How Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG Project is a New Dawn for Indigenous Peoples

Written by Estella Petersen for Canada Action

Who formed the partnership between Haisla Nation and Cedar LNG, and why? Who benefits from this project? Is there First Nations support for this project, and if so, what can we learn from it?

Into the Water

The Haisla Nation and Pembina Pipeline Corp. Cedar LNG first proposed this project to the government in 2019. Since then, this partnership has proven to be successful in achieving the details of the project, such as government approval and recently B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Certificate.

Plans for the $3 billion floating export terminal in Kitimat is to start shipping to places like Asia by 2027. There is a market for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) worldwide, which is expected to grow dramatically over the next several years.

Dwellers Down River

It’s not hard to see the pride in the faces of people from Haisla Nation as this project has evolved. Particularly Chief Councillor Crystal Smith and former Chief Councillor Ellis Ross as they tirelessly negotiated to have their people as partners in the project from the conception through to the operational stage.

Despite being Indigenous, I am not from the Haisla Nation but I consider this a positive step forward for all Indigenous people in Canada. Additionally, to see a female Indigenous Chief so passionate about making change in her community while implementing their cultural values and maintaining responsible social and environmental priorities into this major project is undeniably inspiring.

The impact this project will have on Indigenous people may begin with the Haisla people, their community, and the region surrounding them. But it also includes those families and businesses involved with this project, whether that be BC Hydro to supply renewable power, or smaller companies that are providing goods and services in the area.

Our country and the world stand to benefit immensely from Cedar LNG, as it will ship some of the lowest GHG-emitting LNG globally and be a go-to source of natural gas as the world looks to transition to renewables.

There Will Always Be Naysayers

Realistically, there will always be people who do not want someone or something to succeed, I call this the glass half empty mentality. The same seems to ring true for energy projects in Canada.

Let us just say that anti-oil and gas protestors don’t go unnoticed. When First Nations stand up to support energy projects in Canada, the backlash from these opponents seems extreme. Stating those of us who encourage Indigenous partnerships with energy companies are “colonialized” misunderstand that partnerships create economic reconciliation. It is also a bit insensitive, as we have the right to choose to support the responsible development of natural resources in Canada if we want to.

The opportunities for Indigenous communities to improve their quality of living through housing, drinkable water, proper education, modern healthcare, and social programs like mental health counselling are essential to our people.

Who Are We Becoming?

“We” Indigenous people are becoming educated, business-oriented, partners in large energy projects, owners of businesses, independent of government dependence, and breaking away from negative stereotypes of Indigenous people. We are regaining our culture, languages, and spirituality, while remaining stewards of the land – that will never change.

What we learn is that Haisla Nation and the Cedar LNG project will change history in regards to how oil and gas projects work with Indigenous people. Involving Indigenous people from the beginning stages of a project, throughout the project, and for generations to come is how you can build better relationships with local communities, advance economic reconciliation with First Nations, protect the environment, and perhaps get some new major energy projects built while at it.

About the Author

Estella Petersen is a heavy machinery operator in the oil sands out of Fort McMurray. Estella is from the Cowessess Reserve and is passionate about Canada and supporting Canadian natural resources.

Canada Action

www.canadaaction.ca

Follow Author

How Haisla Nation’s Cedar LNG Project is a New Dawn for Indigenous Peoples

Energy / 2 years ago

Majority of Canadians Support Canada’s Role as Responsible Energy Producer & Exporter: POLL

Alberta / 3 years ago

Canada’s Forestry Sector is World-Class. Here’s Proof.

Economy

‘Gambling With The Grid’: New Data Highlights Achilles’ Heel Of One Of Biden’s Favorite Green Power Sources

Published on May 4, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By NICK POPE

New government data shows that wind power generation fell in 2023 despite the addition of new capacity, a fact that energy sector experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation demonstrates its inherent flaw.

Wind generation fell by about 2.1% in 2023 relative to 2022 generation, despite the 6 gigawatts (GW) of wind power capacity that came online last year, according to data published Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). That wind power output dropped despite new capacity coming online and the availability of government subsidies highlights its intermittency and the problems wind power could pose for grid reliability, energy sector experts told the DCNF.

The decrease in wind generation is the first drop on record with the EIA since the 1990s; the drop was not evenly distributed across all regions of the U.S., and slower wind speeds last year also contributed to the decline, according to EIA. The Biden administration wants to have the American power sector reach carbon neutrality by 2035, a goal that will require a significant shift away from natural gas- and coal-fired power toward wind, solar and other green sources.

A table depicting the decrease of wind power generation in 2023 relative to 2022. (Screenshot via U.S. Energy Information Administration)

“Relying on wind power to meet your peak electricity demands is gambling with the grid,” Isaac Orr, a policy fellow at the Center of the American Experiment who specializes in power grid-related analysis, told the DCNF. “Will the wind blow, or won’t it? This should be a moment where policymakers step back and consider the wisdom of heavily subsidizing intermittent generators and punishing reliable coal and gas plants with onerous regulations.”

Between 2016 and 2022, the wind industry received an estimated $18.6 billion worth of subsidies, about 10% of the total amount of subsidies extended to the energy sector by the U.S. government, according to an August 2023 EIA report. Wind power received more assistance from the government than nuclear power, coal or natural gas over the same period of time.

“This isn’t subsidies per kilowatt hour of generation. It’s raw subsidies. If it were per kilowatt hour of generation, the numbers would be even more extreme,” Paige Lambermont, a research fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the DCNF. “This is a massive amount of money. It’s enough to dramatically alter energy investment decisions for the worse. We’re much more heavily subsidizing the sources that don’t provide a significant portion of our electricity than those that do.”

“Policy that just focuses on installed capacity, rather than the reliability of that capacity, fails to understand the real needs of the electrical grid,” Lambermont added. “This recent disparity illustrates that more installed wind capacity does not necessarily correlate with more wind power production. It doesn’t matter how much wind you add to the grid, if the wind isn’t blowing at peak demand time, that capacity will go to waste.”

Wind power’s performance was especially lackluster in the upper midwest, but Texas saw more wind generation in 2023 than it did in 2022, according to EIA. Wind generation in the first half of 2023 was about 14% lower than it was through the first six months of 2022, but generation was higher toward the end of 2023 than it was during the same period in 2022.

In 2023, about 60% of all electricity generated in the U.S. came from fossil fuels, while 10% came from wind power, according to EIA data. Beyond generous subsidies for preferred green energy sources, the Biden administration has also aggressively regulated fossil fuels and American power plants to advance its broad climate agenda.

Biden’s Climate Bill Boosted An Offshore Wind Giant, But His Economy Brought It To The Brink https://t.co/AF7SPT2FNu

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) landmark power plant rules finalized this month will threaten grid reliability if enacted, partially because the regulations are likely to incentivize operators to close plants rather than adopt the costly measures required for compliance, grid experts previously told the DCNF. At the same time that the Biden administration is effectively trying to shift power generation away from fossil fuels, it is also pursuing goals — such as substantially boosting electric vehicle adoption over the next decade and incentivizing construction of energy-intensive computer chip factories — that are driving up projected electricity demand in the future.

“The EIA data proves what we’ve always known about wind power: It is intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the oil and gas industry who now writes and consults on the energy sector, told the DCNF. “Any power generation source whose output is wholly dependent on equally unpredictable weather conditions should never be presented by power companies and grid managers as safe replacements for abundant, cheap, dispatchable generation fueled with natural gas, coal or nuclear. This is a simple reality that people in charge of our power grids too often forget. Saying that no doubt hurts some people’s feelings, but nature really does not care about our feelings.”

Blackmon also pointed out that, aside from its intermittency, sluggish build-out of the transmission lines and related infrastructure poses a major problem for wind power.

“Wind power is worthless without accompanying transmission, yet the Biden administration continues to pour billions into unreliable wind while ignoring the growing crisis in the transmission sector,” Blackmon told the DCNF.

Another long-term issue that wind power, as well as solar power, faces is the need for a massive expansion in the amount of battery storage available to store and dispatch energy from intermittent sources as market conditions dictate. By some estimates, the U.S. will need about 85 times as much battery storage by 2050 relative to November 2023 in order to fully decarbonize the power grid, according to Alsym Energy, a battery company.

The White House and the Department of Energy did not respond to requests for comment.

Alberta

Alberta government should eliminate corporate welfare to generate benefits for Albertans

Published on May 2, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Spencer Gudewill and Tegan Hill

Last November, Premier Danielle Smith announced that her government will give up to $1.8 billion in subsidies to Dow Chemicals, which plans to expand a petrochemical project northeast of Edmonton. In other words, $1.8 billion in corporate welfare.

And this is just one example of corporate welfare paid for by Albertans.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, from 2007 to 2021, the latest year of available data, the Alberta government spent $31.0 billion (inflation-adjusted) on subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) to select firms and businesses, purportedly to help Albertans. And this number excludes other forms of government handouts such as loan guarantees, direct investment and regulatory or tax privileges for particular firms and industries. So the total cost of corporate welfare in Alberta is likely much higher.

Why should Albertans care?

First off, there’s little evidence that corporate welfare generates widespread economic growth or jobs. In fact, evidence suggests the contrary—that subsidies result in a net loss to the economy by shifting resources to less productive sectors or locations (what economists call the “substitution effect”) and/or by keeping businesses alive that are otherwise economically unviable (i.e. “zombie companies”). This misallocation of resources leads to a less efficient, less productive and less prosperous Alberta.
And there are other costs to corporate welfare.

For example, between 2007 and 2019 (the latest year of pre-COVID data), every year on average the Alberta government spent 35 cents (out of every dollar of business income tax revenue it collected) on corporate welfare. Given that workers bear the burden of more than half of any business income tax indirectly through lower wages, if the government reduced business income taxes rather than spend money on corporate welfare, workers could benefit.

Moreover, Premier Smith failed in last month’s provincial budget to provide promised personal income tax relief and create a lower tax bracket for incomes below $60,000 to provide $760 in annual savings for Albertans (on average). But in 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the Alberta government spent $2.4 billion on corporate welfare—equivalent to $1,034 per tax filer. Clearly, instead of subsidizing select businesses, the Smith government could have kept its promise to lower personal income taxes.

Finally, there’s the Heritage Fund, which the Alberta government created almost 50 years ago to save a share of the province’s resource wealth for the future.

In her 2024 budget, Premier Smith earmarked $2.0 billion for the Heritage Fund this fiscal year—almost the exact amount spent on corporate welfare each year (on average) between 2007 and 2019. Put another way, the Alberta government could save twice as much in the Heritage Fund in 2024/25 if it ended corporate welfare, which would help Premier Smith keep her promise to build up the Heritage Fund to between $250 billion and $400 billion by 2050.

By eliminating corporate welfare, the Smith government can create fiscal room to reduce personal and business income taxes, or save more in the Heritage Fund. Any of these options will benefit Albertans far more than wasteful billion-dollar subsidies to favoured firms.