Connect with us

Alberta

Alberta government should pay dividends to Albertans from Heritage Fund

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

Despite promising in February to rebuild the Heritage Fund to help eliminate Alberta’s reliance on resource revenue, last month Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said she plans to use income from the fund to “assist in de-risking projects” in the oil and gas sector (in other words, projects that can’t secure financing from private lenders). Clearly, if Alberta has any hope of building up the Heritage Fund, it needs robust fiscal rules to help ensure governments responsibly grow the fund—and don’t raid it for other purposes.

The Lougheed government created Alberta’s Heritage Fund in 1976 to save a share of the province’s resource revenue for the future. Since its creation, however, governments have only contributed resource revenue in 11 out of 48 years of the fund’s existence, and just 3.9 per cent of total resource revenue has been deposited in the fund over its lifetime. Instead, governments have largely spent away onetime resource revenues, contributing to Alberta’s boom-and-bust cycle, rather than saving a share of resource revenue to turn it into a financial asset that can generate steady income over time.

While Premier Smith says she wants to build up the fund so its investment income (i.e. earnings) can eventually replace resource revenue in the budget, the fund’s earnings in 2023/24 are a projected $2.1 billion compared to a projected $19.4 billion in resource revenue. Obviously, Alberta needs a new approach to grow the fund. On this front, it can look to Alaska’s experience with its Permanent Fund, which was also created in 1976 but has grown much larger over time.

Unlike Alberta’s Heritage Fund, Alaska’s fund operates under robust fiscal rules. First, according to Alaska’s constitution, the state government must deposit at least 25 per cent of all mineral revenues into the fund each year. Alberta could introduce a similar constitutional rule.

In addition, a share of the Alaska fund’s earnings are set aside each year to ensure that the principal of the fund is not eroded through inflation. Alaska also prohibits use of the principal without approval by a referendum; the government may only spend the earnings of the fund (minus what’s needed to inflation-proof the principal).

And crucially, there’s the dividends—a topic that would surely pique the interest of many Albertans. In Alaska, the government pays a share of the fund’s earnings to Alaskan citizens via a dividend, which has helped support growth in the fund over the long term. By giving citizens an ownership share in the state’s resource fund, Alaskans recognize their vested interest and demand that the state maximize returns. Put simply, due to the annual dividend, Alaskans want the government to maintain the Permanent Fund’s health. And any government that tried to use the fund for irresponsible purposes would face the ire of Alaskan voters.

Which brings us back to Alberta. If the Smith government began contributing 25 per cent of resource revenue to the Heritage Fund and inflation-proofing the principal this year, it could pay each Albertan a dividend worth between $148 to $297 in 2024/25, equivalent to $594 to $1,187 per family of four. From 2024/25 to 2026/27, each Albertan could receive a total of $571 to $1,108 in dividends, equivalent to $2,284 to $4,430 per family of four. And as the fund grows, so would the dividends.

The Smith government has promised to rebuild the Heritage Fund, yet at the same time wants to use the fund’s earnings to “assist in de-risking” energy projects in the province. Without a mechanism to ensure growth of the fund, it will remain vulnerable to the whims of governments. Alberta should learn from Alaska’s success and start paying annual dividends to Albertans.

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

Alberta

Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert

Published on

From Resource Now

By

Alberta renews call for West Coast oil pipeline amid shifting federal, geopolitical dynamics.

Just six months ago, talk of resurrecting some version of the Northern Gateway pipeline would have been unthinkable. But with the election of Donald Trump in the U.S. and Mark Carney in Canada, it’s now thinkable.

In fact, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seems to be making Northern Gateway 2.0 a top priority and a condition for Alberta staying within the Canadian confederation and supporting Mark Carney’s vision of making Canada an Energy superpower. Thanks to Donald Trump threatening Canadian sovereignty and its economy, there has been a noticeable zeitgeist shift in Canada. There is growing support for the idea of leveraging Canada’s natural resources and diversifying export markets to make it less vulnerable to an unpredictable southern neighbour.

“I think the world has changed dramatically since Donald Trump got elected in November,” Smith said at a keynote address Wednesday at the Global Energy Show Canada in Calgary. “I think that’s changed the national conversation.” Smith said she has been encouraged by the tack Carney has taken since being elected Prime Minister, and hopes to see real action from Ottawa in the coming months to address what Smith said is serious encumbrances to Alberta’s oil sector, including Bill C-69, an oil and gas emissions cap and a West Coast tanker oil ban. “I’m going to give him some time to work with us and I’m going to be optimistic,” Smith said. Removing the West Coast moratorium on oil tankers would be the first step needed to building a new oil pipeline line from Alberta to Prince Rupert. “We cannot build a pipeline to the west coast if there is a tanker ban,” Smith said. The next step would be getting First Nations on board. “Indigenous peoples have been shut out of the energy economy for generations, and we are now putting them at the heart of it,” Smith said.

Alberta currently produces about 4.3 million barrels of oil per day. Had the Northern Gateway, Keystone XL and Energy East pipelines been built, Alberta could now be producing and exporting an additional 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. The original Northern Gateway Pipeline — killed outright by the Justin Trudeau government — would have terminated in Kitimat. Smith is now talking about a pipeline that would terminate in Prince Rupert. This may obviate some of the concerns that Kitimat posed with oil tankers negotiating Douglas Channel, and their potential impacts on the marine environment.

One of the biggest hurdles to a pipeline to Prince Rupert may be B.C. Premier David Eby. The B.C. NDP government has a history of opposing oil pipelines with tooth and nail. Asked in a fireside chat by Peter Mansbridge how she would get around the B.C. problem, Smith confidently said: “I’ll convince David Eby.”

“I’m sensitive to the issues that were raised before,” she added. One of those concerns was emissions. But the Alberta government and oil industry has struck a grand bargain with Ottawa: pipelines for emissions abatement through carbon capture and storage.

The industry and government propose multi-billion investments in CCUS. The Pathways Alliance project alone represents an investment of $10 to $20 billion. Smith noted that there is no economic value in pumping CO2 underground. It only becomes economically viable if the tradeoff is greater production and export capacity for Alberta oil. “If you couple it with a million-barrel-per-day pipeline, well that allows you $20 billion worth of revenue year after year,” she said. “All of a sudden a $20 billion cost to have to decarbonize, it looks a lot more attractive when you have a new source of revenue.” When asked about the Prince Rupert pipeline proposal, Eby has responded that there is currently no proponent, and that it is therefore a bridge to cross when there is actually a proposal. “I think what I’ve heard Premier Eby say is that there is no project and no proponent,” Smith said. “Well, that’s my job. There will be soon.  “We’re working very hard on being able to get industry players to realize this time may be different.” “We’re working on getting a proponent and route.”

At a number of sessions during the conference, Mansbridge has repeatedly asked speakers about the Alberta secession movement, and whether it might scare off investment capital. Alberta has been using the threat of secession as a threat if Ottawa does not address some of the province’s long-standing grievances. Smith said she hopes Carney takes it seriously. “I hope the prime minister doesn’t want to test it,” Smith said during a scrum with reporters. “I take it seriously. I have never seen separatist sentiment be as high as it is now. “I’ve also seen it dissipate when Ottawa addresses the concerns Alberta has.” She added that, if Carney wants a true nation-building project to fast-track, she can’t think of a better one than a new West Coast pipeline. “I can’t imagine that there will be another project on the national list that will generate as much revenue, as much GDP, as many high paying jobs as a bitumen pipeline to the coast.”

Continue Reading

Alberta

Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

Published on

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.

Tegan Hill

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X