Canada’s Most Impactful Energy Issues in 2024

It feels like we are in the beginning of a cultural, social, and political disruption. The fear of saying the wrong thing and being cancelled is subsiding, resulting in robust debate about important topics. Public pushback against climate alarmism and energy misinformation is getting louder as more and more people join in the discussion.

I have enjoyed watching the increased skepticism and distrust towards “the settled Science” and the agreed upon narratives in favour of open, genuine, inquisitive conversations with a focus on practicable solutions. People are fed up with niche topics taking up a disproportionate amount of airtime in place of issues that are relevant to the majority of the country.

These are a few of the energy topics that I feel were most impactful for the year, with many having a lasting impact into 2025 and beyond.

SHIFTING POLITICAL WINDS

As Canada implements more and more regulatory hurdles for the oil and gas industry, the US re-elected pro-business, pro-oil, political outsider Donald Trump in a ‘uge win, with the majority of counties shifting from blue (Democrat) to red (Republican).

He isn’t even sworn in, and Trump is lighting things up via social media decrees. Using Truth Social, he announced that a 25 percent tariff will be placed on all goods coming from Canada and Mexico unless their respective borders are addressed to his satisfaction.

This will affect all Canadian businesses, not the least being those in the oil patch since 4 million barrels of oil per day go to the US, along with 7.9 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. 77 percent of Canadian exports enter the US market; therefore, a 25 percent tariff is another obstacle affecting Canadian businesses’ competitiveness, which are already faced with various regulatory and taxation hurdles from Canadian governments, such as the carbon tax that increases each year.

Expect to see a shake-up in the Department of Energy and the narrative around climate and energy with the nomination of Chris Wright, CEO of Liberty Energy, for US Secretary of Energy. Chris has been a bold, unapologetic, pragmatic energy realist who cares about balancing environmental responsibility with resource development to help supply the world with reliable, affordable energy. His principled leadership has elevated him to one of the highest offices in the US.

Chris Wright is not afraid to go against the crowd. Liberty successfully challenged the SEC’s climate reporting rules and were instrumental in getting them halted. You can listen to his clarity of thought as he testifies on the rules before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Financial Services Committee (Chris’ testimony starts at 53:58).

As the first energy secretary to come from the energy sector, I anticipate that the government’s energy messaging and policy is going to shift away from climate alarmism to one of balance and open-mindedness. I hope he staffs the Department with people who understand energy and are not focused on misguided ideology. The ripple effects will be felt around the globe, and now is the time to embrace people’s scepticism and exhaustion with the constant drumbeat of fear about the use of hydrocarbons.

Much like the massive political shift voted in by the Americans, Canadians are also ready for a change. Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberal party continue to lag in the polls, indicating voters’ displeasure with their policies. Poll aggregator 338Canada predicts a resounding majority for the federal Conservatives. Will we begin to see better energy policy after the next election?

RENEWABLES’ REALITY AND COOLING CLIMATE CLUBS

As a further demonstration of the shifting social and political winds, the net zero climate movement has seen major companies quell their public support for associated initiatives. The appetite for costly net zero commitments from voters who are struggling to pay their bills is waning, and politicians are hearing about it.

Many Republican-led states have pushed back on anti-hydrocarbon, net zero financing, and that has influenced how companies behave, starting with an exodus from Mark Carney’s net zero alliance, GFANZ (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero). The Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA), a subset of GFANZ, has lost about half of its members since March 2023. Climate initiatives, like Climate Action 100+ and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) are also losing members who are concerned about the consequences of their affiliation with anti-hydrocarbon groups who attempt to influence how businesses conduct their operations, sometimes through coercive involuntary membership and social shaming.

The energy transition continues to face opposition. In summer 2023, the Alberta government placed a temporary, six-month moratorium on renewable energy – wind and solar – projects in an attempt to balance development with agricultural and social concerns. The condemnation from environmental groups and the Alberta NDP was swift and loud, but not always truthful. On the other side were landowners who were concerned about the consequences of the projects on their communities. A documentary, Generation Green, by filmmaker Heidi McKillop, documents the push-pull of renewable project development in Alberta.

The new rules include development limits on certain agricultural lands, protection of viewscapes using buffer zones, and a requirement for an upfront bond to pay for future reclamation costs. Landowners and associations have praised the changes for addressing concerns and being balanced.

January’s polar vortex reconfirmed people’s willingness to rethink some large-scale industrial wind and solar installations. The extreme cold resulted in alerts warning of potential rotating blackouts, reminding Albertans about the need for reliable, affordable, on-demand energy.

At the same time that Canadians are questioning the reliability of our grids, the government went all in on their bet on the adoption of electric vehicles, generously giving EV battery makers billions of taxpayer-funded subsidies to set up shop in Canada. However, plans have hit speed bumps (pun intended).

Sweden’s Northvolt, the recipient of $7.3 billion in loans, equity stakes, and subsidies from Canada, recently filed for bankruptcy protection in the US. The company says this will not affect its Canadian plant, which is being used as collateral to secure bailout financing in the US. Meanwhile, other plants have been delayed. It seems like this may not have been a good “investment” for taxpayers.

Not that the Liberal government has been cautious with our money. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, colloquially referred to as the green slush fund, violated government funding rules and breached conflict-of-interest and ethics laws by improperly giving away millions of dollars. The scandal is so bad that the RCMP are investigating whether or not there was criminal wrongdoing; however, the government has been at a standstill for weeks because the Liberals refuse to hand over documents to help with the investigation.

COP29, THE FINANCE COP(S)

The COP conflab in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November didn’t skip a beat, seemingly ignorant of the shifting support for costly environmental action predicated on alarmism. Its 65,000 delegates waxed lyrical about the need to transfer funds from developed nations who are allegedly responsible for climate change to developing nations who are disproportionately victimized by changing weather conditions. What was dubbed “the New Collective Quantified Goal” (NCQG) on climate finance, governments tripled their handouts to US$300 billion annually by 2035, and got commits from public and private entities to increase that funding to US$1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

No one likes spending other people’s money quite like Minister Steven Guilbeault. You can find a daily outline of Canada’s COP commitments here.

We should have a new environment minister in time for COP30 in Brazil. And thankfully so, my wallet can’t take much more!

REGULATORY RAT’S NEST

In June, with the passage of Bill C-59, the Canadian Competition Act was amended with expanded provisions to address greenwashing complaints, including excessively punitive charges for breaking the new rules. The gag order has silenced oil and gas companies. Many, such as the Pathways Alliance of the six biggest oilsands producers, took down their websites immediately after the changes were announced. Others took down their ESG reports and environmental statements.

Even though oil and gas is likely to be disproportionately targeted and penalized, this Bill is agnostic; complaints can be made against all industries, and the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy will decide who will and will not be investigated.

The fines are material. $750,000 for an individual’s first offence and $10 million per misrepresentation for a company’s first offense, up to 3% of annual worldwide gross revenues. Analysis from one of the Big Four consulting firms uncovered approximately one potential misrepresentation per page of an ESG report; some reports run close to 100 pages, so the consequences of a fine are impactful, hence the swift reaction from companies.

While business leaders navigate the landmines created by C-59, mandatory sustainability (i.e. ESG) reporting standards are expected to be rolled out next year, with the latest draft issued in the next week or two. The Canadian securities regulator has said they are focused on climate as the first reporting topic. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect the Canadian standards will be expanded as the international standards broaden to include biodiversity and human capital, and possibly “just transition”.

In addition to the requirements for publicly traded companies, the feds’ announced mandatory climate reporting for all large, Canadian incorporated companies, including private. Corporations will be forced to publicly disclose their environmental performance while also being hamstrung by the greenwashing changes.

If you feel like an Olympian high jumper, it may be because companies have to be to meet ever higher regulatory requirements set by our federal government. Just when companies think they’ve cleared the bar by voluntarily cutting emissions from production, the feds raise it one foot higher.

November 4 brought the long-awaited draft emissions cap for the oil and gas industry, targeting a 35 percent emissions reduction below 2019 levels by 2030. To say the industry is annoyed is an understatement, and rightfully so.

You can’t keep a good industry down, though! The Canadian Association of Energy Contractors (CAOEC) is forecasting drilling growth in 2025, meaning the industry and its jobs are maintaining a positive trajectory. There’s continued optimism in the patch thanks to increased egress capacity following the start-up of TMX and the near completion of LNG Canada. The CAOEC 2025 forecast anticipates a total of 6,604 wells drilled, a 5.2% increase in rig operating hours, and total jobs (direct and indirect) of 41,800 – all up from 2024. This is good for workers, families, communities, and the economy.

PIPELINE EGRESS PROGRESS

The long-delayed, over-cost Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) became operational on May 1, 2024, proving that we can still build things in Canada. The pipeline allows for the transportation of up to 890,000 barrels per day of oil to the west coast, which has helped narrow the differential of Western Canada Select crude. Congrats to everyone who worked on the project!

Another project of significant national importance is the 670 kilometre Coastal GasLink (CGL), the first pipeline built to the west coast in 70 years. Although the historical pipeline was completed ahead of schedule in late 2023, its completion affected the drilling and development plans of companies this year as we wait for the start up of the LNG Canada facility in 2025. CGL is another reason for optimism.

PERSONAL HIGHLIGHTS AND MILESTONES

2024 marks 20 years in the patch for me. I’ve had the opportunity to work alongside many astute, industrious, innovative folks who have integrity and heart for their work and co-workers. I thank each of you for shaping my career.

In February, I moderated EnergyNow’s event The Road Ahead: Alberta Energy 2024 with Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean and distinguished energy analyst Dave Yager. We sold out the Petroleum Club ballroom and filled the room with lively discussion and camaraderie.

I then had the honour of moderating the sold-out luncheon panel at the 2024 Lloydminster Heavy Oil Show in September, featuring Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe. They graciously answered my questions, including one on the Keystone Pipeline – the new “hot topic”.

Premier Smith predicted that a change in US government could see the project resurrected. The Republicans took control of the White House, the Senate, and the House, so we will see if the Premier gets her wish. You can listen to her full answer here and a shorter clip here.

As we close off another fortunate year, I wish all the best for 2025.

Deidra Garyk is the Founder and President of Equipois:ability Advisory, a consulting firm specializing in sustainability solutions. Over 20 years in the Canadian energy sector, Deidra held key roles, where she focused on a broad range of initiatives, from sustainability reporting to fostering collaboration among industry stakeholders through her work in joint venture contracts.

Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and a recognized thought leader. She is passionate about promoting balanced, fact-based discussions on energy policy, and sustainability. Through her research, writing, and public speaking, Deidra seeks to advance a more informed and pragmatic dialogue on the future of energy.

Related Topics:#deidragaryk #EnergyNow.CA #NetZero #USEnergyPolicy CanadaEnergyIssues CanadaEnergyPolicy feature

Up Next

In 2025, we have much to look forward to so let’s celebrate now

Don't Miss

FORCE, FORCE, FORCE! – The Green Army Will Keep Pushing Unrealistic Energy Transition in 2025 Despite “Reality”

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

China’s economy takes a hit as factories experience sharp decline in orders following Trump tariffs

International / 5 hours ago

Javier Millei declassifies 1850+ files on Nazi leaders in Argentina

Business / 7 hours ago

Scott Bessent says U.S., Ukraine “ready to sign” rare earths deal

Bjorn Lomborg

How Canada Can Respond to Climate Change Smartly

Published on April 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Bjørn Lomborg

At a time when public finances are strained, and Canada and the world are facing many problems and threats, we need to consider policy choices carefully. On climate, we should spend smartly to solve it effectively, making sure there is enough money left over for all the other challenges.

A sensible response to climate change starts with telling it as it is. We are bombarded with doom-mongering that is too often just plain wrong. Climate change is a problem but it’s not the end of the world.

Yet the overheated rhetoric has convinced governments to spend taxpayer funds heavily on subsidizing current, inefficient solutions. In 2024, the world spent a record-setting CAD$3 trillion on the green energy transition. Taxpayers are directly and indirectly subsidizing millions of wind turbines and solar panels that do little for climate change but line the coffers of green energy companies.

We need to do better and invest more in the only realistic solution to climate change: low-carbon energy research and development. Studies indicate that every dollar invested in green R&D can prevent $11 in long-term climate damages, making it the most effective long-term global climate policy.

Throughout history, humanity has tackled major challenges not by imposing restrictions but by innovating and developing transformative technologies. We didn’t address 1950s air pollution in Los Angeles by banning cars but by creating the catalytic converter. We didn’t combat hunger by urging people to eat less, but through the 1960s Green Revolution that innovated high-yielding varieties to grow much more food.

In 1980, after the oil price shocks, the rich world spent more than 8 cents of every $100 of GDP on green R&D to find energy alternatives. As fossil fuels became cheap again, investment dropped. When climate concern grew, we forgot innovation and instead the focus shifted to subsidizing existing, ineffective solar and wind.

In 2015, governments promised to double green R&D spending by 2020, but did no such thing. By 2023, the rich world still wasn’t back to spending even 4 cents out of every $100 of GDP.

Globally, the rich world spends just CAD$35 billion on green R&D — one-hundredth of overall “green” spending. We should increase this four-fold to about $140 billion a year. Canada’s share would be less than $5 billion a year, less than a tenth of its 2024 CAD$50 billion energy transition spending.

This would allow us to accelerate green innovation and bring forward the day green becomes cheaper than fossil fuels. Breakthroughs are needed in many areas. Take nuclear power. Right now, it is way too expensive, largely because extensive regulations force the production of every new power plant into what essentially becomes a unique, eye-wateringly expensive, extravagant artwork.

The next generation of nuclear power would work on small, modular reactors that get type approval in the production stage and then get produced by the thousand at low cost. The merits of this approach are obvious: we don’t have a bureaucracy that, at a huge cost, certifies every consumer’s cellphone when it is bought. We don’t see every airport making ridiculously burdensome requirements for every newly built airplane. Instead, they both get type-approved and then mass-produced.

We should support the innovation of so-called fourth-generation nuclear power, because if Canadian innovation can make nuclear energy cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone in the world will be able to make the switch—not just rich, well-meaning Canadians, but China, India, and countries across Africa.

Of course, we don’t know if fourth-generation nuclear will work out. That is the nature of innovation. But with smarter spending on R&D, we can afford to focus on many potential technologies. We should consider investing in innovation to grow hydrogen production along with water purification, next-generation battery technology, growing algae on the ocean surface producing CO₂-free oil (a proposal from the decoder of the human genome, Craig Venter), CO₂ extraction, fusion, second-generation biofuels, and thousands of other potential areas.

We must stop believing that spending ever-more money subsidizing still-inefficient technology is going to be a major part of the climate solution. Telling voters across the world for many decades to be poorer, colder, less comfortable, with less meat, fewer cars and no plane travel will never work, and will certainly not be copied by China, India and Africa. What will work is innovating a future where green is cheaper.

Innovation needs to be the cornerstone of our climate policy. Secondly, we need to invest in adaptation. Adaptive infrastructure like green areas and water features help cool cities during heatwaves. Farmers already adapt their practices to suit changing climates. As temperatures rise, farmers plant earlier, with better-adapted varieties or change what they grow, allowing the world to be ever-better fed.

Adaptation has often been overlooked in climate change policy, or derided as a distraction from reducing emissions. The truth is it’s a crucial part of avoiding large parts of the climate problem.

Along with innovation and adaptation, the third climate policy is to drive human development. Lifting communities out of poverty and making them flourish is not just good in and of itself — it is also a defense against rising temperatures. Eliminating poverty reduces vulnerability to climate events like heat waves or hurricanes. Prosperous societies afford more healthcare, social protection, and investment in climate adaptation. Wealthy countries spend more on environmental preservation, reducing deforestation, and promoting conservation efforts.

Focusing funds on these three policy areas will mean Canada can help spark the breakthroughs that are needed to lower energy costs while reducing emissions and making future generations around the world more resilient to climate and all the other big challenges. The path to solving climate change lies in innovation, adaptation, and building prosperous economies.

Business

Net Zero by 2050: There is no realistic path to affordable and reliable electricity

Published on April 28, 2025

Todayville

By Dave Morton of the Canadian Energy Reliability Council.

Maintaining energy diversity is crucial to a truly sustainable future

Canada is on an ambitious path to “decarbonize” its economy by 2050 to deliver on its political commitment to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Although policy varies across provinces and federally, a default policy of electrification has emerged, and the electricity industry, which in Canada is largely owned by our provincial governments, appears to be on board.

In a November 2023 submission to the federal government, Electricity Canada, an association of major electric generators and suppliers in Canada, stated: “Every credible path to Net Zero by 2050 relies on electrification of other sectors.” In a single generation, then, will clean electricity become the dominant source of energy in Canada? If so, this puts all our energy eggs in one basket. Lost in the debate seem to be considerations of energy diversity and its role in energy system reliability.

What does an electrification strategy mean for Canada? Currently, for every 100 units of energy we consume in Canada, over 40 come to us as liquid fuels like gasoline and diesel, almost 40 as gaseous fuels like natural gas and propane, and a little less than 20 in the form of electrons produced by those fuels as well as by water, uranium, wind, solar and biomass. In British Columbia, for example, the gas system delivered approximately double the energy of the electricity system.

How much electricity will we need? According to a recent Fraser Institute report, a decarbonized electricity grid by 2050 requires a doubling of electricity. This means adding the equivalent of 134 new large hydro projects like BC’s Site C, 18 nuclear facilities like Ontario’s Bruce Power Plant, or installing almost 75,000 large wind turbines on over one million hectares of land, an area nearly 14.5 times the size of the municipality of Calgary.

Is it feasible to achieve a fully decarbonized electricity grid in the next 25 years that will supply much of our energy requirements? There is a real risk of skilled labour and supply chain shortages that may be impossible to overcome, especially as many other countries are also racing towards net-zero by 2050. Even now, shortages of transformers and copper wire are impacting capital projects. The Fraser Institute report looks at the construction challenges and concludes that doing so “is likely impossible within the 2050 timeframe”.

How we get there matters a lot to our energy reliability along the way. As we put more eggs in the basket, our reliability risk increases. Pursuing electrification while not continuing to invest in our existing fossil fuel-based infrastructure risks leaving our homes and industries short of basic energy needs if we miss our electrification targets.

The IEA 2023 Roadmap to Net Zero estimates that technologies not yet available on the market will be needed to deliver 35 percent of emissions reductions needed for net zero in 2050. It comes then as no surprise that many of the technologies needed to grow a green electric grid are not fully mature. While wind and solar, increasingly the new generation source of choice in many jurisdictions, serve as a relatively inexpensive source of electricity and play a key role in meeting expanded demand for electricity, they introduce significant challenges to grid stability and reliability that remain largely unresolved. As most people know, they only produce electricity when the wind blows and the sun shines, thereby requiring a firm back-up source of electricity generation.

Given the unpopularity of fossil fuel generation, the difficulty of building hydro and the reluctance to adopt nuclear in much of Canada, there is little in the way of firm electricity available to provide that backup. Large “utility scale” batteries may help mitigate intermittent electricity production in the short term, but these facilities too are immature. Furthermore, wind, solar and batteries, because of the way they connect to the grid don’t contribute to grid reliability in the same way the previous generation of electric generation does.

Other zero-emitting electricity generation technologies are in various stages of development – for example, Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) fitted to GHG emitting generation facilities can allow gas or even coal to generate firm electricity and along with Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can provide a firm and flexible source of electricity.

What if everything can’t be electrified? In June 2024, a report commissioned by the federal government concluded that the share of overall energy supplied by electricity will need to roughly triple by 2050, increasing from the current 17 percent to between 40 and 70 percent. In this analysis, then, even a tripling of existing electricity generation, will at best only meet 70 percent of our energy needs by 2050.

Therefore, to ensure the continued supply of reliable energy, non-electrification pathways to net zero are also required. CCUS and SMR technologies currently being developed for producing electricity could potentially be used to provide thermal energy for industrial processes and even building heat; biofuels to replace gasoline, diesel and natural gas; and hydrogen to augment natural gas, along with GHG offsets and various emission trading schemes are similarly

While many of these technologies can and currently do contribute to GHG emission reductions, uncertainties remain relating to their scalability, cost and public acceptance. These uncertainties in all sectors of our energy system leaves us with the question: Is there any credible pathway to reliable net-zero energy by 2050?

Electricity Canada states: “Ensuring reliability, affordability, and sustainability is a balancing act … the energy transition is in large part policy-driven; thus, current policy preferences are uniquely impactful on the way utilities can manage the energy trilemma. The energy trilemma is often referred to colloquially as a three-legged stool, with GHG reductions only one of those legs. But the other two, reliability and affordability, are key to the success of the transition.

Policymakers should urgently consider whether any pathway exists to deliver reliable net-zero energy by 2050. If not, letting the pace of the transition be dictated by only one of those legs guarantees, at best, a wobbly stool. Matching the pace of GHG reductions with achievable measures to maintain energy diversity and reliability at prices that are affordable will be critical to setting us on a truly sustainable pathway to net zero, even if it isn’t achieved by 2050.

Dave Morton, former Chair and CEO of the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC), is with the Canadian Energy Reliability Council.