SaskatchewanÂ’s energy plan

SASKATOON, SASKATCHEWAN - SaskatchewanÂ’s Premier Brad Wall is a rising political star whose province is soon to become CanadaÂ’s largest conventional oil producer.

At the same time, Premier Wall is making the biggest per-capita commitment in North America to reducing emissions. He believes all Canadians should do their part and that a North American energy policy is needed.

Premier Wall sat down for an interview recently with the Financial PostÂ’s editor-at-large Diane Francis to discuss the future of energy.

Q: The recent report, funded by TD Bank and prepared by the environmental groups the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute, said the cost of cutting greenhouse gases by 20 in 10 years should be borne through lower economic growth in the three Western-most provinces. You have criticized this. Why?

A: Our [Saskatchewan Power] utility company is facing a huge challenge because of its dependence on coal, which is about 50. Saskatchewan has 3 of the population of Canada, 3 of the economic output and 9 of emissions.

The report by TD, Pembina and Suzuki is frustrating and IÂ’m not sure how helpful this will be. It is divisive and says here it is and hereÂ’s what you will pay. It plays into unity issues and its East versus West, which is not helpful.

Q: What would be a fairer approach?

A: Alberta was the first to impose a carbon tax, followed by B.C. Alberta has budgeted $2-billion toward carbon capture technology research and development to reduce emissions and Saskatchewan has allocated $1.5-billion for the same purpose involving two major projects. A province of one million people [in Saskatchewan] is already prepared to spend $1.5-billion — work out the per-capita investment [$1,500 per person]. So tell me who is going to do more?

If Ontario committed the same $1,500 per person it could result in a research commitment of $17-billion.

We [in the West] understand we have a job to do on emissions and are prepared to do something about it. The challenge is to find a jurisdiction willing to do more. Were stepping up. Who else is?

The two federal governments [Canada and the United States] have not invested enough in cleaner coal. [U.S. President Barack] Obama has set aside only US$3.4-billion on carbon capture.

Q: What do you think of cap and trade?

A: If we end up in North America with levies that go to government as a tax, then I have a big issue with that. ThatÂ’s a transfer of wealth. All that money should be poured back into finding answers. If cap and trade goes to anything other than renewables or technology research, then it is not environmental policy but a tax.

Q: You are a proponent of Canada and the U.S. working together, so why should this approach be taken?

A: Coal is the elephant in the room. Our profile, 50 coal-fired power, is similar to the U.S. situation. We are in the same boat as Americans, which is helpful as we look at a Canadian-American solution. The U.S. has committed to 17 reduction in emissions by 2020 and Canada 20 by 2020. Our targets should be the same as the American ones and the proposed targets in the U.S. are lower than CanadaÂ’s because they recognize the dependency upon coal. Ours do not.

Q: You have cross-border and internal projects, what are these?

A: We are a leader on carbon capture and are making a $1.4-billion investment in clean coal at Boundary Dam. We have a smaller project with Montana, where we will put in $100-million, Ottawa $100-million and hopefully the U.S. the same to see if geological storage works. Another project involves carbon sequestration as part of an enhanced oil recovery project involving the injection of carbon from a coal-fired plant into an oil field.

Q: Saskatchewan has more uranium than any other jurisdiction. What is the future of nuclear power?

A: We have 26 of the worldÂ’s uranium and have had the first public process about what to do with our uranium. We are looking at options and whether to build a nuclear reactor, but for a province with one million people to do this you have to have an amazing export case.

[U.S. Republican] Senator Lindsay Graham has been here, because heÂ’s a fan of nuclear power, and he is talking about distributive nuclear power which has gotten more people's attention. ItÂ’s mind-boggling. He would take small reactor technology aircraft carriers and submarines have been powered with and build lots of them. They will be demonstrating a 14-megawatt one in Alaska soon.

My crazy thought is perhaps Canada can develop a niche for North America by testing these technologies, for oil sands and other applications.

Q: What other energy strategies are you looking at?

A: We built the first wind farm through a public-private partnership. Wind is 4.75 of the generation in our province and we are looking to double that. We are exploring solar, geothermal, other renewables, biomass and also nuclear. Shale gas is interesting and North America may back out of coal and `rag the puck with gas. We also have 10,000 square miles of potential oil sands, which could be recovered through steam injection with no tailings plants or surface disturbance.

Q: What should Canada do in Copenhagen?

A: I think the federal government has it right and [Environment Minister Jim] Prentice has traveled across the country and found 13 points of consensus. He also realizes we have to work with the Americans. The Western governors asked Saskatchewan and Montana to look at energy cooperation. We have got to do a better job and reduce the environmental footprint and who else will do the right thing other than Canadians and Americans? We have the motivation.