Energy
COMMENTARY: Let’s Hear From Real “Experts” When it Comes Our Critical Electrical Systems – Not Bureaucrats, Academics, Activists and Partisan Politicians

From EnergyNow.ca
By Deidra Garyk
We need to redefine who is an “expert”
Experts cannot only include bureaucrats, politicians, academics, activists, and white-collar corporate elites. We must include the people who do the work to keep society functioning, such as electricians, utility system operators, and oilfield and construction workers.
Who is given the mic (or the pen) is given the power to influence perceptions, sometimes resulting in demands for unworkable plans.
The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) issued an emergency alert Saturday, January 13 asking Albertans to immediately reduce their electricity use or risk rotating outages. The extreme cold across the West caused an increase in demand and a restriction of imports, and that resulted in the worst-case scenario.
Albertans did what Albertans do – they pulled together and shut down unnecessary usage, averting a crisis.
Alberta is a modern, energy-rich province, the envy of the world, in many ways. How did this crisis happen?
Reporting afterwards on the alert, Calgary newstalk radio QR 770 interviewed an “expert” – a multi-degreed economics and law professor at an Alberta university and part-time climate activist. He said several words and asked a similar question, but otherwise contributed little of substance because he does not have adequate expertise to identify practicable solutions.
I would like to know why QR 770 did not interview a utility system expert to explain what happened and why. AESO made experts available to media to answer questions. The role of the media is to inform the public, and that is best accomplished by interviewing a broad cross-section of people with real-world knowledge.
The Official Opposition in Alberta put out a statement trying to capitalize on the situation, as any political party would. Shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Nagwan Al-Guneid demanded immediate action be taken by the governing UCP while praising renewables for getting the province through the alert, and simultaneously forgetting it was her government that mandated all coal fired power plants be shut down by 2030. They even paid three power plant operators $1.36 billion to shut down their plants early.
Wind and solar renewables did not get Alberta through the most critical time – the coldest, darkest hours – of the electricity crisis and the data shows it. The assertion was at best missing context, and at worst disinformation for ideological gain.
Again, we need to redefine who is an “expert”.
There is a place for opposition parties, academics, corporate leaders, and even activists. However, they have an obligation to be serious and come to the discussion table in good faith. Otherwise, we have people with severe climate anxiety and a decade of “climate-induced insomnia” demanding that Canada build net zero hospitals powered by wind and solar to decarbonize and climate-proof the health care system.
The table must be expanded and seats added to include the people working closest to the source. Therefore, it would be beneficial for media organizations to interview the “invisible” people who work thanklessly to keep the systems running so much so that we take them for granted. We could all benefit from better understanding how the world works and how things are made.
I want to hear from electrical engineers, electricians, pipeline operators, oilfield workers, energy marketers, utility system operators, and anyone else who works to keep the electricity system functioning without fail.
They too must come to the discussion in good faith, ready to participate in complex but meaningful problem-solving discussions as their input is essential.
The reason the grid nearly failed and caused rolling blackouts is multi-faceted – extreme cold, taking coal plants offline early, not adding sufficient reliable power generation, renewables not producing during peak demand, increased population, increased business activity, and burdensome federal regulations, to name a few. It will take a truly diverse group of experts to build the grid that is able to withstand the most adverse weather to consistently deliver power during the coldest and deadliest times.
Over the weekend there were pleas on social media to get adults in the room to address the electricity grid crisis. We will not get adults in the room to create prudent energy policy for real people until we redefine who is an “expert”. This weekend proved that we need to do that soon.
About Deidra Garyk
Deidra Garyk has been working in the Canadian energy industry for almost 20 years. She is currently the Manager, ESG & Sustainability at an oilfield service company. Prior to that, she worked in roles of varying seniority at exploration and production companies in joint venture contracts where she was responsible for working collaboratively with stakeholders to negotiate access to pipelines, compressors, plants, and batteries.
Outside of her professional commitments, Deidra is an energy advocate and thought leader who researches, writes, and speaks about energy policy and advocacy to promote balanced, honest, fact-based conversations.
Connect with Deidra on Linkedin
Visit her website: DEIDRA GARYK: Canadian Energy Advocate
Energy
China undermining American energy independence, report says

From The Center Square
By
The Chinese Communist Party is exploiting the left’s green energy movement to hurt American energy independence, according to a new report from State Armor.
Michael Lucci, founder and CEO of State Armor, says the report shows how Energy Foundation China funds green energy initiatives that make America more reliant on China, especially on technology with known vulnerabilities.
“Our report exposes how Energy Foundation China functions not as an independent nonprofit, but as a vehicle advancing the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party by funding U.S. green energy initiatives to shift American supply chains toward Beijing and undermine our energy security,” Lucci said in a statement before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee’s hearing on Wednesday titled “Enter the Dragon – China and the Left’s Lawfare Against American Energy Dominance.”
Lucci said the group’s operations represent a textbook example of Chinese influence in America.
“This is a very good example of how the Chinese Communist Party operates influence operations within the United States. I would actually describe it as a perfect case study from their perspective,” he told The Center Square in a phone interview. “They’re using American money to leverage American policy changes that make the American energy grid dependent upon China.”
Lucci said one of the most concerning findings is that China-backed technology entering the U.S. power grid includes components with “undisclosed back doors” – posing a direct threat to the power grid.
“These are not actually green tech technologies. They’re red technologies,” he said. “We are finding – and this is open-source news reporting – they have undisclosed back doors in them. They’re described in a Reuters article as rogue communication devices… another way to describe that is kill switches.”
Lucci said China exploits American political divisions on energy policy to insert these technologies under the guise of environmental progress.
“Yes, and it’s very crafty,” he said. “We are not addressing the fact that these green technologies are red. Technologies controlled by the Communist Party of China should be out of the question.”
Although Lucci sees a future for carbon-free energy sources in the United States – particularly nuclear and solar energy – he doesn’t think the country should use technology from a foreign adversary to do it.
“It cannot be Chinese solar inverters that are reported in Reuters six weeks ago as having undisclosed back doors,” he said. “It cannot be Chinese batteries going into the grid … that allow them to sabotage our grid.”
Lucci said energy is a national security issue, and the United States is in a far better position to achieve energy independence than China.
“We are luckily endowed with energy independence if we choose to have it. China is not endowed with that luxury,” he said. “They’re poor in natural resources. We’re very well endowed – one of the best – with natural resources for energy production.”
He said that’s why China continues to build coal plants – and some of that coal comes from Australia – while pushing the United States to use solar energy.
“It’s very foolish of us to just make ourselves dependent on their technologies that we don’t need, and which are coming with embedded back doors that give them actual control over our energy grid,” he said.
Lucci says lawmakers at both the state and federal levels need to respond to this threat quickly.
“The executive branch should look at whether Energy Foundation China is operating as an unregistered foreign agent,” he said. “State attorneys general should be looking at these back doors that are going into our power grid – undisclosed back doors. That’s consumer fraud. That’s a deceptive trade practice.”
Energy
Carney’s Bill C-5 will likely make things worse—not better

From the Fraser Institute
By Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens
The Carney government’s signature legislation in its first post-election session of Parliament—Bill C-5, known as the Building Canada Act—recently passed the Senate for final approval, and is now law. It gives the government unprecedented powers and will likely make Canada even less attractive to investment than it is now, making a bad situation even worse.
Over the past 10 years, Canada has increasingly become known as a country that is un-investable, where it’s nearly impossible to get large and important projects, from pipelines to mines, approved. Even simple single-site redevelopment projects can take a decade to receive rezoning approval. It’s one of the primary reasons why Canada has experienced a mass exodus of investment capital, some $387 billion from 2015 to 2023. And from 2014 to 2023, the latest year of comparable data, investment per worker (excluding residential construction and adjusted for inflation) dropped by 19.3 per cent, from $20,310 to $16,386 (in 2017 dollars).
In theory, Bill C-5 will help speed up the approval process for projects deemed to be in the “national interest.” But the cabinet (and in practical terms, the prime minister) will determine the “national interest,” not the private sector. The bill also allows the cabinet to override existing laws, regulations and guidelines to facilitate investment and the building of projects such as pipelines, mines and power transmission lines. At a time when Canada is known for not being able to get large projects done, many are applauding this new approach, and indeed the bill passed with the support of the Opposition Conservatives.
But basically, it will allow the cabinet to go around nearly every existing hurdle impeding or preventing large project developments, and the list of hurdles is extensive: Bill C-69 (which governs the approval process for large infrastructure projects including pipelines), Bill C-48 (which effectively bans oil tankers off the west coast), the federal cap on greenhouse gas emissions for only the oil and gas sector (which effectively means a cap or even reductions in production), a quasi carbon tax on fuel (called the Clean Fuels Standard), and so on.
Bill C-5 will not change any of these problematic laws and regulations. It simply will allow the cabinet to choose when and where they’re applied. This is cronyism at its worst and opens up the Carney government to significant risks of favouritism and even corruption.
Consider firms interested in pursuing large projects. If the bill becomes the law of the land, there won’t be a new, better and more transparent process to follow that improves the general economic environment for all entrepreneurs and businesses. Instead, there will be a cabinet (i.e. politicians) with new extraordinary powers that firms can lobby to convince that their project is in the “national interest.”
Indeed, according to some reports, some senators are referring to Bill C-5 as the “trust me” law, meaning that because there aren’t enough details and guardrails within the legislation, senators who vote in favour are effectively “trusting” Prime Minister Carney and his cabinet to do the right thing, effectively and consistently over time.
Consider the ambiguity in the legislation and how it empowers discretionary decisions by the cabinet. According to the legislation, cabinet “may consider any factor” it “considers relevant, including the extent to which the project can… strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security” or “provide economic benefits to Canada” or “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples” or “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”
With this type of “criteria,” nearly anything cabinet or the prime minister can dream up could be deemed in the “national interest” and therefore provide the prime minister with unprecedented and near unilateral powers.
In the preamble to the legislation, the government said it wants an accelerated approval process, which “enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence.” In all likelihood, Bill C-5 will do the opposite. It will put more power in the hands of a very few in government, lead to cronyism, risks outright corruption, and make Canada even less attractive to investment.
-
Alberta5 hours ago
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
-
Automotive1 day ago
Electric vehicle sales are falling hard in BC, and it is time to recognize reality.
-
Automotive1 day ago
Power Struggle: Electric vehicles and reality
-
Business1 day ago
Trump on Canada tariff deadline: ‘We can do whatever we want’
-
Business7 hours ago
Canada Caves: Carney ditches digital services tax after criticism from Trump
-
Brownstone Institute2 days ago
FDA Exposed: Hundreds of Drugs Approved without Proof They Work
-
Crime7 hours ago
Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho
-
Energy1 day ago
China undermining American energy independence, report says