Will electricity supplant natural gas?

Ukraine Nuclear Plant Ownership Proposal outlines U.S. management of Ukrainian reactors amid the Russia-Ukraine war, citing nuclear safety, energy security, and IAEA oversight; Kyiv rejects ownership transfer, especially regarding Zaporizhzhia under Russian control.

Key Points

U.S. control of Ukraine's nuclear plants for safety; Kyiv rejects transfer, citing sovereignty risks at Zaporizhzhia.

✅ U.S. proposal to manage Ukraine's reactors amid war

✅ Kyiv refuses ownership transfer; open to investment

✅ Zaporizhzhia under Russian control raises safety risks

In the midst of the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has proposed a controversial idea: Ukraine should give its nuclear power plants to the United States for safekeeping and management. This suggestion came during a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wherein Trump expressed the belief that American ownership of these nuclear plants could offer them the best protection amid the ongoing war. But Kyiv, while open to foreign support, has firmly rejected the idea of transferring ownership, especially as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant remains under Russian occupation.

Ukraine’s nuclear energy infrastructure has always been a vital component of its power generation. Before the war, the country’s four nuclear plants supplied nearly half of its electricity. As Russia's military forces target Ukraine's energy infrastructure, including power plants and coal mines, international watchdogs like the IAEA have warned of nuclear risks as these nuclear facilities have become crucial to maintaining the nation’s energy stability. The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, has attracted international concern due to its size and the ongoing threat of a potential nuclear disaster.

Trump’s Proposal and Ukraine’s Response

Trump’s proposal of U.S. ownership came as a response to the ongoing threats posed by Russia’s occupation of the Zaporizhzhia plant. Trump argued that the U.S., with its expertise in running nuclear power plants, could safeguard these facilities from further damage and potential nuclear accidents. However, Zelenskyy quickly clarified that the discussion was only focused on the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is currently under Russian control. The Ukrainian president emphasized that Kyiv would not entertain the idea of permanently transferring ownership of its nuclear plants, even though they would welcome investment in their restoration and modernization, particularly after the war.

The Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant has been a focal point of geopolitical tensions since Russia's occupation in 2022. Despite being in "cold shutdown" to prevent further risk of explosions, the facility remains a major concern due to its potential to cause a nuclear disaster. Ukrainian officials, along with international observers, have raised alarm about the safety risks posed by the plant, including mines at Zaporizhzhia reported by UN watchdogs, which is situated in a war zone and under the control of Russian forces who are reportedly neglecting proper safety protocols.

The Fear of a Nuclear Provocation

Ukrainians have expressed concerns that Trump’s proposal could embolden Russia to escalate tensions further, even as a potential agreement on power-plant attacks has been discussed by some parties. Some fear that any attempt to reclaim the plant by Ukraine could trigger a Russian provocation, including a deliberate attack on the plant, which would have catastrophic consequences for both Ukraine and the broader region. The analogy is drawn with the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam, which Ukraine accuses Russia of sabotaging, an act that severely disrupted water supplies to the Zaporizhzhia plant. Ukrainian military officials, including Ihor Romanenko, a former deputy head of Ukraine’s armed forces, warned that Trump’s suggestion might be an exploitation of Ukraine’s vulnerable position in the ongoing war.

Despite these fears, there are some voices within Ukraine, including former employees of the Zaporizhzhia plant, who believe that a deliberate attack by Russian forces is unlikely. They argue that the Russian military needs the plant in functioning condition for future negotiations, with Russia building new power lines to reactivate the site as part of that calculus, and any damage could reduce its value in such exchanges. However, the possibility of Russian negligence or mismanagement remains a significant risk.

The Strategic Role of Ukraine's Nuclear Plants

Ukraine's nuclear plants were a cornerstone of the country’s energy sector long before the conflict began. In recent years, as Ukraine lost access to coal resources in the Donbas region due to Russian occupation, nuclear power became even more vital, alongside a growing focus on wind power to improve resilience. The country’s reliance on these plants grew as Russia launched a sustained campaign to destroy Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, including attacks on nuclear power stations.

The Zaporizhzhia plant, in particular, holds strategic importance not only due to its size but also because of its location in southeastern Ukraine, an area that has been at the heart of the conflict. Despite being in Russian hands, the plant’s reactors have been safely shut down, reducing the immediate risk of a nuclear explosion. However, the plant’s future remains uncertain, as Russia’s long-term control over it could disrupt Ukraine’s energy security for years to come.

Wider Concerns About Aging Nuclear Infrastructure

Beyond the geopolitical tensions, there are broader concerns about the aging infrastructure of Ukraine's nuclear power plants. International watchdogs, including the environmentalist group Bankwatch, have criticized these facilities as “zombie reactors” due to their outdated designs and safety risks. Experts have called for Ukraine to decommission some of these reactors, fearing that they are increasingly unsafe, especially in the context of a war.

However, Ukrainian officials, including Petro Kotin, head of Energoatom (Ukraine's state-owned nuclear energy company), argue that these reactors are still functional and critical to Ukraine's energy needs. The ongoing conflict, however, complicates efforts to modernize and secure these facilities, which are increasingly vulnerable to both physical damage and potential nuclear hazards.

The Global Implications

Trump's suggestion to take control of Ukraine's nuclear power plants has raised significant concerns on the international stage. Some fear that such a move could set a dangerous precedent for nuclear security and sovereignty. Others see it as an opportunistic proposal that exploits Ukraine's wartime vulnerability.

While the future of Ukraine's nuclear plants remains uncertain, one thing is clear: these facilities are now at the center of a geopolitical struggle that could have far-reaching consequences for the energy security of Europe and the world. The safety of these plants and their role in Ukraine's energy future will remain a critical issue as the war continues and as Ukraine navigates its relations with both the U.S. and Russia, with the grid even having resumed electricity exports at times.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Clean Electricity Standard (CES) sets utility emissions targets, uses tradable credits, and advances decarbonization via technology-agnostic benchmarks, carbon capture, renewable portfolio standards, upstream methane accounting, and cap-and-trade alternatives in reconciliation policy.

Key Points

CES sets utility emissions targets using tradable credits and benchmarks to drive power-sector decarbonization.

✅ Annual clean energy targets phased to 2050

✅ Tradable credits for compliance across utilities

✅ Includes upstream methane and lifecycle emissions

The Biden Administration and Democratic members of Congress have supported including a clean electricity standard (CES) in the upcoming reconciliation bill. A CES is an alternative to pricing carbon dioxide through a tax or cap-and-trade program and focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced during electricity generation by establishing targets, while early assessments show mixed results so far. In principle, it is a technology-agnostic approach. In practice, however, it pushes particular technologies out of the market.

The details of the CES are still being developed, but recent legislation may provide insight into how the CES could operate. In May, Senator Tina Smith and Representative Ben Ray Luján introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2019 (CESA), while Minnesota's 100% carbon-free mandate offers a state-level parallel, and in January 2020, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation’s (CLEAN) Future Act. Both bills increase the clean energy target annually until 2050 in order to phase out emissions. Both bills also create a credit system where clean sources of electricity as determined by a benchmark, carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt-hour, receive credits. These credits may be transferred, sold, and auctioned so utilities that fail to meet targets can procure credits from others, as large energy customers push to accelerate clean energy globally.

The bills’ benchmarks vary, and while the CLEAN Future Act allows natural gas-fired generators to receive partial credits, CESA does not. Under both bills, these generators would be expected to install carbon capture technology to continue meeting increasing targets for clean electricity generation. Both bills go beyond considering the emissions resulting from generation and include upstream emissions for natural gas-fired generators. Natural gas, a greenhouse gas, that is leaked upstream of a generator during transportation is to be included among its emissions. The CLEAN Future Act also calls for newly constructed hydropower generators to account for the emissions associated with the facility’s construction despite producing clean electricity. These additional provisions demonstrate not only the CES’s inability to fully address the issue of emissions but also the slippery slope of expanding the program to include other markets, echoing cost and reliability concerns as California exports its energy policies across the West.

A majority of states have adopted clean energy, electricity, or renewable portfolio standards, with some considering revamping electricity rates to clean the grid, leaving legislators with plenty of examples to consider. As they weigh their options, legislators should consider if they are effectively addressing the problem at hand, economy-wide emissions reductions, and at what cost, drawing on examples like New Mexico's 100% clean electricity bill to inform trade-offs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Muskrat Falls financial impact highlights a hydro megaproject's cost overruns, rate mitigation challenges, and inquiry findings in Newfoundland and Labrador, with power exports, Churchill River generation, and subsea cables shaping long-term viability.

Key Points

It refers to the project's burden on provincial finances, driven by cost overruns, rate hikes, and debt risks.

✅ Costs rose to $12.7B from $6.2B; inquiry cites suppressed risks.

✅ Rate mitigation needed to offset power bill shocks.

✅ Exports via subsea cables may improve long-term viability.

Newfoundland and Labrador's premier says the Muskrat Falls hydro megaproject is currently too much of a massive financial burden for him to be optimistic about its long-term potential.

"I am probably one of the most optimistic people in this room," Liberal Premier Dwight Ball told the inquiry into the project's runaway cost and scheduling issues, echoing challenges at Manitoba Hydro that have raised similar concerns.

"I believe the future is optimistic for Newfoundland Labrador, of course I do. But I'm not going to sit here today and say we have an optimistic future because of the Muskrat Falls project."

Ball, who was re-elected on May 16, has been critical of the project since he was opposition leader around the time it was sanctioned by the former Tory government.

He said Friday that despite his criticism of the Labrador dam, which has seen costs essentially double to more than $12.7 billion, he didn't set out to celebrate a failed project.

He said he still wants to see Muskrat Falls succeed someday through power sales outside the province, but there are immediate challenges -- including mitigating power-rate hikes once the dam starts providing full power and addressing winter reliability risks for households.

"We were told the project would be $6.2 billion, we're at $12.7 (billion). We were never told this project would be nearly 30 per cent of the net debt of this province just six, seven years later," the premier said.

"I wanted this to be successful, and in the long term I still want it to be successful. But we have to deal with the next 10 years."

The nearly complete dam will harness Labrador's lower Churchill River to provide electricity to the province as well as Nova Scotia and potentially beyond through subsea cables, while the legacy of Churchill Falls continues to shape regional power arrangements.

Ball's testimony wraps up a crucial phase of hearings in the extensive public inquiry.

The inquiry has heard from dozens of witnesses, with current and former politicians, bureaucrats, executives and consultants, amid debates over Quebec's electricity ambitions in the region, shedding long-demanded light on what went on behind closed doors that made the project go sideways.

Some witnesses have suggested that estimates were intentionally suppressed, and many high-ranking officials, including former premiers, have denied seeing key information about risk.

On Thursday, Ball testified to his shock when he began to understand the true financial state of the project after he was elected premier in 2015.

On Friday, Ball said he has more faith in future of the offshore oil and gas industry, and emerging options like small nuclear reactors, for example, than a mismanaged project that has put immense pressure on residents already struggling to make ends meet.

After his testimony, Ball said he takes some responsibility for a missed opportunity to mitigate methylmercury risks downstream from the dam through capping the reservoir, in parallel with debates over biomass power in electricity generation, something he had committed to doing before it is fully flooded this summer.

Still to come is a third phase of hearings on future best practices for issues like managing large-scale projects and independent electricity planning, two public feedback sessions and closing submissions from lawyers.

The final report from the inquiry is due before Dec. 31.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC-Alberta Transmission Intertie enables clean hydro to balance wind and solar, expanding transmission capacity so Site C hydro can dispatch power, cut emissions, lower costs, and accelerate electrification across provincial grids under federal climate policy.

Key Points

A cross-provincial grid link using BC hydro to firm Alberta wind and solar, cutting emissions and costs.

✅ Balances variable renewables with dispatchable hydro from Site C.

✅ Enables power trade: peak exports, low-cost wind imports.

✅ Lowers decarbonization costs and supports electrification goals.

By Mark Jaccard

Lost in the news and noise of the federal government's newly announced $170-per-tonne carbon tax was a single, critical sentence in Canada's updated climate plan, one that signals a strategy that could serve as the cornerstone for a future free of greenhouse gas emissions.

"The government will work with provinces and territories to connect parts of Canada that have abundant clean hydroelectricity with parts that are currently more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation — including by advancing strategic intertie projects."

Why do we think this one sentence is so important? And what has it got to do with the controversial Site C project Site C electricity debate under construction in British Columbia?

The answer lies in the huge amount of electricity we'll need to generate in Canada to achieve our climate goals for 2030 and 2050. Even while we aggressively pursue energy efficiency, our electric cars, buses and perhaps trucks in Canada's net-zero race will need a huge amount of new electricity, as will our buildings and industries. 

Luckily, Canada is blessed with an electricity system that is the envy of the world — already over 80 per cent zero emission, the bulk being from flexible hydro-electricity, with a backbone of nuclear power largely in Ontario, a national electricity success and rapidly growing shares of cheap wind and solar. 

Provincial differences
Yet the story differs significantly from one province to another. While B.C.'s electricity is nearly emissions free, the opposite is true of its neighbour, Alberta, where more than 80 per cent still comes from fossil fuels. This, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years.

Now imagine if B.C. and Alberta were one province.

This might sound like the start of a bad joke, or a horror movie to some, but it's the crux of new research by a trio of energy economists who put a fine point on the value of such co-operation.

The study, by Brett Dolter, Kent Fellows and Nic Rivers, takes a detailed look at the economic case for completing Site C, BC Hydro's controversial large hydro project under construction, and makes three key conclusions.

First, they argue Site C should likely not have been started in the first place. Only a narrow set of assumptions can now justify its total cost. But what's done is done, and absent a time machine, the decision to complete the dam rests on go-forward costs.

On that note, their second conclusion is no more optimistic. Considering the cost to complete the project, even accounting for avoiding termination costs should it be cancelled, they find the economics of completing Site C over-budget status to be weak. If the New York Times had a Site C needle in the style of the newspaper's election visual, it would be "leaning cancel" at this point.

In Alberta, more than 80 per cent of the electricity still comes from fossil fuels, despite an impressive shift away from coal power in recent years. (CBC)
But it is their third conclusion that stands out as worthy of attention. They argue there is a case for completing Site C if the following conditions are met:

B.C. and Alberta reduce their electricity sector emissions by more than 75 per cent (this really means Alberta, given B.C.'s already clean position); and

B.C. and Alberta expand their ability to move electricity between their respective provinces by building new transmission lines.

Let's deal with each of these in turn.

On Condition 1, we give an emphatic: YES! Reducing electricity emissions is an absolute must to meet climate pledges if Canada is to come even close to achieving its net-zero goals. As noted above, a clean electricity grid will be the cornerstone of a decarbonized economy as we generate a great deal more power to electrify everything from industrial processes to heating to transportation and more. 

Condition 2 is more challenging. Talk of increasing transmission connections across Canada, including Hydro-Québec's U.S. strategy has been ongoing for over 50 years, with little success to speak of. But this time might well be different. And the implications for a completed Site C, should the government go that route, are profound.

Wind and solar costs rapidly declining
Somewhat ironically, the case for Site C is made stronger by the rapidly declining costs of two of its apparent renewable competitors: wind and solar.

The cost of wind and solar generation has fallen by 70 per cent and 90 per cent, respectively, a dramatic decline in the past 10 years. No longer can these variable sources of power be derided as high cost; they are unequivocally the cheapest sources of raw energy in electricity systems today.

However, electricity system operators must deal with their "non-dispatchability," a seemingly complicated term that simply means they produce electricity only when the sun shines and the wind blows, which is not necessarily when electricity customers want their electricity delivered (dispatched) to them. And because of this characteristic, the value of dispatchable electricity sources, like a completed Site C, will grow as a complement to wind and solar. 

Thus, as Alberta's generation of cheap wind and solar grows, so too does the value of connecting it with the firm, dispatchable resources available in B.C.

Rather than displacing wind and solar, large hydro facilities with the ability to increase or decrease output on short notice can actually enable more investment in these renewable sources. Expanding the transmission connection, with Site C on one side of that line, becomes even more valuable.

Many in B.C. might read this and rightly ask themselves, why should we foot the bill for this costly project to help out Albertans? The answer is that it won't be charity — B.C. will get paid handsomely for the power it delivers in peak periods and will be able to import wind power at low prices from Alberta in other times. B.C. will benefit greatly from these gains of trade.

Turning to Alberta, why should Albertans support B.C. reaping these gains? The answer is two-fold.

First, Site C will actually enable more low-cost wind and solar to be built in Alberta due to hydro's ability to balance these non-dispatchable renewables. Jobs and economic opportunity will occur in Alberta from this renewable energy growth.

Second, while B.C. imports won't come cheap, they will be less costly than the decarbonization alternatives Alberta would need without B.C.'s flexible hydro, as the economists' study shows. This means lower overall costs to Alberta's power consumers.

A clear role for Ottawa
To be sure, there are challenges to increasing the connectedness of B.C. and Alberta's power systems, not least of which is BC Hydro being a regulated, government-owned monopoly while Alberta is a competitive market amongst private generators. Some significant accommodations in climate policy and grids will be needed to ensure both sides can compete and benefit from trade on an equal footing.

There is also the pesky matter of permitting and constructing thousands of kilometres of power lines. Getting linear energy infrastructure built in Canada has not exactly been our forte of late.

We are not naive to the significant challenges in such an approach, but it's not often that we see such a clear narrative for beneficial climate action that, when considered at the provincial level, is likely to be thwarted, but when considered more broadly can produce a big win.

It's the clearest example yet of a role for the federal government to bridge the gap, to facilitate the needed regulatory conversations, and, let's be frank, to bring money to the table to make the line happen. Neither provincial side is likely to do it on their own, nor, as history has shown, are they likely to do it together. 

For a government committed to reducing emissions, and with a justified emphasis on the electricity sector, the opportunity to expand the Alberta-B.C. transmission intertie, leveraging the flexibility of B.C.'s hydro with the abundance of wind and solar potential on the Prairies, offers a potential massive decarbonization win for Western Canada that is too good to ignore.

Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University, and Blake Shaffer, a professor at the University of Calgary

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

U.S. Wind Power 2025 drives record capacity additions, with FERC data showing robust renewable energy growth, IRA incentives, onshore and offshore projects, utility-scale generation, grid integration, and manufacturing investment boosting clean electricity across key states.

Key Points

Overview of record wind additions, IRA incentives, and grid expansion defining the U.S. clean electricity mix in 2025.

✅ FERC: 30.1% of new U.S. capacity in Jan 2025 from wind

✅ Major projects: Cedar Springs IV, Boswell, Prosperity, Golden Hills

✅ IRA incentives drive onshore, offshore builds and manufacturing

In early 2025, wind power has significantly strengthened its position in the United States' electricity generation portfolio. According to data from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), wind energy accounted for 30.1% of the new electricity capacity added in January 2025, and as the most-used renewable source in the U.S., it also surpassed the previous record set in 2024. This growth is attributed to substantial projects such as the 390.4 MW Cedar Springs Wind IV and the 330.0 MW Boswell Wind Farm in Wyoming, along with the 300.0 MW Prosperity Wind Farm in Illinois and the 201.0 MW Golden Hills Wind Farm Expansion in Oregon. 

The expansion of wind energy capacity is part of a broader trend where solar and wind together accounted for over 98% of the new electricity generation capacity added in the U.S. in January 2025. This surge is further supported by the federal government's Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and broader policy support for renewables, which has bolstered incentives for renewable energy projects, leading to increased investments and the establishment of new manufacturing facilities. 

By April 2025, clean electricity sources, including wind and solar, were projected to surpass 51% of total utility-scale electricity generation in the U.S., building on a 25.5% renewable share seen in recent data, marking a significant milestone in the nation's energy transition. This achievement is attributed to a combination of factors: a seasonal drop in electricity demand during the spring shoulder season, increased wind speeds in key areas like Texas, and higher solar production due to longer daylight hours and expanded capacity in states such as California, Arizona, and Nevada, supported by record installations across the solar and storage industry. 

Despite a 7% decline in wind power production in early April compared to the same period in 2024—primarily due to weaker wind speeds in regions like Texas—the overall contribution of wind energy remained robust, supported by an 82% clean-energy pipeline that includes wind, solar, and batteries. This resilience underscores the growing reliability of wind power as a cornerstone of the U.S. electricity mix. 

Looking ahead, the U.S. Department of Energy projects that wind energy capacity will continue to grow, with expectations of adding between 7.3 GW and 9.9 GW in 2024, and potentially increasing to 14.5 GW to 24.8 GW by 2028. This growth is anticipated to be driven by both onshore and offshore wind projects, with onshore wind representing the majority of new additions, continuing a trajectory since surpassing hydro capacity in 2016 in the U.S.

Early 2025 has witnessed a notable increase in wind power's share of the U.S. electricity generation mix. This trend reflects the nation's ongoing commitment to expanding renewable energy sources, especially after renewables surpassed coal in 2022, supported by favorable policies and technological advancements. As the U.S. continues to invest in and develop wind energy infrastructure, the role of wind power in achieving a cleaner and more sustainable energy future becomes increasingly pivotal.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Alberta Electricity Price Surge reflects soaring wholesale rates, natural gas spikes, carbon tax pressures, and grid decarbonization challenges amid cold-weather demand, constrained supply, and Europe-style energy crisis impacts across the province.

Key Points

An exceptional jump in Alberta's power costs driven by gas price spikes, high demand, policy costs, and tight supply.

✅ Wholesale prices averaged $123/MWh in December

✅ Gas costs surged; supply constraints and outages

✅ Carbon tax and decarbonization policies raised costs

Albertans just endured the highest electricity prices in 21 years. Wholesale prices averaged $123 per megawatt-hour in December, more than triple the level from the previous year and highest for December since 2000.

The situation in Alberta mirrors the energy crisis striking Europe where electricity prices are also surging, largely due to a shocking five-fold increase in natural gas prices in 2021 compared to the prior year.

The situation should give pause to Albertans when they consider aggressive plans to “decarbonize” the electric grid, including proposals for a fully renewable grid by 2030 from some policymakers.

The explanation for skyrocketing energy prices is simple: increased demand (because of Calgary's frigid February demand and a slowly-reviving post-pandemic economy) coupled with constrained supply.

In the nitty gritty details, there are always particular transitory causes, such as disputes with Russian gas companies (in the case of Europe) or plant outages (in the case of Alberta).

But beyond these fleeting factors, there are more permanent systemic constraints on natural gas (and even more so, coal-fired) power plants.

I refer of course to the climate change policies of the Trudeau government at the federal level and some of the more aggressive provincial governments, which have notable implications for electricity grids across Canada.

The most obvious example is the carbon tax, the repeal of which Premier Jason Kenney made a staple of his government.

Putting aside the constitutional issues (on which the Supreme Court ruled in March of last year that the federal government could impose a carbon tax on Alberta), the obvious economic impact will be to make carbon-sourced electricity more expensive.

This isn’t a bug or undesired side-effect, it’s the explicit purpose of a carbon tax.

Right now, the federal carbon tax is $40 per tonne, is scheduled to increase to $50 in April, and will ultimately max out at a whopping $170 per tonne in 2030.

Again, the conscious rationale of the tax, aligned with goals for cleaning up Canada's electricity, is to make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive to induce consumers and businesses to use alternative energy sources.

As Albertans experience sticker shock this winter, they should ask themselves — do we want the government intentionally making electricity and heating oil more expensive?

Of course, the proponent of a carbon tax (and other measures designed to shift Canadians away from carbon-based fuels) would respond that it’s a necessary measure in the fight against climate change, and that Canada will need more electricity to hit net-zero according to the IEA.

Yet the reality is that Canada is a bit player on the world stage when it comes to carbon dioxide, responsible for only 1.5% of global emissions (as of 2018).

As reported at this “climate tracker” website, if we look at the actual policies put in place by governments around the world, they’re collectively on track for the Earth to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, far above the official target codified in the Paris Agreement.

Canadians can’t do much to alter the global temperature, but federal and provincial governments can make energy more expensive if policymakers so choose, and large-scale electrification could be costly—the Canadian Gas Association warns of $1.4 trillion— if pursued rapidly.

As renewable technologies become more reliable and affordable, business and consumers will naturally adopt them; it didn’t take a “manure tax” to force people to use cars rather than horses.

As official policy continues to make electricity more expensive, Albertans should ask if this approach is really worth it, or whether options like bridging the Alberta-B.C. electricity gap could better balance costs.

Robert P. Murphy is a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News