Ending energy poverty among Indigenous communities is essential

Halting funding for natural gas expansion cut off many Indigenous communities from affordable energy.

Energy poverty in Canada is both an urgent and underreported crisis that is affecting Indigenous, rural, and remote communities across the country.

This is a resource-rich country, but Canada has continually failed to remedy the glaring energy affordability and accessibility gap in these communities. In particular, Indigenous families and households have to face disproportionately high energy costs due to their geographic isolation, a lack of built infrastructure, and neglect during policymaking.

In a report for the Energy for a Secure Future, authored by Heather Exner-Pirot, titled “The Other Energy Security: Addressing Energy Poverty in Canada’s Indigenous Communities,” she lays out these many problems that must be fixed.

It is a dire situation, with remote Indigenous communities being forced to spend over three times more of their household income on energy than the Canadian average. Twenty-six percent of Indigenous households fall into the category of energy poverty, as defined by the Canadian Urban Sustainability Practitioners (CUSP).

Many families spend more than six percent of their disposable income on energy, and this has worsened in recent years as energy costs rise with inflation and other present economic hardships.

Natural gas is the most plentiful and affordable source of household energy in Canada, but it cannot be accessed by many Indigenous communities that lack pipeline infrastructure. Although natural gas is cheaper and cleaner than diesel, propane, heating oil, or wood, the expansion of gas infrastructure into remote regions has hit snags in recent years.

From the 1980s to the 2000s, Ottawa supported the expansion of infrastructure to rural areas in a bid to alleviate affordability issues. However, the shift to reducing emissions and growing renewable energy has resulted in a lack of support for natural gas infrastructure.

This has had the counterproductive effect of leaving Indigenous communities with higher costs and higher emitting fuels like heating oil and diesel due to a lack of alternatives. As a source of energy, diesel is handy and reliable, but is expensive, heavily polluting, and expensive to transport into remote areas.

Renewables like solar and wind help to meet climate goals, but they are not feasible in remote northern communities because of their unreliability and high upfront costs. Phasing out fossil fuels in rural and remote Canada is a bad decision for the people affected without a fair transition strategy.

Many of the Indigenous leaders featured in Exner-Pirot’s report expressed grave concerns about the impact of energy poverty in their communities. They cited the many difficult choices that they have to make, such as having to pick between adequate heating or food.

These leaders are frustrated with the decisions made by distant authorities that prioritize ambitious sustainability goals instead of immediate, practical solutions. Many explicitly called for the expansion of natural gas, declaring it to be feasible, cost-effective, and cleaner than their current options.

One of the more striking statements is their assertion that withholding federal funding from natural gas projects actively denies Indigenous communities relief from energy poverty.

There is good evidence that reveals the benefits of expanding natural gas.

Red Lake, Ontario saw its energy costs fall by 70 percent once it was connected to natural gas infrastructure. Alberta’s Bigstone Cree Nation formerly used propane for decades, but then saw their energy security and affordability greatly improve after the province expanded the natural gas network.

The O’Chiese First Nation, also in Alberta, has been a model for energy autonomy and energy development, having harnessed its natural gas production for the benefit of the whole community.

Exner-Pirot’s report ends with several clear recommendations:

Equal treatment of all fuels under carbon pricing to eliminate undesirable incentives
Expanded eligibility for funding programs to include transitional fuels like natural gas
Financial support for Indigenous-led energy security projects
Explicit provincial targets and timelines for natural gas infrastructure expansion, using Ontario’s Natural Gas Expansion Program as a model

There is no debate that Canadian energy policy in Indigenous and remote communities has to change immediately. As they currently stand, they are exacerbating energy poverty by cutting out transitional and practical solutions.

No one-size-fits-all approach works for the countless Indigenous communities that reside in Canada, and they each need a tailored approach that respects their geographic and economic realities, as well as their right to self-determination.

Related Topics:#ResourceWorks CanadaEnergyPoverty GeoffRuss IndigenousEnergyPoverty RuralRemoteEnergyPoverty

Up Next

Russia floats peace talks with Ukraine next week after Trump pressures Putin

Don't Miss

Carney Is Acting Like A President, And That’s A Problem

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Study finds 99% of late-night TV guests in 2025 have been liberal

Addictions / 3 hours ago

‘Over and over until they die’: Drug crisis pushes first responders to the brink

Daily Caller / 4 hours ago

USAID Quietly Sent Thousands Of Viruses To Chinese Military-Linked Biolab

Energy

LNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence

Published on July 13, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

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).

Daily Caller

Blackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns

Published on July 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

The Department of Energy (DOE) released a new report Monday warning of impending blackouts if the United States continues to shutter power plants without adequately replacing retiring capacity.

DOE warned in its Monday report that blackouts could increase by 100% by 2030 if the U.S. continues to retire power plants without sufficient replacements, and that the electricity grid is not prepared to meet the demand of power-hungry data centers in the years to come without more reliable generation coming online quickly. The report specifically highlighted wind and solar, two resources pushed by Biden, as responsible for eroding grid stability and advised that dispatchable generation from sources like coal, oil, gas and nuclear are necessary to meet the anticipated U.S. power demand.

“This report affirms what we already know: The United States cannot afford to continue down the unstable and dangerous path of energy subtraction previous leaders pursued, forcing the closure of baseload power sources like coal and natural gas,” DOE Secretary Chris Wright said. “In the coming years, America’s reindustrialization and the AI race will require a significantly larger supply of around-the-clock, reliable, and uninterrupted power. President Trump’s administration is committed to advancing a strategy of energy addition, and supporting all forms of energy that are affordable, reliable, and secure. If we are going to keep the lights on, win the AI race, and keep electricity prices from skyrocketing, the United States must unleash American energy.”

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!

All regional grid systems across the U.S. are expected to lose reliability in the coming years without the addition of more reliable power, according to the DOE’s report. The U.S. will need an additional 100 gigawatts of new peak hour supply by 2030, with data centers projected to require as much as half of this electricity, the report estimates; for reference, one gigawatt is enough to power up to one million homes.

President Donald Trump declared a national energy emergency on his first day back in the Oval Office and signed an executive order on April 8 ordering DOE to review and identify at-risk regions of the electrical grid, which the report released Monday does. In contrast, former President Joe Biden cracked down on conventional power sources like coal with stringent regulations while unleashing a gusher of subsidies for green energy developments.

Electricity demand is projected to hit a record high in the next several years, surging 25% by 2030, according to Energy Information Administration (EIA) data and a recent ICF International report. Demand was essentially static for the last several years, and skyrocketing U.S. power demand presents an “urgent need” for electricity resources, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), a major grid watchdog.

Wright has also issued several emergency orders to major grid operators since April. New Orleans experienced blackouts just two days after Wright issued an emergency order on May 23 to the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), the regional grid operator covering the New Orleans area.