From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Grady Semmens

Heartland leaders welcome proposed new natural gas connector

As a lifelong farmer, entrepreneur and community leader, Alanna Hnatiw knows first-hand the crucial role energy plays in a strong and diverse economy.

The mayor of Sturgeon County, a sprawling rural municipality northeast of Edmonton, Hnatiw has spent much of the last decade working to protect its agricultural roots while building new industries that support the jobs and services families and businesses rely on every day.

Hnatiw says there is widespread appreciation among the county’s 20,000 residents for the opportunities afforded by the province’s oil and gas resources. That’s why she joined other leaders in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland region to applaud a major new natural gas pipeline planned for the area.

“Natural gas is an integral to all the industrial operations in Sturgeon County and the surrounding area. It goes beyond just burning it to turn turbines, it is the feedstock for all kinds of value-added processing. From fertilizer and plastics to petrochemicals and hydrogen, natural gas is the lynchpin for us into the future,” she said.

Filling growing demand

Hnatiw is one of more than a dozen community and industry leaders who sent letters of support to the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) last year endorsing ATCO Energy Systems’ proposed Yellowhead Pipeline project.

The project achieved a significant milestone in August when the AUC approved ATCO’s application determining the pipeline is needed.

The largest infrastructure investment in the company’s history, the 230-kilometre pipeline from Peers to Fort Saskatchewan will transport more than 1.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day when operational in late 2027.

For context, Alberta produced about 11 billion cubic feet per day of natural gas in 2024, according to the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Proposed route map of the Yellowhead Pipeline. Map courtesy ATCO

The Yellowhead Pipeline will boost deliveries to the greater Edmonton area as demand continues to grow for power generation, manufacturing, petrochemical processing and residential use.

Industrial customers have reserved 90 per cent of the pipeline’s capacity to meet their future needs.

This includes Dow Chemical, which plans to build an $8.9-billion net-zero ethylene processing facility in Fort Saskatchewan, Heidelberg Materials’ Edmonton facility that aims to be the world’s first full-scale cement plant equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and McCain Foods, which requires more natural gas for a planned expansion of its French fry factory in Coaldale.

Prosperity driver

Edmonton Global CEO Malcolm Bruce described the Yellowhead Pipeline as a “visionary” infrastructure project in his letter of support to the AUC.

“The [project] will create jobs, enable billions in new investment and drive Alberta’s hydrogen roadmap and natural gas vision and strategy.”

ATCO’s projections show the pipeline will generate substantial economic benefits. The company estimates that during construction, it will support 12,000 jobs and contribute $1.6 billion per year to Alberta’s economy.

Once in operation, the pipeline is expected to support 23,700 jobs per year and add $3.9 billion annually to Alberta’s GDP.

For Sturgeon County, the project also provides much-needed certainty that natural gas will be available for the $30 billion in new industrial investments the region is hoping to attract in the coming years.

Future plans

The municipality is already home to major operations including the NWR Sturgeon Refinery and Nutrien fertilizer plant, both of which capture carbon dioxide emissions that are transported through the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line for deep underground storage near Clive, Alberta.

Hnatiw said future development may include hydrogen production with CCS, petrochemical processing, gas-fired power plants and large-scale data centres.

“With our operations running near capacity right now, this new pipeline helps alleviate the uncertainty around gas supplies for industrial developers,” Hnatiw said.

The county’s industrial goals are inextricably tied to ensuring its farming sector continues to flourish, she said.

“Eighty per cent of our land base is agricultural, but it only accounts for one per cent of our budget as far as taxes go, so we need our industrial residents to support our rural way of life,” she said.

“We don’t want people to have to leave our community to make a living. We want a future that is full of opportunity, and one that is also sustainable for the families that produce our food, our fuel, and all the other value-added products we can provide.”

ATCO’s next step is to file for AUC approval to build the pipeline later this year. The company expects construction to begin in 2026.

Shipping in Canada: Jurisdiction, Interprovincial Relations and the Case of British Columbia Examinied

by EnergyNow Media Staff

Canada’s unique geography gives several provinces access to the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic oceans, making coastal shipping a vital part of the country’s economic infrastructure. For provinces without direct access to tidewater—most notably Alberta and Saskatchewan—gaining access to ports in coastal provinces is critical for exporting goods, especially resources such as oil and gas. The role of coastal provinces, their jurisdiction over ports, and their political stances, particularly in British Columbia, have shaped national debates about energy transport and interprovincial cooperation.

Why Is Tidewater Access Important?

Provinces like Alberta depend on tidewater access to export oil, gas, and other commodities to global markets. Without pipelines or other transport infrastructure reaching a coastal port, these provinces are limited to domestic markets or reliant on the goodwill and cooperation of coastal neighbours. Tidewater shipping is essential for Canada’s overall economic competitiveness and for provinces whose economies are resource-based.

Jurisdiction Over Coastal Shipping and Ports

Under the Canadian Constitution, ports and shipping fall under federal jurisdiction, particularly when it comes to interprovincial and international trade. However, provincial governments exercise significant regulatory authority over land use, environmental approvals, and infrastructure within their borders—such as pipeline routes and terminal developments. This can give coastal provinces practical leverage to delay, alter, or oppose projects they find objectionable, even if the final decision rests with federal authorities.

Can Coastal Provinces Deny Access?

Legally, provinces cannot outright deny another province access to tidewater for interprovincial trade, as this would contravene the principle of free movement of goods within Canada. The federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate trade and transportation that crosses provincial boundaries. However, provincial governments can impact the process through environmental reviews, local permitting, and political opposition, which can significantly delay or even halt projects. In practice, the cooperation of coastal provinces is essential for the smooth operation of tidewater shipping and the development of infrastructure such as pipelines and terminals.

The NDP Government in British Columbia and Opposition to Oil and Gas Projects

British Columbia, as a coastal province, has played a pivotal role in debates about oil and gas transportation, particularly under New Democratic Party (NDP) governments. The NDP in B.C. has often taken strong positions against large-scale oil and gas projects, citing environmental risks, Indigenous rights, and local opposition.

One of the most prominent examples is the opposition to the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The B.C. NDP government, elected in 2017, made the project a focal point of its environmental policy. The government raised concerns about the risk of oil spills, the impact on coastal ecosystems, and the lack of adequate consultation with Indigenous communities. It used its regulatory authority to launch court challenges, tighten environmental standards, and delay provincial permits, even as the federal government asserted its jurisdiction over the project.

Other projects, such as the Northern Gateway pipeline and various LNG (liquefied natural gas) proposals, have faced similar opposition from the B.C. NDP and allied groups. The provincial government has argued that the long-term environmental risks outweigh the short-term economic benefits and has sought to position B.C. as a leader in climate action and sustainable development. Now, British Columbia’s Premier David Eby has stated that any new oil pipeline from Alberta to BC’s west coast should not be allowed and is not in the national interest of Canadians.

Implications for Interprovincial Relations and National Policy

The tension between provincial and federal jurisdiction over tidewater access and energy transport highlights broader questions about Canadian federalism. Coastal provinces have a responsibility to recognize the economic needs of landlocked provinces but also have legitimate interests in protecting their environments and meeting local expectations. The history of B.C.’s NDP government illustrates how provincial politics can shape, challenge, or even block national infrastructure projects, making intergovernmental cooperation and negotiation essential.

Access to tidewater shipping is crucial for Canada’s resource-rich inland provinces, and while federal jurisdiction generally prevails over interprovincial trade, coastal provinces have significant influence over the practicalities of infrastructure development. The NDP government in British Columbia has demonstrated how provincial opposition—grounded in environmental, social, and political concerns—can affect national projects like Trans Mountain. This ongoing dynamic underscores the need for respectful, collaborative approaches to balancing economic development with environmental protection and Indigenous rights in Canada.