Days after Mark Carney’s Liberal government passed its controversial major projects legislation that allows it to bypass environmental laws and Indigenous consultation, more than 100 organizations across Canada are calling for a nation-building project that might begin to rebuild goodwill with those offended by Bill C-5.
In an open letter published Thursday, the 105 environmental, labour, Indigenous and community groups urge federal officials to fund an east-west power grid that prioritizes renewable energy, Indigenous and community ownership and energy efficiency as “key projects in the national interest.”
“Better integrating Canada’s electricity system is crucially important for energy security and economic competitiveness in the near term, but it is also a no-regret investment for the long-term prosperity of everyone living in Canada,” the letter reads. Upgrading power grids could create more than 300,000 jobs over the next 25 years, it adds.
A national power grid mega-project could also drive clean economic growth, and if materials like aluminum and steel are procured in Canada, it could also support those sectors under pressure from US tariffs, advocates say.
The groups argue that federal leadership is required to pull off a project of this scale due to challenges related to permitting, funding and interprovincial trade barriers. A study published in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal in 2022, found that more interprovincial transmission lines could boost interprovincial trade of renewable power by connecting privately owned wind, solar and other power sources to more customers.
The Liberals’ 2025 platform included a commitment to build out an east-west electricity grid. The platform explicitly says the project will be developed with provinces, territories, Indigenous partners and stakeholders and “will unleash clean growth across the country.”
The Prime Minister’s Office did not return a request for comment.
A coast-to-coast high voltage direct current (HVDC) line could be built in under five years, at a cost of roughly $24 billion, according to a study from the David Suzuki Foundation — $10 billion less than the recently completed Trans Mountain expansion project.
“Building an east-west electricity grid across Canada is a huge opportunity that will improve our energy security and create thousands of jobs,” said Stephen Thomas, clean energy manager with the David Suzuki Foundation, in a statement. “With demand for power going up, our electricity system needs to be powered by renewable energy, not fossil fuels.
“A renewable-backed electricity grid will lower people’s energy bills while limiting environmental harm and pollution.”
A briefing note prepared for a meeting between federal and Ontario officials in December that Canada’s National Observer received through a federal access to information request describes the process leading up to the federal clean electricity regulations. The document notes that Environment and Climate Change Canada “made significant changes to relax the regulations in the final design,” following “substantial stakeholder feedback.”
Those relaxed regulations, published in December, allow fossil fuels to be used to generate electricity as far into the future as 2050, despite originally intending to be net-zero by 2035. The rules will still push provinces and utilities to transition to clean electricity — a widely recognized prerequisite to decarbonize other sectors like transportation, buildings and heavy industry — but “flexibilities” to allow gas-fired power plants to operate well past 2035 are now baked into the country’s decarbonization efforts.
The 105 groups behind Thursday’s letter want the federal government to achieve a net-zero power grid by updating Canada’s electricity strategy. They also call for upholding legal rights for Indigenous communities, including the right to free, prior and informed consent; labour supports like prevailing wage requirements and training capacity; and upgrades to both transmission and generation in line with affordable, reliable, clean electricity.
Last year, then-energy and natural resources minister Jonathan Wilkinson told Canada’s National Observer that some provinces were eager to collaborate on expanding the power grid — with the notable exceptions of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Even though a nationwide grid has long been discussed, a likely starting point is strengthening regional tie-ins between provinces with significant hydro resources and those still reliant on fossil fuels to better manage supply and demand.
A bit of geographic luck has already positioned Canada relatively well for this approach. Each province that still depends on burning coal, oil or gas to generate electricity has a neighbour with hydropower that can lend a hand. Some like British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador have massive hydro resources, while others like Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia still rely on fossil fuels.
Comments
A coast-to-coast high voltage network would also allow exchanges with Europe and benefit from the moving demand from different time zones. Presently, the electricity flows mainly north-south, so that demand from all connected users is synchronous. Not only that, an east-west network can send electricity in either direction, unlike petroleum pipelines that cannot switch direction at the speed of electricity.
Great points.
Indeed, HVDC long distance conductors are able to send energy down the line in milliseconds with low line resistance losses about (3% per 1,000 km.). That speed in a context that crosses multiple time zones offers great opportunities for the provinces to offset the cost and maintenance of providing peak power twice a day by instantly trading cheaper power with provinces not in their peak demand hours.
An Atlantic / Quebec Loop, and a Prairie / Pacific / Arctic Loop all sandwhiching Ontario will attain levels of energy security not imagined today, and establishing regional manufacturing hubs tied to enormous amounts of stable base load zero emission power will be possible.
Green steel and data farms powered by First Nations renewables here we come.
I believe -- if Carney's government is on board -- that this initiative will result in the phenomenon that provincial and territorial grids will together be far more powerful than the sum of individual grids.
Political and economic power has for too long been devolved to the individual provinces. This project will help balance out "power" in more ways than one nationally.
Trump's chaos and threats have motivated Carney to go overboard to enact Bill C-5. It seems the majority of provinces were already half ways to uniting due to Trump.
The feds already have enough power to cross provincial boundaries, but that won't stop the separatist blather from Alberta. In fact, it will inflame the core extremists. However, they are few in number and now there is a pro-Canadian anti-separatist movement materializing there.
C-5 is unnecessary and will not override the Constitution, most notably on Indigenous rights, contrary to a lot of opinion out there. That itself will require a Constitutional amendment signed by the majority of the provibces.
Override Indigenous rights at your peril, Mr. Carney. The Constitutional challenges will push project completion dates back well beyond the 5-year expiry date of C-5.
Correction: C-5 will be subject to a review in five years, not expiry. Still ....
Energy East + West + North. All 100% renewable electricity. This is a project whose time has come.
"Build the Grid: 100+ Organizations Rally Behind Carney for Nationwide Energy Network"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSlHhZM2iz0
If Carney pulls the devil out his toolbox and fulfills Poilievre's dream of financial account-busting oil and gas pipelines to every ocean, that still leaves the question on the table, who will buy it?
The overseas markets are transitioning, none faster than China followed by the EU. Pipelines have a lifespan of 50+ years. Who in their right mind will predict today's fossil fuel dependent import markets will not find cheaper and less problematic alternatives long before said pipelines are paid off?
Solar is outcompeting every other energy on affordability in overseas markets, and is completely reliable when linked to battery storage. EVs have already displaced half of China's gasoline consumption, so says Chinese oil giant Sinopec, which also estimated China will arrive at peak oil demand in 2026. They have the data to prove it.
In addition, China is actively bringing Chinese EVs and their assembly plants to the global south and SE Asia. They start by financing the construction of handy new ports, but also bring large levels of indebtedness to their clients. But they are also killing the potential future growth of oil and gas that Canada's petro proponents and the authors of their petro bible (OPEC reports) say are going to grow beyond 2050.
China is now introducing the best quality and lowest cost batteries so far to world markets. That will bring EVs to purchase price parity with burner cars. EVs already offer huge savings in lifespan operating costs, mainly be directly replacing gasoline. Battery storage has also accelerated growth and stability in renewables in the world's grids.
Even if Carney was a reincarnated Poilievre all along, and even if the so-far unfounded fears of Bill C-5 came true that it will force pipelines down the throats of hundreds of communities that don't want them, the world's markets will not support the expansion of Canadian petroleum for decades to come. The evidence is emerging that oil will have a hard time beyond ~2030. Ditto for gas beyond ~2035.
Carney will not willingly bankrupt the nation or build a legacy of a hundred billion bucks in stranded assets.
We have a national electrical grid to build with First Nations. Let's get on with it.
Sadly, IEA forecasts do not support Mr. Botta's rosy predictions.
No meaningful fossil fuel use or emissions decline in the IEA's Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) out to 2050.
In fact, the IEA forecasts a decades-long plateau in fossil-fuel demand. Not a rapid decline. Which leaves room for ongoing exploration and stable production volumes as old reservoirs run dry.
The IEA's STEPS scenario leads to at least 2.4 C of warming by 2100 (since pre-industrial). Climate disaster.
STEPS is our current trajectory.
IEA: World Energy Outlook 2023
"Although oil demand for petrochemicals, aviation and shipping continues to increase through to 2050 in the STEPS, this is not enough to offset reductions in demand from road transport, as well as in the power and buildings sectors. As a result, oil demand peaks before 2030. The decline from the peak however is A SLOW ONE IN THE STEPS ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO 2050. The outlook for oil demand varies across regions.
"Oil demand in advanced economies peaked in 2005, and its decline becomes more pronounced in the coming decade. China’s robust oil demand growth since 2010 weakens in the coming years and declines in the long run. IN EMERGING MARKET AND DEVELOPING ECONOMIES (OTHER THAN CHINA), WHICH SEE GROWING POPULATIONS AND CAR OWNERSHIP, OIL DEMAND GROWS CONTINUOUSLY TO 2050.
" … First, the projected declines in demand after the peaks are nowhere near steep enough to be consistent with the NZE Scenario – getting on track for this scenario will require much faster clean energy deployment and much more determined policy action by governments.
"Second, the demand trends for the different fuels vary considerably among regions, with reduced demand in advanced economies partially offset by CONTINUED GROWTH IN MANY EMERGING MARKET AND DEVELOPING ECONOMIES, particularly for natural gas.
"… Even as demand for fossil fuels falls, energy security challenges will remain since the process of adjustment to changing demand patterns will not necessarily be easy or smooth. For example, the PEAKS IN DEMAND WE SEE BASED ON TODAY’S POLICIES DO NOT REMOVE THE NEED FOR INVESTMENT IN OIL AND GAS SUPPLY, GIVEN HOW STEEP THE NATURAL DECLINES FROM EXISTING FIELDS OFTEN ARE.."
STEPS: "A scenario which reflects CURRENT POLICY SETTINGS based on a sector-by-sector and country-by-country assessment of the energy-related policies that are in place as of the end of August 2024, as well as those that are under development. The scenario also takes into account currently planned manufacturing capacities for clean energy technologies."
IEA: "Change in global oil demand in selected regions, 2023-2035" (2024)
Per the IEA's graph, oil demand falls modestly in Europe and N America, but increases elsewhere: China, India, SE Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
Further, clean energy investment is extremely uneven. China's clean tech investments exceed investments by the USA and EU combined, with developing nations lagging far behind:
IEA World Energy Outlook 2023
"However, if demand for these fossil fuels remains at a high level, as has been the case for coal in recent years, and as is the case in the Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) projections for oil and gas, it is far from enough to reach global climate goals.
"… The STEPS sees a peak in energy-related CO2 emissions in the mid-2020s but emissions remain high enough to push up global average temperatures to around 2.4 °C in 2100. This outcome has improved over successive editions of the Outlook but still points towards very widespread and severe impacts from climate change.
"… In all scenarios, the momentum behind the clean energy economy is enough to produce a peak in demand for coal, oil and natural gas this decade, although THE RATES OF POST-PEAK DECLINE VARY WIDELY.
Almost all nations fall well short of their Paris targets. Canada has never hit any of its intermediary targets. Canadian municipalities set aspirational targets they have no hope or intention of meeting. The U.S. will likely head in the wrong direction for the next four years, at least. All evidence suggests Canada is intent on following the same foolish path.
"All evidence..."
All the evidence hasn't been presented yet. So far Carney hasn't sytarted, let alone finished a single project. C-5 doesn't automatically lead to all projects bneing petroleum. If indeed Canada / Carney / Conservatives / NDP / the private sector follow Pounder's Doomer interpretation, then it's been a nice life.
See you in the next one ... if there is one.
AB wrote: "C-5 doesn't automatically lead to all projects being petroleum."
Straw man. No one has suggested that Bill C-5 implies that ALL infrastructure projects will be for fossil-fuels only. Bananas argument.
Evidence that does not exist yet does not constitute evidence. All the evidence we have THUS FAR, which is all the evidence that exists, signals Carney's intention to proceed with projects of various kinds including major fossil-fuel projects like CCS, LNG, and possibly even new export pipelines that enable oilsands expansion.
Carney has made his intentions clear enough, by word and deed. From "making Canada a superpower in both CONVENTIONAL and 'clean' energy" to "decarbonized barrels", "grand bargains", "displacing foreign suppliers", support for CCS, and finally Bill C-5.
Bill C-5 is sufficient evidence of Carney's intentions. There is no reason to roll back environmental laws and regulations on climate-friendly projects. The only reason to deregulate is to ram fossil-fuel projects through. Damaging projects that would otherwise run afoul of Canada's environmental laws and regulations.
What Alex calls "doomerism" the rest of the world calls realism. Climate scientists continue to sound the alarm about rising GHG emissions — and the implications for climate, society, economy, security, and the ecosystems on which all human activity depends.
Rosy predictions, obfuscations around the Liberals' fossil-fuel agenda, endless apologies and excuses for decades of Liberal failure on climate, unrealistic claims about a new climate messiah, and general disregard for evidence are extremely unhelpful.
Unfounded predictions that a rapid decline in fossil fuel use is just over the horizon breed a dangerous complacency. Our current trajectory, per the IPCC and IEA, is for climate disaster. That's not doomerism. It's reality.
The Liberals' fossil-fuel agenda, now enabled by the rollback of Canada's environmental laws, needs to be challenged, opposed, and overturned with united voice.
The fence sitters, gaslighters, and climate Pollyannas who tout Carney as some sort of messiah are politically motivated. Political partisanship severely impairs their judgment. If we take their analysis to heart, failure is inevitable.
Certain doom.
Easy now Geof, Alex doesn't deserve a rant like this. His posts are pretty much all on the same side as yours in this argument. You can point out errors of fact without going overboard on the rhetoric.