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

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:
- Capital and Operating Costs: Transitioning to electricity comes with increased costs compared to running natural gas systems.
- Heat Pump Installation: Installing heat pumps adds to the financial burden.
- 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 on these issues, and more, on Vancouver’s Spice Radio: https://ow.ly/hxsB50QvfJ9
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.
Canadian Energy Centre
Cross-Canada economic benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project

From the Canadian Energy Centre
Billions in government revenue and thousands of jobs across provinces
Announced in 2006, the Northern Gateway project would have built twin pipelines between Bruderheim, Alta. and a marine terminal at Kitimat, B.C.
One pipeline would export 525,000 barrels per day of heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater markets. The other would import 193,000 barrels per day of condensate to Alberta to dilute heavy oil for pipeline transportation.
The project would have generated significant economic benefits across Canada.

The following projections are drawn from the report Public Interest Benefits of the Northern Gateway Project (Wright Mansell Research Ltd., July 2012), which was submitted as reply evidence during the regulatory process.
Financial figures have been adjusted to 2025 dollars using the Bank of Canada’s Inflation Calculator, with $1.00 in 2012 equivalent to $1.34 in 2025.
Total Government Revenue by Region
Between 2019 and 2048, a period encompassing both construction and operations, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following total government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia
- Provincial government revenue: $11.5 billion
- Federal government revenue: $8.9 billion
- Total: $20.4 billion
Alberta
- Provincial government revenue: $49.4 billion
- Federal government revenue: $41.5 billion
- Total: $90.9 billion
Ontario
- Provincial government revenue: $1.7 billion
- Federal government revenue: $2.7 billion
- Total: $4.4 billion
Quebec
- Provincial government revenue: $746 million
- Federal government revenue: $541 million
- Total: $1.29 billion
Saskatchewan
- Provincial government revenue: $6.9 billion
- Federal government revenue: $4.4 billion
- Total: $11.3 billion
Other
- Provincial government revenue: $1.9 billion
- Federal government revenue: $1.4 billion
- Total: $3.3 billion
Canada
- Provincial government revenue: $72.1 billion
- Federal government revenue: $59.4 billion
- Total: $131.7 billion
Annual Government Revenue by Region
Over the period 2019 and 2048, the Northern Gateway project was projected to generate the following annual government revenues by region (direct, indirect and induced):

British Columbia
- Provincial government revenue: $340 million
- Federal government revenue: $261 million
- Total: $601 million per year
Alberta
- Provincial government revenue: $1.5 billion
- Federal government revenue: $1.2 billion
- Total: $2.7 billion per year
Ontario
- Provincial government revenue: $51 million
- Federal government revenue: $79 million
- Total: $130 million per year
Quebec
- Provincial government revenue: $21 million
- Federal government revenue: $16 million
- Total: $37 million per year
Saskatchewan
- Provincial government revenue: $204 million
- Federal government revenue: $129 million
- Total: $333 million per year
Other
- Provincial government revenue: $58 million
- Federal government revenue: $40 million
- Total: $98 million per year
Canada
- Provincial government revenue: $2.1 billion
- Federal government revenue: $1.7 billion
- Total: $3.8 billion per year
Employment by Region
Over the period 2019 to 2048, the Northern Gateway Pipeline was projected to generate the following direct, indirect and induced full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs by region:

British Columbia
- Annual average: 7,736
- Total over the period: 224,344
Alberta
- Annual average: 11,798
- Total over the period: 342,142
Ontario
- Annual average: 3,061
- Total over the period: 88,769
Quebec
- Annual average: 1,003
- Total over the period: 29,087
Saskatchewan
- Annual average: 2,127
- Total over the period: 61,683
Other
- Annual average: 953
- Total over the period: 27,637
Canada
- Annual average: 26,678
- Total over the period: 773,662
Alberta
Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.
Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.
His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.
On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.
To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.
The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”
Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.
-
Crime1 day ago
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
-
Addictions1 day ago
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day ago
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Business1 day ago
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Courageous Discourse1 day ago
Healthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Business8 hours ago
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Health22 hours ago
RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Alberta senator wants to revive lapsed Trudeau internet censorship bill