, on top of the long list of utilities above.

This is not just anecdotal. According to the U.S. State Department,¹ Canadian foreign direct investment (FDI) in the United States was about 26% higher than their reciprocal FDI in 2022, or USD$528 billion compared to their USD$406 billion. This is part of a broader trend that has been worsening since 2014. In that year, Canadian investment abroad was only about CAD$100 billion more than foreign investment in Canada. By 2022 the imbalance had grown to a whopping CAD$725 billion.² Canadian companies are generating wealth; they are just generating a smaller proportion of it at home.

The second is that the Canadian and American energy markets are highly interdependent, and growing more so. In fact, 2022 saw record energy trade between our two countries, reaching USD$190 billion, almost triple what it was in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic, and beating the last high water mark of USD$178 billion in 2008. From natural gas and liquids pipelines to refineries and electricity grids, fundamentally we have a single North American energy system.

As such, we should be developing and coordinating energy and climate policy much more closely. It is inefficient, not to mention painful for the energy sector, when Canada and the United States – and many provinces and states on top of that – propose substantially different standards, goals, and regulations. Energy is an area that needs closer policy collaboration and alignment between our two nations in order to achieve sustainability, reliability and affordability of supply.

This need is manifesting itself in a growing Canadian presence in the US capital. In the past year or so, TC Energy has established a policy team in Washington DC, and Cenovus and the Business Council of Canada have opened up offices there (as has my own think tank, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute). As entreaties to Ottawa fall on deaf ears, businesses are looking for reception elsewhere.

The Canadian energy sector is betting big on natural gas, be it through retail, pipeline transportation or LNG exports. Where possible, it’s betting on Canada too. But the United States and other markets are where growth is on offer.

We should all celebrate the success of Canadian companies abroad. But we should be creating a policy and business environment that allows them to grow in our own back yard too.

Heather Exner-Pirot is the Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Up Next

Natural gas key to withstanding winter and Ottawa’s assault

Don't Miss

The government’s zero-emission vehicles mandate is an arrogant, unnecessary gamble

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

White House Reportedly Worried About Russia’s Sudden Momentum Months After Biden Declared Putin ‘Already Lost’ War

Censorship Industrial Complex / 5 hours ago

Jim Jordan Exposes Biden’s Censorship-Industrial Complex

Crime / 5 hours ago

Slovakian prime minister who opposed WHO Pandemic Treaty shot in assassination attempt

Automotive

Red States Sue California and the Biden Administration to Halt Electric Truck Mandates

Published on May 15, 2024

Todayville

From Heartland Daily News

By Nick Pope

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country”

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.

Nick Pope is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Service.

Originally published by The Daily Caller. Republished with permission.

Automotive

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

Published on May 12, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial trucking, according to a new analysis released Wednesday.

The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.

“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”

Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.

The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.

The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.