Energy
Who put the energy illiterate in charge?

This article supplied by Troy Media.
Canada’s energy policy is being shaped by politicians who don’t actually understand how energy works. That’s not just embarrassing. It’s dangerous
Canada’s energy future is being held back by a critical obstacle: our elected officials don’t understand energy.
At all three levels of government, most politicians lack even a basic grasp of how our energy systems function. That ignorance isn’t just a knowledge gap—it’s a leadership crisis. Energy systems are evolving rapidly, and our leaders are ill-equipped to manage the complexity, tradeoffs and consequences involved. With few exceptions, their understanding is superficial, shaped more by talking points than substance.
By “energy systems,” I mean the complex web of technologies, infrastructure, markets and regulations that generate, distribute and manage power—from oil and gas to hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. These systems are deeply interconnected, constantly changing and central to every aspect of modern life. Yet the people making decisions about them often have little idea how they actually work.
This shows up frequently in public life: dodged questions, scripted answers, vague platitudes. Many politicians skate across the surface of issues with the thinnest understanding. The old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” perfectly describes Canadian energy politics today.
Decisions about energy directly affect household utility bills, climate goals, industrial competitiveness and grid reliability. Yet politicians tend to be tethered to the dominant energy source in their own region—oil and gas in Alberta, hydro in Quebec, nuclear in Ontario—without grasping how those systems connect or conflict. Canada’s energy landscape is fragmented, with each province operating under its own regulatory framework, infrastructure constraints and political pressures. That makes coordination difficult and systems-level thinking essential.
This isn’t a left-versus-right issue. It’s not oil and gas versus renewables. It’s a national failure to understand the integrated systems that power our lives and economy. Canada is, functionally, energy illiterate, and our elected officials reflect that reality. We flip a switch, pump gas, turn up the thermostat and rarely ask how or why it works, or what it costs in environmental or economic terms.
Take the Clean Electricity Regulations as one example. Introduced by the federal government to drive Canada’s electricity grid to net-zero emissions by 2035, the CERs require provinces to sharply reduce or eliminate fossil fuel-based power. But in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where coal and natural gas still dominate, those regulations landed with a thud. The federal government failed to account for regional infrastructure limitations, market structure
differences and technology readiness. The result? Immediate backlash, legal threats and political gridlock—not because climate action is unwelcome, but because the policy was crafted in a vacuum of systems-level understanding.
Adding to the problem is the dominance of bureaucrats and political handlers in shaping what passes for energy messaging. Speeches are often a patchwork of statistics and sanitized clichés, stripped of nuance or depth. Many politicians simply deliver what they’re handed, guided more by risk management than insight. The result is policy that’s disconnected from the realities it aims to change.
A handful of elected officials do have real-world energy experience, but even that is often narrow, based on one role or one sector. It rarely translates into the kind of broad, integrated knowledge needed to lead across multiple interdependent systems. The risks of this fragmented thinking are immense.
What’s needed is mandatory education—an energy information and insights toolkit for anyone seeking public office. This shared curriculum would cover how electricity and fuel systems work, the economics of energy markets, climate dynamics, environmental trade-offs and public policy principles. It should be grounded in both natural and social sciences and structured to develop systems thinking, so that decisions are informed by how energy technologies, markets and governance truly interact.
Imagine if thousands of politicians—urban and rural, left and right, federal and local—learned from the same textbook. Politics wouldn’t vanish. Disagreements wouldn’t disappear. But the debate would shift from tribal talking points to informed discussion.
And for once, Canada might start moving forward on energy, not with noise or paralysis, but with purpose.
Bill Whitelaw is a director and advisor to many industry boards, including the Canadian Society for Evolving Energy, which he chairs. He speaks and comments frequently on the subjects of social licence, innovation and technology, and energy supply networks.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Daily Caller
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
It comes as a surprise to many Americans when they learn that the vast majority of decisions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court are decided unanimously. Far too often, these unanimous decisions receive scant attention in the press due to their lack of controversy.
Such is the case with a key 8-0 decision the Court published May 29 that could help Congress and the Trump administration meet their goals to streamline permitting for energy projects in the United States. The decision narrows the scope of application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law whose environmental review provisions have been systematically used – and often abused – by climate alarm groups and plaintiff lawyers for decades to impede the progress of major projects of all kinds.
The case at hand involves the Uinta Basin Railway Project, which will transport oil produced in Utah’s Unita Basin and connect it to the national railway network so it can reach national markets. Because the rail line would parallel the Colorado River for roughly 100 miles, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in 2023 that the project’s developers would have to conduct a second, expanded environmental impact study under NEPA to try to assess nebulous potential impacts to air quality – often taking place thousands of miles away – or from a possible oil spill, rescinding a key permit that had been issued in 2021 by federal regulators.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
It is key to note that that permit was issued by the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) along with a 3,600-page environmental impact statement to comply with NEPA. In the conduct of the environmental review, the Wall Street Journal wrote that STB and the company assessed “the railway’s potential effects on local water resources, air quality, protected species, recreation, local economies, the Ute Indian tribe and much more.”
But for the plaintiffs and the D.C. Circuit Court, 3,600 pages of thorough scientific analysis just weren’t enough. They filed suit, complaining that the study didn’t try to assess potential impacts that might happen on dozens of other rail lines hundreds of miles distant, or, even more absurd, assess potential pollution in “environmental justice communities” as far away as the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.
You really can’t make this stuff up.
If delay was the goal, the plaintiffs got a win, halting progress for four years. That is a sadly typical outcome for cases involving energy-related projects such as this one.
In their unanimous opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the justices state, “The goal of the law is to inform agency decisionmaking, not to paralyze it.”
As I’ve written in previous stories, the vast majority of delays in permitting processes stem from provisions contained in major federal statutes designed to protect the environment and endangered species. In addition to NEPA, these laws include the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Among them all, none has been more broadly abused and misinterpreted by activist courts than NEPA.
In its analysis of the decision, the Institute for Energy Research says, in part, that the “decision means that agencies can approve projects like pipelines, railways, and dams and not be mandated to consider distant environmental effects of the projects, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, that had stopped or delayed fossil fuel projects from moving forward, particularly during the Biden administration.” But, the author cautions, “the Uinta Basin Railway project could still face additional legal and regulatory hurdles within Colorado,” despite the ruling.
The good news is that even the liberal justices on the Supreme Court appear to be developing a growing awareness of just how absurd some of the claims made in lawsuits like this case really are. The unanimous nature of this decision inspires some sense of hope that the Trump administration can succeed in some of its efforts to reform the system and put an end to some of the most unjustified delays.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
Alberta
Alberta’s carbon diet – how to lose megatonnes in just three short decades

Carl Marcotte, Candu Energy, Scott Henuset, Energy Alberta, and William McLeod
From Resource Works
Solving emissions problem is turning Alberta into a clean-tech powerhouse.
While oil, gas and pipelines took up a lot of oxygen at last week’s Global Energy Canada Show in Calgary, there was also a considerable focus on clean energy, clean-tech and decarbonization.
Alberta’s very survival in a decarbonizing world depends on innovation, best practices and regulations that will allow it to continue to produce oil and gas while trying to meet net zero targets that, like a mirage, appear to move further away the closer we get to them. Necessity being the mother of invention, Wild Rose Country has become rather inventive. It has become something of a clean-tech powerhouse and, as a result, has made some notable progress in its emissions intensity. Alberta’s industrial carbon tax, in place since 2007, and which hit $95 per tonne in 2025, has been used to fund emissions abatement technology and innovation through the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction (TIER) program.
According to the Government of Alberta, the province has, to date, achieved:
- an 8.7% decline in overall emissions since 2015;
- a 52% decline in methane emissions since 2014;
- a 26% decline in oil sands emissions intensity since 2012; and
- 15 million tonnes of CO2 sequestered through carbon capture and storage.
The Pembina Institute, it is worth noting, has taken issue with some of Alberta’s reporting. Based on the federal National Inventory Report, Alberta’s methane emissions have declined by 35% between 2014 and 2023, not 52%.
Information sessions at last week’s conference covered topics like geothermal energy, lithium extraction, methane emissions detection and reduction technology, low-carbon hydrogen production and use, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear power. Alberta’s contributions to the energy transition and decarbonization is, I think, a bit of an untold story.
In the case of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS), it’s a story that some environmentalists don’t want to hear, and don’t want anyone else to hear. In 2023, Greenpeace and two other environmental NGOs filed a complaint with the Competition Bureau against the Pathways Alliance, saying its claims of potential emissions reduction through CCUS constituted greenwashing. The Trudeau government responded with an anti-greenwashing bill — C-59 — that puts companies at risk of fines for making claims on emission reductions that are not backed by “adequate and proper” testing and evidence. Basically, companies will need to show their homework before making claims on climate benefits or risk hefty fines.”Some of the things that I’ve said would be illegal for my companies to say under the existing law because it would be called greenwashing,” Premier Danielle Smith said at last week ‘s conference. Green fundamentalists don’t want to hear about climate benefits, if it involves things like carbon capture, which they view as extending the lifetime of fossil fuels. Maybe they didn’t get the memo from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group 3, which last year pronounced in a special report that carbon sequestration is “unavoidable if net zero CO2 or GHG emissions are to be achieved.”
Alberta’s oil and gas industry understands full well there is a big target on their backs: the oil sands. This energy intensive form of extracting oil generated 86.5 million million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) in 2023, according to the Alberta government. That accounts for 33% of Alberta’s total GHG emissions, and is getting perilously close to the federal government’s emission’s cap for oil and gas.

Alberta ingenuity and innovation in extracting oil from sand led Canada to become the world’s fourth largest oil producer, with huge economic benefits for Canada. Alberta is now applying that ingenuity to try to shrink its GHG profile. Alberta has had some of the largest emissions reductions in the power generation sector in Canada recently, thanks to the phasing out of coal power.
Last year, it retired its last coal power plant, meaning the province reached its goal of phasing out coal six years ahead of federal and provincial targets of 2030. As a result, emissions from Alberta’s electricity sector declined 54% between 2015 and 2023, according to the Alberta government. It accomplished this by investing in wind and solar power, backed by firm natural gas power. Alberta now has about twice the amount of installed wind power as B.C. Alberta also reached methane emission reduction targets ahead of schedule. The Alberta government reports a 52% decline in methane intensity between 2014 and 2023, exceeding the target of a 45% decrease by 2025.
According to a recent S&P Global report, the GHG intensity of Alberta’s oil sands has declined 23% since 2009. And since 2019, S&P reports, the pace of oil sands emissions growth has slowed, with a 3% increase in emissions since 2019, despite a 9% growth in oil and gas production. Alberta’s challenge is that, as long as it plans to increase oil and gas production — and it does — reducing its emissions is like draining a bathtub while the faucet is still on. While emissions intensity may go down, absolute emissions could still grow with production growth, and Danielle Smith would like to see Alberta’s oil production double. So, some pretty big gains will be needed if Alberta is to achieve the dual goal of increasing oil production while trying to bring its emissions intensity down to zero by 2050. The only way to do that is through large-scale CCUS, and Alberta has become a global leader in its deployment. Thanks to CCUS, Alberta is poised to become a leading producer of blue hydrogen, ammonia and other “net-zero chemicals.” Through CCUS initiatives like the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line and the Shell Quest CCS project, Alberta has already sequestered 13.5 million tonnes of CO2, according to Emissions Reduction Alberta.
The Pathways Alliance — a consortium of Alberta’s biggest oil producers — propose a $10 billion to $20 billion investment that includes a large scale-up of CCUS, to decarbonize oil sands production and Alberta’s petrochemical industry. According to Natural Resources Canada, the estimated sequestration of the Pathways project would be 13.9 Mt CO2 captured by 2030 — 4.2 MT per year — and 62 Mt per year by 2050. A buildout of CCUS infrastructure in Alberta’s refining and petrochemical complex in the Edmonton area would capture CO2 from gas combustion. “That then puts them on the road to net-zero aviation fuels, net-zero chemicals, what-have-you,” Chris Bataille, adjunct research fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, told me. “If you look at this as a transition, it’s a necessary thing to do, and we have the right geology for it, and these companies know how to do this kind of thing.”
In addition to CCUS, Alberta also now plans to become a nuclear power producer. A company called Energy Alberta plans to deploy existing Canadian nuclear technology — the CANDU reactor. It proposes to build a 1,000 megawatt twin CANDU MONARK reactor north of Peace River, Alberta. It is now in the early stage of a federal Impact Assessment process. If the federal Liberal government is serious about achieving its ambitious climate policy objectives, it needs to either help Alberta with its ambitious decarbonization efforts, which would include some major federal subsidies, or just get out of its way and let Alberta do what it does best, which is innovate.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Central Alberta MP resigns to give Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre a chance to regain a seat in Parliament
-
Alberta1 day ago
Calls for a new pipeline to the coast are only getting louder
-
Alberta1 day ago
Unified message for Ottawa: Premier Danielle Smith and Premier Scott Moe call for change to federal policies
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta pro-life group says health officials admit many babies are left to die after failed abortions
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
‘Not Held Hostage Anymore’: Economist Explains How America Benefits If Trump Gets Oil And Gas Expansion
-
Daily Caller10 hours ago
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Jordan Peterson reveals DEI ‘expert’ serving as his ‘re-education coach’ for opposing LGBT agenda
-
Business1 day ago
Rhetoric—not evidence—continues to dominate climate debate and policy