Energy
When Vancouver reverses ban on natural gas appliances, it’s time to talk about energy choices
From EnergyNow.ca
By Stewart Muir of Resource Works
More News and Views From Resource Works Here
The Practicality of Energy Choice in Vancouver
Vancouver’s decision to reverse the ban on natural gas appliances in new homes should serve as the beginning of a necessary conversation about energy system choices
In a city like Vancouver, where the mountains meet the sea and the urban skyline reflects both our history and our aspirations, policy decisions are often a reflection of our values. Yet, sometimes, even the best intentions can lead us down a perilous path. The recent decision by the City of Vancouver to restore freedom of choice for heating water and space in our homes, reversing an earlier ban on natural gas, is a move I support.
Housing affordability was a major deciding factor, but to me this turn of events – one the nation is watching – also marks a step away from a simplistic and potentially regressive approach to climate action, one that could have stymied our efforts to decarbonize in a meaningful way.
Let me be clear: climate change is real, and the need to reduce emissions is urgent. However, the original gas ban, while well-intentioned, was not the answer. Banning natural gas from our homes might have seemed like a bold move, but it ignored the nuances of our energy system and the challenges we face in transitioning to a low-carbon future.
The gas ban was a decision that felt good for those deeply concerned about climate action; a personal stand against fossil fuels. But feelings alone do not build resilient energy systems, nor do they account for the complex interplay of technologies and fuels that will be necessary to achieve our climate goals. Natural gas, particularly when blended with renewable gases like hydrogen, can and should play a role in our energy future. The idea of banning it outright was akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Consider this: hydrogen, a zero-emissions fuel, is already the focus of enormous national and international investment. Canada is positioning itself as a leader in hydrogen production and technology, recognizing its potential to decarbonize sectors that are otherwise difficult to electrify. Banning natural gas infrastructure would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to integrate hydrogen into our energy mix when the technology matures.
Similarly, renewable natural gas, produced from organic waste, relies on the very distribution networks that a gas ban would have dismantled. The infrastructure for delivering gas to our homes is not a relic of the past but a vital component of our future energy system, one that could deliver clean, low-carbon fuels to millions of Canadians.
Let’s not forget the practical realities of energy demand. Suppose gas was revoked as an option for homes in Canada; the energy required to replace it would necessitate the entirety of our current solar and wind capacity several times over. This is not hyperbole—it’s a fact. And it doesn’t even account for the intermittency of these renewable sources, which means they cannot be relied upon to meet demand at all times.
In British Columbia, we’re already seeing the strain on our electricity system. We’ve become net importers of electricity, a situation that underscores the limits of our current infrastructure. As demand continues to rise—for electric vehicles, air conditioning, and the energy-hungry applications of artificial intelligence—our grid is buckling under the pressure. Tens of billions of dollars in upgrades are required, and these projects will take years to complete. Meanwhile, our neighboring provinces and states are facing similar challenges, leading to a regional energy crunch.
This diagram of Canada’s energy system provides, under close examination, a sober realization of how things work:
There is a lot to take in here, showing as it does the sources of all the energy in Canadian life (on the left) and how they flow into particular uses (right).
In grey shading on the right, the box labelled “Rejected Energy” represents energy that goes to waste. It is a staggering five times the amount of all types of energy used in our homes. I can understand that this area of high potential is hard to create excitement about. Nonetheless, it is a real source of ongoing progress, represented by ever more efficient ways of using fuels and upgrading equipment, and we aren’t talking about it.
Energy experts understand that banning a single type of energy without considering the broader system is not just imprudent; it’s dangerous. It could lead to shortages, higher costs, and ultimately, a failure to achieve our climate goals. Yet, I also recognize the appeal of actions that seem to offer immediate, tangible results. There’s a strong emotional pull in taking control of what happens in our own homes, in feeling like we’re doing our part.
This is why I’m calling for more energy education and diverse conversations that are constructive, respectful, and grounded in reality. We need to move beyond the tired narrative of “faceless corporations” versus the environment. The truth is, the people in both policy and industry are striving for the same outcome: a world with lower emissions and better outcomes for all.
The City of Vancouver’s decision to reverse the gas ban is a wise one, but it should be just the beginning. I urge the city to initiate a robust process of energy education, one that equips residents with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their energy use. And as a resident of this city, I am more than willing to take part in this vital conversation.
Our future depends on it.
Stewart Muir is the Founder and CEO of Resource Works.
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Cody Ciona
‘Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests’
Billions of investment in new data centres is still expected in Alberta despite the province’s electric system operator placing a temporary limit on new large-load grid connections, said Carson Kearl, lead data centre analyst for Enverus Intelligence Research.
Kearl cited NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s estimate from earlier this year that building a one-gigawatt data centre costs between US$60 billion and US$80 billion.
That implies the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)’s 1.2 gigawatt temporary limit would still allow for up to C$130 billion of investment.
“It’s got the potential to be extremely impactful to the Alberta power sector and economy,” Kearl said.
Importantly, data centre operators can potentially get around the temporary limit by ‘bringing their own power’ rather than drawing electricity from the existing grid.
In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market – the only one in Canada – large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers.
According to the AESO, there are 30 proposed data centre projects across the province.
The total requested power load for these projects is more than 16 gigawatts, roughly four gigawatts more than Alberta’s demand record in January 2024 during a severe cold snap.
For comparison, Edmonton’s load is around 1.4 gigawatts, the AESO said.
“Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests,” CEO Aaron Engen said in a statement.
“Because connecting all large loads seeking access would impair grid reliability, we established a limit that preserves system integrity while enabling timely data centre development in Alberta.”
As data centre projects come to the province, so do jobs and other economic benefits.
“You have all of the construction staff associated; electricians, engineers, plumbers, and HVAC people for all the cooling tech that are continuously working on a multi-year time horizon. In the construction phase there’s a lot of spend, and that is just generally good for the ecosystem,” said Kearl.
Investment in local power infrastructure also has long-term job implications for maintenance and upgrades, he said.
“Alberta is a really exciting place when it comes to building data centers,” said Beacon AI CEO Josh Schertzer on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.
“It has really great access to natural gas, it does have some excess grid capacity that can be used in the short term, it’s got a great workforce, and it’s very business-friendly.”
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Kitimat’s LNG launch ends years of delay, weak policy and lost opportunity. This is a strategic turning point for Canada
Last week marked a turning point for Canadian sovereignty. On July 1, 2025, the tanker Gaslog Glasgow departed Kitimat, B.C., carrying Canada’s first-ever commercial liquefied natural gas (LNG) export to Asia. More than a shipment, it signalled the end of our economic vassalage to the United States and a long-overdue leap into global energy markets.
LNG Canada CEO Chris Cooper called it a “truly historic moment.” He’s right. The cargo left just days after the Kitimat plant produced its first liquefied natural gas and entered operation. The $40-billion megaproject, the largest private-sector investment in Canadian history, is now a fully functional Pacific Coast export hub. It can ship up to 14 million tonnes annually, and expansion is already being discussed.
Yet this success didn’t come easily. Despite being one of the world’s largest natural gas producers, Canada lacked an LNG export terminal, largely due to political delays, regulatory hurdles and lack of federal support. That this happened at all is remarkable, given nearly a decade of federal sabotage. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s ideological hostility to natural gas meant rebuffed allies, stalled projects and choked-off investment.
Foreign leaders (from Japan and Germany to Greece) practically begged Ottawa to green-light Canadian LNG. Trudeau dismissed them, claiming there was “no business case.” No one in his caucus dared contradict him. The result: lost time, lost markets and a near-complete surrender of our energy advantage.
But the business case was always there. Kitimat proves it.
The U.S. has been exporting LNG since 2016, giving them a nearly decade-long head start. But Canada has something our neighbours don’t: the Montney Formation. Spanning northeast B.C. and parts of Alberta, it covers about 130,000 square kilometres and holds enormous gas reserves. Montney gas, abundant and close to tidewater, trades at roughly half the Henry Hub price, giving Canada a significant cost edge.
Location seals the deal. Kitimat, perched on the Pacific, bypasses the congested Panama Canal, a major chokepoint for U.S. Gulf Coast exports, and offers a shorter, more direct route to energy-hungry Asian markets. This geographic advantage makes Canadian LNG not only viable but globally competitive.
In 2024, Canada exported about 8.6 billion cubic feet of gas daily to the U.S. via pipeline. With Kitimat, we finally begin breaking that one-market dependency. We also start clawing back the price differential losses that come with being captive sellers. This is how you build productivity, strengthen the dollar and reclaim economic independence from Washington.
The economic ripple effect is massive. The Kitimat build created 50,000 jobs at its peak, generated $5.8 billion in Indigenous and local contracts and left behind more than 300 permanent positions. Provincial revenues are projected in the tens of billions. In an era of anaemic growth, this is real stimulus and has staying power.
Predictably, critics raise environmental concerns. But this critique ignores global realities. Exporting Canadian natural gas to countries still burning coal is not a step backward—it’s a practical advance. Natural gas is up to 25 per cent cleaner than coal when comparing full lifecycle emissions (that is, from extraction to combustion). Global emissions don’t respect borders. If Canada can displace dirtier fuels abroad, we’re part of the solution, not the problem.
And this is only the beginning. Cedar LNG and Woodfibre LNG are already under construction. Atlantic Coast projects are in the queue. We must now defend this momentum against bureaucratic delays, activist litigation and ideological roadblocks.
LNG is not a climate villain. It’s a bridge fuel that cuts emissions, creates wealth and helps fund our national future.
Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
Carney’s new agenda faces old Canadian problems
Eyebrows Raise as Karoline Leavitt Answers Tough Questions About Epstein
WEF-linked Linda Yaccarino to step down as CEO of X
“This is a total fucking disaster”
The stars are aligning for a new pipeline to the West Coast
Prime minister can make good on campaign promise by reforming Canada Health Act
Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate
-
illegal immigration2 days agoICE raids California pot farm, uncovers illegal aliens and child labor
-
Uncategorized13 hours agoCNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Addictions5 hours agoWhy B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail
-
Business3 hours agoCarney Liberals quietly award Pfizer, Moderna nearly $400 million for new COVID shot contracts
-
Energy1 day ago
LNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence
-
Business1 day agoCarney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review
-
Entertainment1 day agoStudy finds 99% of late-night TV guests in 2025 have been liberal
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy13 hours agoCanada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys