Connect with us

Business

Feds move target for net-zero grid back 15 years. Western provinces say it’s not of their business

Published

7 minute read

From Resource Works

“These latest measures fail to recognize provinces have jurisdiction over the development and management of electricity. The federal regulations are duplicative, inefficient, and add to costs.”

The federal government has clarified its clean-energy goal for a net-zero power grid.

Its final Clean Electricity Regulations target a net-zero grid across the country by 2050. But didn’t Ottawa previously, in August 2023, set a goal of 2035?

Certainly, one leading environmental group declared: “The federal government has committed to achieving zero-emissions electricity by 2035.”

And a law firm that analyses energy matters told followers in August 2023: “Government of Canada releases draft Clean Electricity Regulations aimed at achieving net-zero emissions from Canada’s electricity grid by 2035.”

What Ottawa said in August 2023 was this: “The proposed regulations would set performance standards that would ensure that the sector achieves significant transformation by 2035, so that a robust foundation of clean electricity is available to power the electric technologies (e.g., electric transportation) needed to support Canada’s transition to a net-zero GHG emissions economy by 2050.”

Announcing that 2035 goal was a case of fuzzy wording, according to Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson. He said Ottawa could have been more precise in its language and context around what exactly the 2035 target referred to.

He now says: “2035 was really having a plan as to how you were going to reduce emissions to be able to get to a net-zero economy by 2050… Perhaps we were not as precise with our language as we should have been.”

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault issued an update in February 2024: “All G7 countries, including Canada and the United States, have committed to transitioning to a net-zero electricity grid as a foundational measure to help achieve low-carbon economies by 2050.”

And he now says: “We knew from the get-go, from where we are to where we need to be, we couldn’t get there in 10 years… It was always our intention that we want to see things happening before 2035. But that we wouldn’t be able to get to a decarbonized grid before 2050.”

Whatever they said, meant, clarified, updated, and/or corrected, the new regulations face opposition and a court challenge from Alberta, for one.

Premier Danielle Smith criticized the latest regulations as unconstitutional, arguing they seek to regulate an area of provincial jurisdiction.

“After years of watching the federal government gaslight Canadians about the feasibility of achieving a net-zero power grid by 2030, we are gratified to see Ottawa finally admit that the Government of Alberta’s plan to achieve a carbon-neutral power grid by 2050 is a more responsible, affordable, and realistic target.

“That said, the federal government’s finalized electricity regulations remain entirely unconstitutional as they seek to regulate in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. They also require generators to meet unreasonable and unattainable federally mandated interim targets beginning in 2035, which will still make electricity unaffordable for Canadian families.

“Alberta will therefore be preparing an immediate court challenge of these electricity regulations.”

Saskatchewan’s government said in a news release that it will simply not comply with the new regulations.

“Our government unequivocally rejects federal intrusion into our exclusive provincial jurisdiction over the electricity system.

“Saskatchewan will prioritize maintaining an affordable and reliable electricity grid to support our regional needs and growth. The federal Clean Electricity Regulations are unconstitutional, unaffordable, unachievable, and Saskatchewan cannot, and will not, comply with them.”

The Business Council of BC slammed the new federal regulations on multiple grounds: constitutionality, jeopardizing the reliability of electricity delivery, higher costs for businesses and households, limiting investment, regional inequities, technological limitations, and risks to greenhouse-gas management.

“These latest measures fail to recognize provinces have jurisdiction over the development and management of electricity. The federal regulations are duplicative, inefficient, and add to costs.”

And: “It is important to recognize that Canada’s combined electricity systems are already 84% non-emitting, and that electricity represents less than 10% of Canada’s total emissions. The sector has made more progress in reducing emissions than any other sector in the country over the past two decades.

“We urge the government to set aside these new regulations and work collaboratively with the electricity sector to develop a more balanced approach that respects provincial roles and will not risk undermining investment and driving up costs. The path to a cleaner energy system requires cooperation, not regulation.”

The latest announcement from Ottawa includes these statements:

  • “Federal analyses find that the Regulations have no impact on electricity rates for the vast majority of Canadians, and in some cases, will even have a slightly positive impact on rates. Independent third-party expert modelling substantiates federal analysis that the Regulations are feasible.
  • “To ensure rates are affordable for Canadian families over the coming decade, the federal government is investing $60 billion to support the electricity sector.
  • “The adoption of efficient electric appliances, vehicles, and heat pumps presents an enormous opportunity for families to save money on their energy bills.
  • “In the shift to clean electricity, 84% of households are expected to spend less on their monthly energy costs, when accounting for the over $60 billion in federal clean electricity incentives. This could lead to $15 billion in total energy-related savings for Canadians by 2035.”

All subject to clarification, updating, and/or correction—and Alberta’s promised court case.

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

Business

Bill Gates Gets Mugged By Reality

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Stephen Moore

You’ve probably heard by now the blockbuster news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates, one of the richest people to ever walk the planet, has had a change of heart on climate change.

For several decades Gates poured billions of dollars into the climate industrial complex.

Some conservatives have sniffed that Bill Gates has shifted his position on climate change because he and Microsoft have invested heavily in energy intensive data centers.

AI and robotics will triple our electric power needs over the next 15 years. And you can’t get that from windmills.

What Bill Gates has done is courageous and praiseworthy. It’s not many people of his stature that will admit that they were wrong. Al Gore certainly hasn’t. My wife says I never do.

Although I’ve only once met Bill Gates, I’ve read his latest statements on global warming. He still endorses the need for communal action (which won’t work), but he has sensibly disassociated himself from the increasingly radical and economically destructive dictates from the green movement. For that, the left has tossed him out of their tent as a “traitor.”

I wish to highlight several critical insights that should be the starting point for constructive debate that every clear-minded thinker on either side of the issue should embrace.

(1) It’s time to put human welfare at the center of our climate policies. This includes improving agriculture and health in poor countries.

(2) Countries should be encouraged to grow their economies even if that means a reliance on fossil fuels like natural gas. Economic growth is essential to human progress.

(3) Although climate change will hurt poor people, for the vast majority of them it will not be the only or even the biggest threat to their lives and welfare. The biggest problems are poverty and disease.

I would add to these wise declarations two inconvenient truths: First: the solution to changing temperatures and weather patterns is technological progress. A far fewer percentage of people die of severe weather events today than 50 or 100 or 1,000 years ago.

Second, energy is the master resource and to deny people reliable and affordable energy is to keep them poor and vulnerable – and this is inhumane.

If Bill Gates were to start directing even a small fraction of his foundation funds to ensuring everyone on the planet has access to electric power and safe drinking water, it would do more for humanity than all of the hundreds of billions that governments and foundations have devoted to climate programs that have failed to change the globe’s temperature.

Stephen Moore is a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and a former Trump senior economic advisor.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Elon Musk Poised To Become World’s First Trillionaire After Shareholder Vote

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Mariane Angela

Tesla shareholders voted Thursday to approve an enormous compensation package that could make Elon Musk the world’s first trillionaire.

At Tesla’s Austin headquarters, investors backed Musk’s 12-step plan that ties his potential trillion-dollar payout to a series of aggressive financial and operational milestones, including raising the company’s valuation from roughly $1.4 trillion to $8.5 trillion and selling one million humanoid robots within a decade. Musk hailed the outcome as a turning point for Tesla’s future.

“What we’re about to embark upon is not merely a new chapter of the future of Tesla but a whole new book,” Musk said, as The New York Times reported.

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!

The decision cements investor confidence in Musk’s “moonshot” management style and reinforces the belief that Tesla’s success depends heavily on its founder and his leadership.

“Those who claim the plan is ‘too large’ ignore the scale of ambition that has historically defined Tesla’s trajectory,” the Florida State Board of Administration said in a securities filing describing why it voted for Mr. Musk’s pay plan. “A company that went from near bankruptcy to global leadership in E.V.s and clean energy under similar frameworks has earned the right to use incentive models that reward moonshot performance.”

Investors like Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood defended Tesla’s decision, saying the plan aligns shareholder rewards with company performance.

“I do not understand why investors are voting against Elon’s pay package when they and their clients would benefit enormously if he and his incredible team meet such high goals,” Wood wrote on X.

Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, Norges Bank Investment Management — one of Tesla’s largest shareholders — broke ranks, however, and voted against the pay plan, saying that the package was excessive.

“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk,” the firm said.

The vote comes months after Musk wrapped up his short-lived government role under President Donald Trump. In February, Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team sparked a firestorm when they announced plans to eliminate the U.S. Agency for International Development, drawing backlash from Democrats and prompting protests targeting Musk and his companies, including Tesla.

Back in May, Musk announced that his “scheduled time” leading DOGE had ended.

Continue Reading

Trending

X