Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Federal electricity regulations threaten Albertans with high costs and power outages

Published

11 minute read

Alberta responds to dangerous federal electricity regulations

Alberta has submitted detailed analysis showing why proposed federal regulations will threaten the province’s electricity grid.

Alberta is rapidly reducing emissions and targeting a carbon-neutral grid by 2050. Electricity emissions have declined by 53 per cent since 2005 and the province will have phased-out all coal generation by early 2024.

However, in August, the federal government released its draft Clean Electricity Regulations, which propose rigid rules to try and achieve net-zero electricity by 2035.

Based on expert analysis and industry consultations, Alberta’s government has submitted a detailed response outlining the technical problems with these regulations. The province’s analysis found that these regulations are unrealistic, ineffective and could compromise grid reliability to an unacceptable degree, resulting in the very real risk that Albertans will not have access to an essential service, like power, when they need it.

“These regulations are irresponsible and reckless, setting unrealistic targets and even banking on technologies that don’t exist. They will result in Albertans shouldering an unbearable cost for an electricity system that will no longer deliver the safety, reliability and affordability upon which our lives depend. We will not permit these dangerous and unconstitutional regulations to be imposed upon our province.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

“The standards and enforcement that Ottawa is proposing would put the safe, reliable and openly competitive market of Alberta’s electricity system at risk, all for targets that aren’t feasible or realistic. We cannot allow the reliability of our electricity to be compromised and risk public safety during the coldest months of the year, when people need the power most. We urge Ottawa to abandon these regulations and work with us on a realistic path that aligns with our own emissions-reduction goals.”

Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

Some of the key problems outlined in Alberta’s technical submission include:

Flawed modelling creates unrealistic targets

The modelling tools used by the federal government lack the capability to properly assess Alberta’s energy-only market, including the province’s large share of cogeneration. The federal tools also use incomplete proxies to evaluate system reliability, leading them to drastically underestimate the negative impacts.

The federal modelling also relies heavily on technologies that are currently not ready to be deployed, assuming that they will soon be easily or quickly available. As a result, the federal modelling offers an unreliable and inaccurate picture of the costs, impacts on reliability and outcomes of these regulations. With better modelling, the federal targets would be unachievable.

Unachievable standards

The regulations propose unachievable emission standards, with limited flexibility and using a rigid approach that will not work. The standard is also based on unproven design specifications that will be very challenging for operators to meet, even under optimal conditions, and potentially impossible given the operational variability that occurs in electricity grids on a daily basis.

Notably, Ottawa’s standard is significantly higher than those proposed in the United States in May. Standards need to be based on actual performance.

Creating a retirement cliff

The proposed regulations set an end of prescribed life of 20 years, despite the typical operating life of natural gas units being closer to 45 years. This will create stranded assets and massive retirement “cliffs,” as large numbers of natural gas facilities go off-line.

Approximately 55 per cent of Alberta’s existing and approved natural gas generation installed capacity would be subject to the federal emissions standard by 2035. The unnecessary retirement of best-in-class natural gas units would have massive negative impacts on Alberta’s electricity system.

A one-size-fits-all approach won’t work

It is clear that the federal government drafted these regulations based largely on the electricity systems of Canada’s three largest provinces, which primarily rely upon hydroelectricity and nuclear energy.

Regional differences must be recognized, including flexibilities for those jurisdictions most negatively affected by the regulations. When Ottawa exempted home heating oil from the carbon tax, they recognized the need for this flexibility. Alberta and all provinces deserve the same consideration.

Flawed understanding of natural gas

Alberta currently relies on natural gas for more than 70 per cent of its generation. Alberta’s grid reliability is maintained through natural gas generation to backup and balance intermittent sources of power such as wind and solar. Considering the seasonality of renewable resources, Alberta anticipates the need for efficient high-capacity abated natural gas units for decades to come.

The regulations are so rigid and strict that they will effectively make it economically unviable for companies to build and operate natural gas facilities, including abating emissions through carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS).

Inflexible and punitive compliance options

The draft regulations are unnecessarily punitive with inflexible compliance options. As written, generators must not emit or they could face criminal penalties under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which includes a threat of incarceration. The regulations also increase red tape, increase costs, and offer very little flexibility for industry.

Limiting new technologies

The proposed federal electricity regulations will limit the adoption of important new technologies like hydrogen and CCUS by setting unproven and unrealistic performance standards for facilities. This imposes high costs, introduces investor risk, and creates challenges such as older facilities not being able to upgrade or retrofit new technologies. The result will be added costs and grid reliability risks.

Risks to reliability and safety

Alberta requires reliable electricity power in periods when intermittent sources are not generating. In December 2022, the 5,000 megawatts of installed renewable capacity generated as little as 187 megawatts of energy at one point during a period of cold weather with little wind or solar generation. Natural gas was needed to keep the province from experiencing blackouts.

The proposed allowable peaking provisions – needed to ensure that power is available at any time, under any weather conditions – will result in Alberta not having enough power available when needed most. This is dangerous and irresponsible. The proposed low annual-run-hour limit and emissions restrictions do not enable natural gas assets to respond when needed to increasing demands and the variability of intermittent generation.

A ridiculous approach to emergencies

The proposed treatment of emergencies is unacceptable. It is untenable for the federal government to require post-emergency sign-off by a federal minister. Alberta’s provincial system operator knows best when we have an emergency, not politicians in Ottawa. Provinces must have flexibility to call on generators during emergencies to protect the safety and security of families and businesses, without the threat of punitive action on system operators or generators.

Inadequate financial support for those hit hardest

The federal government released the draft regulations without providing the financial supports needed to enable this transition. Any claims otherwise are false. Federal modelling indicates the regulations will cost $58 billion – since 60 per cent of the net costs will fall on Alberta, the province should receive 60 per cent of the necessary federal funding. Also, the $58-billion figure is likely incorrect as it’s based on flawed modelling and does not adequately consider the distribution and transmission and other costs that will be required. Other third-party assessments further estimated the costs reaching into the trillions.

Next steps

Alberta continues to call on the federal government to respect jurisdictional authority and the enshrined rights and responsibilities of the provinces. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on the Impact Assessment Act confirmed the unconstitutionality of the federal government’s ongoing efforts to interfere with electricity and natural resource sectors of all provinces.

The Alberta-Ottawa working group continues to discuss how to bring Ottawa’s efforts to achieve carbon neutrality in the economy in line with Alberta’s Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan. If this alignment is not achieved, Alberta will chart its own path to protect its citizens and economy by ensuring the province has additional reliable, affordable and sustainable electricity brought onto the power grid.

Alberta officials will continue to share technical information and analysis on these regulations with the federal government as required to achieve a more practical and realistic approach.

Quick facts

  • Alberta has reduced electricity emissions by 53 per cent since 2005.
  • According to Canada’s Constitution, legislating and regulating the development of electricity explicitly falls within the jurisdiction of the province (92A (1) (c)).
  • The Alberta Electric System Operator found that Alberta would face disproportionate risk and costs, compared with other provinces, as a result of the federal electricity regulations.
  • The Public Policy Forum previously indicated that the cost of the federal electricity approach could be more than $1 trillion and as high as $1.7 trillion.

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in  Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Continue Reading

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy 

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.

Continue Reading

Trending

X