By Ian Munroe, Anna Berka and Christina E. Hoicka

The number of renewable energy projects that are fully or partly Indigenous-owned is growing quickly in Canada, and our new research suggests that their benefits reach far beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The number of such projects on traditional Indigenous territories and reserve lands jumped by more than 300 per cent between 2009 and 2020. Nearly one-fifth of the country’s electricity-generating infrastructure involved First Nations, Métis and Inuit partners or beneficiaries as of 2022.

Yet little is known about the impacts of these renewable-energy projects within the participating communities beyond the physical footprint of the construction.

We aimed to fill this information policy gap in response to a request from two organizations that work extensively with First Nations, the Clean Energy Association of British Columbia and the New Relationship Trust, which obtained funding from Natural Resources Canada to conduct research.

Together we conducted a study to paint a more complete picture of these broader impacts, interviewing knowledge-holders in 14 First Nations in British Columbia involved with 36 planned or operational Indigenous-led renewable energy projects.

We found that these projects employ “placed-based” approaches, often with a high degree of community engagement early on, and revenues often allocated to support their own culture, governance, ecology, support services and economy.

Transformational change

We found that when First Nations’ worldviews are centred and community control is enabled, broad social and cultural benefits result, providing greater self-determination.

As part of our research, we interviewed knowledge-holders from the West Moberly First Nations near Peace River, B.C. The nation has used wind-project revenues to support cultural camps and youth programs. As one knowledge-holder there told us:

“We are involved in it, and we are engaged in it. We are co-owners. And I know our Elders feel really good about hearing that. Knowing that we are not just sitting on the sidelines, while other people fill their pockets in our territory. And our community is doing that kind of stuff more and more. There is a connection there, right, because you are involved. More money is flowing to the community.”

In the Fraser Canyon region, the T’eqt’aqtn’mux (Kanaka Bar Indian Band), which has been affected by wildfires in recent years, has used proceeds from solar projects to reduce fire hazards and protect homes.

In the case of the Skidegate Band Council, we heard that revenues from a two-megawatt microgrid solar project would go toward funding Tll Yahda Energy, a partnership with the Old Massett Village Council to develop renewable energy projects in Haida Gwaii.

While these results demonstrate that a broad range of positive outcomes can flow from Indigenous-led renewable energy projects, the social and cultural impacts remain neglected in conventional energy practice.

An alternative to traditional energy planning

The Indigenous-led projects we heard about stand in contrast to typically used top-down decision-making, favoured by governments.

This approach is often characterized by public consultation that occurs after the decision of where to site the project has been made, often leading to local rejection of the project, and sometimes cancellation.

The bottom-up nature of the approaches we heard about hold important lessons that can enable widespread acceptance of energy transitions.

This is particularly relevant in B.C., where the provincial government is encouraging renewable energy projects to create economic opportunity and counter external economic shocks, including tariffs from the United States.

This policy push extends to the province’s more than 200 First Nations, with a 2025 procurement call that requires at least 25 per cent First Nations ownership of a project.

The B.C. government must also meet its obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which aims to bring provincial legislation into agreement with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The UN treaty requires that state parties enable self-determination and obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples for projects that impact their lands or resources. Indigenous-led renewable electricity projects in B.C. could help meet requirements under DRIPA to provide pathways for First Nations to improve their economic and social conditions without discrimination.

The Indigenous-led approaches we studied provide a vehicle to support Indigenous communities and make progress toward the province’s decarbonization goals. They also hold valuable lessons for developing policy in other jurisdictions like Ontario, where the provincial government has pledged to boost support for the growing number of Indigenous energy projects.

The world is entering a new era in which energy independence will be more important. Our findings about Indigenous-led projects illustrate a radically different approach to growing the Canada’s renewables industry in a way that can provide energy and facilitate transformational social and cultural change.

The post Indigenous‑led renewable energy projects offer benefits that reach far beyond reducing carbon emissions appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Stewart Prest

The recently struck memorandum of understanding (MOU) between Canada and Alberta is a high-stakes strategy that risks deepening already deep divides in Canadian politics.

While the MOU touches on a number of issues, at its heart is a shared vision for a new pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s protected northern coast.

In effect, the deal offers a quid pro quo: Ottawa agrees to relax a range of federal environmental regulations — including a ban on tanker traffic in B.C.’s north — and to support a pipeline in exchange for a commitment from Alberta to eventually increase the price of carbon on industrial emissions in the province to $130 a tonne.

It’s a vision negotiated without the involvement of either the B.C. government or the Indigenous Peoples affected by the plan. While the agreement calls for consultations with both groups, they are relegated to the status of secondary partners, with concerns to be addressed in the execution of the plan outlined by Ottawa and Alberta.

A policy solution for an identity issue

The deal is clearly meant to bridge the gap between populist voters centred in the Prairie provinces and the rest of the country. But both the content and the process risks widening that gap, even as it deepens divisions elsewhere in the country.

Simply put, Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to find a policy solution to an identity problem, and doing so by picking sides rather than neutrally facilitating agreement.

It’s part of the polarized, populist identity in Alberta, in particular, to oppose Ottawa and Liberal governments. In fact, when Alberta Premier Danielle Smith referred to the MOU in front of the United Conservative Party (UCP) convention, she was roundly booed. Rather than being hailed as champion who had achieved valuable policy concessions, she was greeted as a traitor to the cause.

Given the rude reception, it’s not surprising that in recent days Alberta has sought ways to limit its environmental commitments.

Read more: How ideology is darkening the future of renewables in Alberta

Playing favourites in the federation

Over the longer term, the agreement risks legitimizing the narrative of “Alberta aggrieved” by treating it as a distinct, sovereign jurisdiction entitled to special treatment.

In fact, the trappings and language of the agreement seem to reinforce the idea that “Alberta” is a natural negotiating partner with “Canada” rather than part of Canada.

The MOU’s signing ceremony in Calgary — not the provincial capital of Edmonton or Ottawa — bore all the hallmarks of international treaty-making, complete with flags and a formal text in both official languages. The symbolism reinforced the image of the deal as a kind of grand bargain between Ottawa and oil country.

While the federal government often strikes deals with provincial governments, this situation is quite different. It’s a deal only with Alberta but it primarily involves British Columbia. The agreement therefore elevates Alberta to the level of a quasi-sovereign jurisdiction to be treated as an equal with Canada. B.C., site of any future hypothetical pipeline terminals, has been rendered a deal-taker, not a deal-maker.

Unfortunately, that’s not how the federation is supposed to work. Just because the federal government has ultimate jurisdiction doesn’t mean other regions don’t get a say. It’s hard to imagine the federal government striking a deal with Ontario about what should happen in Québec without Québec’s involvement.

Read more: Alberta has long accused Ottawa of trying to destroy its oil industry. Here’s why that’s a dangerous myth

B.C. fury

B.C. Premier David Eby was accordingly furious with the federal government’s approach before the deal was announced.

Since then, while pointing out weaknesses in the deal, the NDP premier has also been at pains to show his willingness to work with Alberta on workarounds, including an expanded Transmountain pipeline or another pipeline that would leave the oil tanker moratorium in place on B.C’.s northern coast.

In leaving Eby out of the conversation, the federal Liberals have alienated a natural ally in their pursuit of economic development, forcing the premier to defend B.C.’s status within the federation, the rights of the province’s Indigenous communities and the province’s protected northern coast and Great Bear Rainforest.

Constitutional obligations to consult

Even more telling is the united reaction of First Nations. The Assembly of First Nations has unanimously voted in favour of a motion calling for the MOU to be scrapped. In fact, the federal government may have put itself in legal jeopardy over its failure to consult prior to the MOU.

At some point, it will likely have to explain in court how it could be serious about consulting in good faith with Indigenous Peoples in accordance with its obligations under Section 35 of the Constitution Act when the MOU gives the appearance of approving the project in principle before such conversations even begin.

Offering ownership stakes to Indigenous groups in a project devised without their involvement is not consultation. Simply put, unless governments can show they’re open to amending their plans in light of information they receive during consultations, they risk falling short of their obligations.

Cracks in the Liberal coalition

While polls suggest a majority of Canadians support the idea of a pipeline so far, the Liberals’ own coalition shows some signs of fraying.

Former environment minister Steven Guilbeault’s resignation from cabinet over the deal, along with the resignations of multiple environmental advisers to the Liberal government, suggest the party’s reputation for environmental progress has taken a hit given the slow and fuzzy approach to climate action outlined in the MOU.

Other federal parties sense an opportunity. The Bloc Québecois has strongly denounced the deal and has offered to support B.C. in its campaign to defend the province’s autonomy. The move underscores the sensitivities that remain in Québec around issues of provincial rights.

Even more tellingly, federal Conservatives, perhaps initially dismayed by a deal uniting federal Liberals and Alberta Conservatives, are now putting a motion before the House of Commons asking it to endorse the government’s position on the MOU and make good on its commitments. The Liberals, for their part, have vowed to vote against the motion, arguing that it only endorses part of the MOU.

In effect, the Conservatives are seeking to turn the government’s own MOU into a wedge issue against it. The Conservatives will likely continue to press the issue going forward given how the idea of a pipeline at any cost unites Conservatives and divide Liberals. Liberal MPs in B.C. and Québec, in particular, will also likely feel torn between loyalty to the party and deference to the views of constituents opposed to the deal.

In short, a pipeline intended to unify threatens to throw divisions into even sharper relief — even within the Liberal Party itself.

The post Opinion: Why Mark Carney’s pipeline deal with Alberta puts the Canadian federation in jeopardy appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Chris Bonasia

A new study analyzes how Indigenous-led power authorities could support transformative energy justice in British Columbia, where First Nations have proposed six models that could either fit into or transform existing energy systems.

The analysis of the models offers “a starting point” for understanding how a transformative approach to energy justice could unfold in the province, write the researchers.

Rights of Indigenous Peoples have been formally accepted in B.C. and Canada through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (Declaration Act) in 2019 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2021, which outline principles of self-determination and free, prior and informed consent.

First Nations in B.C. are embracing the enshrined rights by advocating for the creation of new economic avenues via the electricity sector—like a First Nation Power Authority, the researchers write. A report issued [pdf] in 2022 concluded that offering contracts to First Nations to cover 50 per cent of the projected 19.1 terawatt-hour power supply shortage then expected in B.C. by 2030 would double the size of the First Nation renewable energy sector and attract more than C$8 billion in investment to the comunities.

The coalition behind the project included the First Nations Clean Energy Working Group, the New Relationship Trust, members of the Pembina Institute’s remote communities renewables program, and the Nuu-Chah-nulth Tribal Council of 14 First Nations in B.C., among others.

In the past, First Nations and other remote communities have been excluded from participating in renewables projects due to limited access to capital and an energy environment dominated by BC Hydro, the province’s monopoly electricity provider, which hinders community-led projects from moving forward, the researchers write.

They add that efforts to change B.C.’s energy system based on the rights outlined in UNDRIP and the Declaration Act, would benefit from “stretch and transform” strategies that “attract resources and create capabilities for institutional change making.”

In contrast, First Nations involvement in energy systems has typically followed a “fit and conform” approach, which subordinates community-led initiatives to governance and regulation. The distinction between the two approaches is not always clearcut, and they have been used in tandem when projects need to leverage existing practices while also adopting innovative changes, the researchers say.

The six Indigenous power authority models outlined in the study use an array of “conformative” and “transformative” dimensions, and vary in their complexity. A “capacity building point of contact” model—which leaves the province with much of its existing control while supporting First Nations projects, similar to SaskPower’s operations in Saskatchewan—is the most conformative. The most transformative, a “regionally vertically integrated power authority”, would require seven regulatory changes to replace BC Hydro in certain regions with a utility controlled by local First Nations.

A model for “local or regional golden ticket opportunities” falls in the middle, and works by giving priority to First Nations on opportunities in the electricity system.

The researchers emphasize that their research, which involved interviewing First Nations knowledge holders, revealed that some First Nations see renewable energy as an opportunity to achieve self-determination and self-reliance while addressing structural injustices.

Several of the proposed models outline paths to build First Nations control over portions of the electricity system, and would require new ways for First Nations to engage with BC Hydro to extend, connect to, and retail through transmission and distribution lines.

“What remains unclear is whether and how BC Hydro might approach such a change,” the researchers write.

The post First Nations power authorities could show path to energy justice appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Izzy Ross

This coverage is made possible through a partnership with Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

Seven Indigenous nations have withdrawn from discussions over an oil and gas liquids pipeline in Michigan, citing federal agencies’ failure to adequately engage with tribal governments during the process.

The move is expected to trigger lawsuits the tribes hope will block the controversial Line 5 project, a 645 mile pipeline that carries over half-a-million barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids per day and runs between the United States and Canada. Enbridge, the company behind Line 5, has proposed a tunnel under the Great Lakes in order to replace a section of the 72-year-old pipeline.

The tribal nations have been involved with the permitting process since 2020, when Enbridge applied to build the underground tunnel for the pipeline, but have grown increasingly dissatisfied with negotiations they say ignored tribal expertise, input, and concerns, and undermined treaty rights.

On March 20, tribes say the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency assessing the project and its environmental impacts, informed them that it would likely soon grant Enbridge a fast-tracked permit for the tunnel under President Donald Trump’s energy emergency declaration, which effectively created a new class of permit to boost energy supplies. That announcement, the tribes say, prompted the withdrawal.

“Tribal Nations are no longer willing to expend their time and resources as Cooperating Agencies just so their participation may be used by the Corps to lend credibility to a flawed [Environmental Impact Statement] process and document,” they wrote in a March 21 letter to the Corps.

Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community, said the tunnel would destroy “not only the Great Lakes, but also an Indigenous people’s way of life, my way of life, for all Great Lakes Anishinaabe.”

“We’ll do what we need to do now moving forward, not participating in that process,” she added.

Tribal nations in Michigan — and others across the country — have long argued that the pipeline is unsafe, and that the tunnel would further threaten their way of life by extending the possibility of an oil spill into the Straits of Mackinac, which connect lakes Michigan and Huron, and potentially contaminating the largest source of fresh water in North America.

In an email, Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the tunnel would “make a safe pipeline safer while also ensuring the continued safe, secure, and affordable delivery of essential energy to the Great Lakes region.” But critics say that risk has yet to be properly analyzed and the Army Corps maintains that considering the risk of oil spills, or their impacts, is beyond the scope of its authority and should be conducted by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Despite that stance, in early January an assistant secretary with the Department of Defense directed the Army Corps to carry out that assessment. That will now likely be ignored under the Trump administration’s executive order, according to attorneys with the tribes.

In an email, Army Corps spokesperson Carrie Fox said the agency is reviewing the tribes’ letter and relying on existing regulations to speed up permitting for eligible projects under Trump’s executive order, adding that new procedures will be posted publicly.

The odds are heavily weighted toward Enbridge, according to Matthew Fletcher, a citizen of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and a professor of law at the University of Michigan.

“The rule of law is basically dead. Enbridge and the feds are not acting in good faith,” he said in an email. “It must be apparent to the tribes that, in this administration, no matter what the tribes say or do, or evidence they provide, etc., Enbridge will get absolutely anything it wants from the United States.”

The tribes aren’t alone. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has repeatedly called for the suspension of pipeline operations until the free, prior, and informed consent, or FPIC, of affected Indigenous nations has been secured. FPIC, a right guaranteed under international law that says countries must consult with Indigenous peoples in good faith and obtain consent for development projects on their land, is rarely enforced and the U.S. has yet to codify the obligation.

“Any law that requires consent, or even consultation, of Indians and tribes, is a threat to this entire industry,” Fletcher said. “I guarantee this administration will ignore and/or denigrate all of these laws on behalf of their climate change-inducing and pollution-generating constituents.”

But even adhering to the Trump administration’s “America First” priorities, the tunnel project shouldn’t receive a fast-tracked permit, said David Gover, an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund which is representing Bay Mills. “You’re talking about a project, Line 5, that serves Canadian companies and Canadian interest,” he said.

While much of the pipeline’s oil and gas products pass through Michigan and on to Canadian refineries, Enbridge says the pipeline provides jobs and other benefits to the state, including more than half of Michigan’s propane. Those benefits won’t pay off in the long run, according to opponents, and experts have said the pipeline’s continued operation would generate tens of billions of dollars in climate damages. Moreover, replacing that section of pipeline wouldn’t create more capacity, Gover said, “So there’s no extension or expansion of meeting those energy needs here in America.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“We are multifaceted governments, and not all tribes oppose oil. But all tribes in the state of Michigan have stood up to say that this is a bad project,” said President Gravelle. “If we wanted to protect one of our most precious resources, which is the Great Lakes themselves, we would decommission this for those future generations.”

Editor’s note: Earthjustice, one of the law firms representing the Bay Mills Indian Community, is an advertiser with Grist. Advertisers have no role in Grist’s editorial decisions.

The post Why Indigenous nations are walking away from pipeline talks in Michigan appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Giuseppe Amatulli

The Blueberry River First Nations (BRFN) has, for a few years now, been locked in a dispute with the B.C. government over oil and gas development on its land. These tensions came to a head in 2021 when the BRFN won a landmark court case against the province as the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that Blueberry River First Nations were not properly consulted.

The 2021 verdict led to the signing of an Implementation Agreement in 2023 which generated hope things could be done differently in an area rich in natural resources.

The agreement laid out how the province and the BRFN aimed to build a “new collaborative, long-term and evolving relationship in relation to land, resources and economic development in respect of the claim area.” This agreement was praised by many as a way to placate industry interests while also aiming to protect constitutional and treaty rights. This goodwill was, however, not to last.

Earlier this month the BRFN took the steps to formally initiate a dispute — by means of a Notice of Civil Claim — with the B.C. government.

This move was taken in response to a May 2024 announcement that the province would be moving to open up the Gundy area to oil and gas exploration as part of the Gundy High Value 1 Plan (or the so-called Unauthorized Gundy Plan). The 2024 Notice of Civil Claim, and the events that led up to it, reveal much about the inadequacies of the governance structures imposed upon Indigenous communities by successive colonial governments.

A report on the oil and gas resources on BRFN land produced by the CBC.

Governance issues

According to the Blueberry River Custom Election By-law, the BRFN is governed by a council, formed by five elected family councillors, and one chief, nominated by written petition and elected by the five family councillors. The chief serves as a spokesperson on behalf of council, but does not have decision-making power.

In August of 2023 the council found that BRFN Chief Judy Desjarlais had violated the appropriate process in agreeing to green-light a number of new oil and gas applications. This culminated in an Aug. 21 resolution by the band council which appointed two councillors as interim spokespersons for the Implementation Agreement while depriving the chief of the authority to speak for the council on related matters.

A Senior Officials Table, composed of all the councillors, key representatives of the province and its advisors was formed. However, this venue proved ineffective at resolving the governance issues between the chief and council. Thus, on May 30, 2024, the B.C. government went ahead with announcing the Gundy plan after private meetings with Chief Desjarlais. Meetings that were held without the participation of the council or the band’s legal counsel.

Following this announcement the BRFN legislative council took action to challenge the implementation of the plan which the council defined as “contrary to the parties’ understanding, commitments, and obligations.” The council is also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the province, to prevent the implementation of the Gundy plan.

Burdensome structures

The issues around governance that the BRFN case highlights are the direct result of a top-down government structure that was imposed on First Nations through the Indian Act of 1876 — an act which Anishinaabe/Ojibwe law scholar John Borrows argues was created to control and assimilate. Carleton University public policy scholar Frances Abele argues that the Indian Act is a legislative fossil and an “ill-fitting boot that pinches in all the wrong places.”

The Indian Act relies upon top-down authorities instead of collegial decision-making while being silent on important issues such as the internal accountability of the chief and council, leadership dynamics and wider issues of governance and management. Moreover, the authority it confers to the chief is arguably not compatible with the Indigenous systems of governance that existed prior to colonization.

The Implementation Agreement B.C. signed with the BRFN has also been challenged by other Treaty 8 First Nations. It is alleged that by trying to accommodate the BRFN, the Agreement overlooks the Treaty Rights of other Treaty 8 First Nations (namely the Doig River and Halfway River First Nations).

Read more: Indigenous consultation is key to the Ring of Fire becoming Canada’s economic superpower

Instead of addressing the cumulative effects of industrial development and creating a better future for Treaty 8 First Nations, the Implementation Agreement risks generating more uncertainty and instability around resource exploitation in northeastern B.C.

It is difficult to tell how things will unfold, but there are lessons to be learned and any future approach must focus on Indigenous agency and mutual collaboration.

Before implementing agreements to solve outstanding issues, provincial governments should engage with communities to build trust and relationships with all, and not just some Indigenous communities. Real change can only be achieved if provincial governments, and Ottawa, address Indigenous leadership as governments to be collaborated with and not just problems to be managed.

The post Opinion: Blueberry River First Nations’ oil and gas dispute a failure of colonial-imposed governance appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Gaye Taylor

Solving the intertwined crises in Indigenous housing and health requires Indigenous knowledge, experience, and leadership, concludes a new scoping paper co-authored by Indigenous Clean Energy and the Canadian Climate Institute.

Titled “Beyond Sustainability: The Power of Indigenous Healthy Energy Homes,” the paper [pdf] draws on Indigenous-authored or -led scholarship and experience to explore the intersections between housing, health, and energy in Indigenous life.

In 2018, the Haíłzaqv (Helsiuk) Nation installed its first 20 heat pump systems in homes in Bella Bella, British Columbia, saving the homeowners as much as $250 per month on their heating bills because they no longer had to pay for diesel. But there was another immediate and tangible benefit: parents reported that chronic runny noses and coughs in their children disappeared along with the use of fossil fuels to keep warm.

The scoping paper begins with this anecdote, illustrating that too many Indigenous communities still find themselves in energy inefficient homes that are making them sick, and urgently need healthy energy homes for everyone.

A healthy energy home, the paper explains, will be one that supports all aspects of human well-being (individual, family, community, culture), together with that of ecosystems, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Far From Healthy

“Generations of colonial policies led to the destruction of traditional housing such as wigwams, teepees, longhouses, kekulis, pit houses, igloos, sod houses, big houses, and other styles of architecture used by Indigenous Peoples,” the two organizations write.

“Strategic, appropriate for the land and environment they were built in, and responsive to the cultural needs of specific communities,” these housing designs were replaced with “one-size fits-all housing”, disconnected from the diverse realities of land, climate, and culture.

This failure led inexorably to a “multitude of other challenges,” including poor health outcomes for body, mind, and spirit.

“Among First Nations adults, 43% of those who have asthma and 52% of those living with chronic bronchitis are also living with mould in their homes,” the authors write, drawing a direct connection between poorly ventilated housing and respiratory illness.  “In 2023, of 101 First Nations community homes surveyed in Ontario, almost half had visible mould,” they add.

Overcrowding in many Indigenous homes is also a sign of the disconnect between houses supplied to Indigenous communities under federal programs and the cultural values and needs of their inhabitants. Whereas Indigenous homes “were traditionally multi-generational, with room for extended family members,” government builds have, for decades, been designed for “small nuclear families” at best.

“The rapid degradation of Indigenous homes, largely due to poor construction and being ill-suited for their environment,” has only compounded the problem of overcrowding. Citing 2023 Statistics Canada data, the authors say the percentage of First Nations households requiring major repairs (16.4%) is nearly triple that of non-Indigenous households.

“As a result, rather than growing the stock of available housing to reduce overcrowding, communities are simply replacing existing homes.”

Harmful Overcrowding

The psycho-social harms of overcrowding are multiple, increasing risks of substance abuse, mood disorders, and self-harm. “Overcrowding plays a major role in the prevalence of domestic violence, child apprehensions by child welfare agencies, and in the frequency of missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and two-spirit people,” the authors say.

Overcrowding also generates a further fundamental threat to physical health, in that living in close quarters means easier transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The rate of tuberculosis transmission among Indigenous people, for example, is “at least 20 times higher than among non-Indigenous people.” Overcrowding, alongside mould and poor ventilation, is implicated in this statistic.

Furthermore, many of the “one-size-fits-all” structures currently housing Indigenous families are extremely energy inefficient, thanks to air leakage, poor insulation, and outdated heating and hot water systems. Faced with energy poverty from sky-high energy costs, some Indigenous households find themselves having to “choose between buying groceries or keeping the heat on,” between “heating or eating.”

For many rural and remote Indigenous communities, especially those entirely dependent on expensive fossil fuels such as diesel, such trade-offs can be particularly extreme.

On top of the crisis in home heating is a need for energy to cool things off in summer, as households increasingly face extreme heat and wildfire smoke, with energy poverty meaning little hope of purchasing air conditioning and air filtration systems.

Healthy Energy Homes

With the Haíłzaqv Nation heat pump success story as an example, an Indigenous healthy energy home supports every aspect of well-being, the paper states. Healthy energy homes also save individuals, families, and communities money.

The scoping paper cites Yale First Nation in Hope, B.C., which built a Passive House-certified six-plex seven years ago. “Occupants of the six-plex save hundreds of dollars per year on utility bills compared to other homes in the community,” meaning that “families can allocate more resources to other vital needs, such as health care, ensuring that health issues are addressed promptly, and preventing costly long-term health complications.”

Better individual and family health outcomes also mean a more sustainable health care system. Whereas “the minimum cost of both retrofitting existing community homes for energy efficiency and building new homes that meet advanced energy efficiency standards in all Indigenous communities by 2030 is approximately $5.3 billion,” the authors say, citing 2021 data, the federal government spent $8.67 billion on Indigenous health during 2021-2022 alone.

“While further research on the health-related costs from inadequate housing is needed to more precisely quantify the savings to be had, building Healthy Energy Homes could potentially lead to significant health care savings,” they add.

Because they use more climate-appropriate designs and materials, health energy homes also last longer, leaving money and energy to build more homes, which in turn addresses housing shortages and overcrowding.

ICE and the Climate Institute cite numerous cases where such reciprocity is already occurring in Indigenous communities across Canada, including the Mi’kmaw Home Energy Efficiency Project (MHEEP), which has been in operation in Nova Scotia since 2019.

Recently, more than 1,000 band-owned homes have received energy efficiency upgrades such as insulation, heat pumps, and draft-proofing through MHEEP, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6,200 tonnes and cutting household energy bills by an average of $1,500.

Healthy Housing and Self-Determination

Calls for healthy housing and self-determination over housing reverberate through the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report, and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s recommendations, ICE and the Climate Institute say.

“Indigenous housing isn’t just about money and investments, it is about people living in communities and having the use of their own funds for how they want to build homes, not how the government of Canada says they should,” they write.

“Therefore, it is essential that investments in and building of Healthy Energy Homes are done in partnership with Indigenous communities,” a process that would “further the process of reconciliation.”

But funding challenges are still daunting, they add. “Because community housing providers are so chronically underfunded, they are operating in this crisis mode, where all they can focus on is fixing the health and safety emergencies of right now and they’re not able to be in a place where they can plan for the future.”

The post Healthy energy homes urgently needed in Indigenous communities appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Gaye Taylor

Canadian municipalities will need to shift their climate response plans into action and results if they mean to align with the country’s net-zero by 2050 target, a comprehensive survey of local climate plans concludes.

Across Canada, municipalities need to adopt and take action on ambitious net-zero goals, with action in mid-to-large size municipalities having “an important impact on achievement of national targets,” writes [pdf] the survey team at the Municipal Net-Zero Action Research Partnership (N-ZAP), a collaboration between the University of Waterloo, 11 other universities, national organizations like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and ICLEI Canada, and various cities and towns.

The post Canadian cities build climate plans but lag on implementation appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Christopher Bonasia

Canada’s power grid could get a helpful boost from an international partnership to develop microgrid system products and utility-scale battery storage.

Vancouver-based Energy Plug Technologies and its battery company co-owned by the Malahat Nation have signed a memorandum of understanding with engineering firm Enwind Power, “a company specializing in the research and development of power sciences and battery-based applications in Taiwan,” Energy Plug said in a release.

The team will research and develop microgrid system products and utility-scale battery energy storage system (BESS) products, providing “engineered solutions to utilities, commercial and industrial verticals to support the expansion of the microgrid industry in Canada.”

The parties will also “seek to devise strategies for product localization and battery software systems tailored for the Canadian, North American, and Latin American markets.”

“Utilities are looking for both behind-the-meter and residential solutions, and microgrids are increasingly integrating renewable energy solutions,” Energy Plug CEO and President Brodie Gunning said in an interview. “This is especially true in rural and remote communities, in an effort to reduce dependence on diesel.”

With worldwide energy consumption set to rise by more than 50 per cent by 2050, microgrids—localized groups of energy sources that can operate independently or in tandem—are increasingly being seen as important for sustaining grid resilience and reliability.

“The current grid is not equipped to handle this type of influx in demand as it stands, which is why we need microgrid solutions to help bridge the gap between supply and demand,” Gunning said.

In addition to enhancing stability, microgrids “can reduce infrastructure upgrade costs while creating potentially new community energy programs that create stability and possible new cash flow sources in Indigenous and deregulated energy markets,” he added.

Microgrids also need to store power, so their proliferation will expand the market for battery energy storage systems, Energy Plug says. The company is partnering with the Malahat Nation to build Canada’s first Indigenous-led gigafactory, a 100,000-square-foot facility that will be used to assemble grid-scale batteries.

The post Vancouver cleantech start-up looks to microgrids, batteries for rural communities appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

Hydro-Québec and the Mohawks of Kahnawà:ke have signed an historic, 40-year co-ownership agreement for a new transmission line to export electricity from Montreal’s South Shore to New York City.

The C$1.13-billion, 1,250-megawatt line is expected to go into operation in 2026, with a portion running over unceded Kanien’kehá:ka land.

“The deal gives Kahnawà:ke a 10 per cent stake in the 58-kilometre portion of the line that runs through Quebec, which has an estimated value of $345 million,” CBC reports. “Kahnawà:ke can also purchase up to 49 per cent—an option its council will evaluate in the coming months.”

“We know that our history with hydro wasn’t always a rosy one, and nevertheless we were able to overcome some of that history and find a way forward,” said Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer, Ohén:ton Í:iente ne Ratitsénhaienhs (Grand Chief) of the Kanien’kehá:ka community south of Montreal. “When Hydro-Québec had informed us that they were going to put out a bid to transmit the 1,250 megawatts of electricity to New York, we jumped on the opportunity to say we want to be partners.”

Sky-Deer credited her predecessor, Joseph Tokwiroh Norton, for opening negotiations with the provincial utility. Norton, who served as grand chief for nearly 30 years, died in August, 2020 at age 70.

Hydro-Québec said this was the first time it had ever formed a partnership with a third party, or with an Indigenous community.

“This is a new way of working with Indigenous communities across Quebec to build a sustainable future,” said President and CEO Michael Sabia. “It’s based on economic reconciliation.”

The post Hydro-Québec, Mohawks of Kahnawà:ke sign co-ownership deal for NYC power line appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

Clearing the infrastructure gap in First Nations communities will cost C$349 billion by 2030, and the total tab will exceed $500 billion by 2040 if the federal government doesn’t take action, the Assembly of First Nations warned last week.

“Without immediate and decisive action, First Nations are at risk of facing more than 60 more years of inadequate access to infrastructure, housing, and digital connectivity,” AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak said in a statement.

“Promises have been made and must now be kept,” Woodhouse Nepinak added, just a week before Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland delivered a budget that included an average $82 million per year over five years for “economic reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples.

The AFN’s Closing the Infrastructure Gap by 2030 report covers housing, schools, water plants, roads, and other assets like ports, wharves, clinics, and digital connectivity, CBC reports. A longstanding gap in Indigenous housing accounts for about $135 billion of the total.

The report “ties the enormous deficit to decades of underfunding, federal failures, and unfair distribution of wealth,” CBC says. “Woodhouse Nepinak said the government now has all the data it needs and can no longer make excuses for underfunding and neglect, since the report bears Indigenous Services Canada’s seal of approval.”

The report says closing the infrastructure gap in First Nations communities would create more than 3.2 million jobs and add more than $1 trillion to Canada’s GDP.

The AFN published its report on the same day that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) issued a call for US$6.9 trillion in sustainable infrastructure by 2030—the total needed to meet global sustainable development goals while building resilience to heatwaves, floods, longer wildfire seasons, and widespread droughts made worse by climate change.

The OECD said economic losses from disasters grew seven-fold between the 1970s and the 2010s, from an average $198 billion to $1.6 trillion—not including the impacts on businesses and communities that were disrupted along the way.

“The right type of infrastructure investment can help enhance the quality of growth, by supporting climate action while protecting biodiversity, reducing pollution, and enhancing resilience to risks from climate change,” said OECD Secretary-General Mathias Cormann.

“But the investments needed are significant. Unlocking private investments in climate resilience will require long-term project planning, reducing regulatory barriers, effective risk-sharing arrangements and, when required, the targeted and strategic use of public support to attract private financing.”

The post First Nations report $349 billion infrastructure gap while OECD calls for trillions worldwide appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.