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

Google Rejects Eurocrats’ Push For More Censorship

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Ireland Owens

Google soundly rejected the European Union’s push for the platform to censor content Thursday, declaring that it would not implement so-called “fact-checks.”

The tech giant told the EU that it would not incorporate fact checks into its search results and YouTube videos, Axios first reported. Google’s President of Global Affairs Kent Walker wrote a letter to Renate Nikolay, deputy director-general for Communications Networks, Content and Technology at the European Commission, stating the fact-checking required by the law “simply isn’t appropriate or effective for our services.”

The European Commission’s Code of Practice on Disinformation, which was introduced in 2022, would require Google to incorporate fact-check results alongside its search results and YouTube videos and would also require it to incorporate fact-checking into its ranking systems and algorithms, Axios reported.

Axios’ report comes after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced on Jan. 7 that his company was ending its third-party fact-checking program in favor of implementing community notes. Meta’s announcement states that Meta’s platforms are “built to be places where people can express themselves freely.” Zuckerberg said that his company’s approach to content moderation often resulted in “censorship,” NPR reported.

Zuckerberg recently criticized the European Union’s data laws as “censoring” social media. The EU has rejected his claims as “misleading.”

Some people have criticized some major tech companies, claiming that they have censored conservative speech. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced in October the launch of an investigation into Google for allegedly censoring conservatives.

Zuckerberg criticized Biden officials for pushing Meta to remove content that the Biden-Harris administration alleged to be disinformation during a recent appearance on the “Joe Rogan Experience” podcast.

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to combat social media censorship.

In December, Trump announced that he was nominating Andrew Ferguson to lead the Federal Trade Commission, stating that Ferguson “has a proven record of standing up to Big Tech censorship, and protecting Freedom of Speech in our Great Country.”

Minnesota Republican Rep. Tom Emmer said in a post on X that Google’s decision was a “step in the right direction,” adding “Kudos to @Google.”

A source with knowledge of the matter confirmed to the Daily Caller News Foundation that the content of Google’s letter as reported by Axios was accurate.

Continue Reading

Business

Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Canadians Deserve to Know How Much Carney is Being Paid

Today, Common Sense Conservative MPs Michelle Rempel Garner and Michael Barrett wrote this letter to Bruce Flatt, the CEO of Brookfield, calling on him to fully disclose Carbon Tax Carney’s compensation for his role as Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. The full text can be found below:

Dear Mr. Flatt, 

We are writing with regard to the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, Mark Carney, who has acted in a senior leadership position for your company for some time now.

During the same time period, Mr. Carney has been advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, and advocating for policies that have arguably wreaked havoc on Canada’s economy, like the carbon tax.

After nine years of this NDP-Liberal Government, which by their own very public admissions have relied on Mark Carney for advice, Canadians are witnessing the worst decline in living standards in forty years. The cost of housing has doubled, and record numbers of Canadians are having to depend on food banks to survive. 

Since August 2020, Mr. Carney has helped the NDP-Liberal Government hike its carbon tax on the backs of working Canadians, even endorsing it in his book, saying “One of the most important initiatives is carbon pricing…The Canadian federal carbon pricing framework is a model for others.” And since September 2024, when Trudeau appointed Carney as the Liberal Party’s Chair of the Leader’s Taskforce on Economic Growth, he would have had input into the most recent Fall Economic Statement which plunged Canada into a $62 billion deficit, blowing past the NDP-Liberal Government’s own fiscal guardrails.

And all the while Carney was advising the Liberals to continue carrying out their agenda of economic vandalism, he remained the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, posing grave ethical questions that could have real-life consequences for millions of Canadians.

For instance, just a few days after his official appointment as Chair of the Leader’s Taskforce on Economic Growth, The Logic reported that Brookfield Asset Management has been actively lobbying the same federal Liberal government he’s been advising for $10 billion from the Canadian taxpayer. And Mr. Carney has strongly advocated for policies that would destroy Canada’s oil and gas sector, while at the same time your company invested in oil companies in Brazil and the United Arab Emirates. 

There are many other instances of questionable policy decisions the NDP-Liberal Government has made while Mark Carney was both advising them and acting as the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management – decisions that potentially could have resulted in Mr. Carney’s personal gain.

While we have written to the Federal Lobbying Commissioner to examine whether this arrangement broke any lobbying rules, that investigation may not shed public light on whether Mr. Carney was personally motivated by the structure of his compensation model with your company to advocate for certain policies in his senior advisory capacity with Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government.

Executive compensation for a Chair at a company the size of Brookfield can include salary, performance bonuses, stock options, lucrative expense accounts and more. Since Mr. Carney has a direct, senior, advisory line into Justin Trudeau’s government, and since your company has many interests which involve the type of policy on which Mr. Carney was advising the government, revealing the full scope of Mr. Carney’s compensation package to the public is essential to understanding what impact his access into the federal Liberal government had on his personal fortunes, if any.

For this reason, you must disclose Carney’s compensation structure with Brookfield Asset Management. This is especially important as Carney is now mounting a leadership campaign – with the help of members of Justin Trudeau’s inner circle – that could see him become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Prime Minister of this country, with even more power and more access.

It is vitally important for Canadians to know whether or not Mr. Carney’s compensation with Brookfield could increase if the Liberals implement his policy ideas. While food banks report over two million visits in a single month, Canadians have a right to know the fine details about the impact of insider access on their lives.

You must be transparent with Canadians on this matter. The stakes could not be higher.

Continue Reading

Trending

X