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 Gaye Taylor

A network of EV charging stations across central and northern B.C. has now powered one million kilometres of emissions-free travel, backed by dozens of local governments, Indigenous communities, and tourism groups collaborating to draw visitors and keep them longer.

The million-kilometre milestone, achieved at the end of 2024, represents the amount of power delivered by EV chargers in the region since the first of 60 Level 2 chargers were installed in 2022 by Charge North in Fort Nelson, 1,600 kilometres northeast of Vancouver.

The estimate was calculated and reported by the Community Energy Association (CEA), which facilitated the project. It’s based on the fact that each of its stations provides roughly 40 kilometres of range per hour of charging, and the network has, to date, hosted nearly 16,000 charging sessions.

Today, the 2,800-kilometre network runs 380 kilometres south from Fort Nelson to Fort. St. John, then another 440 kilometres southwest to Prince George. From there, the network splits, connecting eastward to McBride, 100 Mile House, and then back north to Quesnel and Prince George. The eastern network also includes a smaller loop into the Okanagan as far south as Logan Lake.

Westward from Prince George, the network has charging locations in Smithers, Kitimat, and Prince Rupert, with dozens of locations in between. There are also four charging locations on Haida Gwaii.

For many of the communities involved, this is their first foray into public EV charging.

Charge North, launched in 2019 and facilitated by the CEA, was started by six Northern and Interior regional districts plus more than 40 local governments and First Nations communities.

Describing, Danielle Wiess, CEA’s director of transportation initiatives, said the evolution of public EV infrastructure and  purchases in British Columbia really has been a case of, “If you build the infrastructure, adoption will follow.”

She cited a perceptible pattern of EV purchases rising as charging networks spread east from the Lower Mainland to the Okanagan and on to the Kootenays.

What really drove Charge North’s network forward was the recognition that it would bring tourists into communities, and with them, much-needed economic development.

“The main driver, 100 per cent, has been economic development and tourism,” Wiess said, noting that the potential for such development is baked into the EV charging model.

Whereas gas stations are pit stops, increasingly on highways away from town centres, Charge North’s EV charging stations are embedded in communities, providing users with the opportunity to walk around a place, grab a bite to eat, or shop as their vehicle charges. (Level 2 chargers offer about 40 kilometres of range for every hour of charging.)

A testimonial from a couple from Alberta, who used to pass through Golden on their way west, illustrates her point. Before they bought an EV, they used to stop only briefly at the Shell station on the highway. The first time through with their new car, they needed to head downtown to charge. They had a meal and walked around the mountain town.

Now, Wiess said, “they make it a point, on their journey west, to spend a night there every year.”

The post North-Central B.C. network hits million-kilometre EV charging milestone appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

“This new electric vehicle charge hub in Lake Country will support EV adoption in the Okanagan as we continue our work with BC Hydro and other partners to make cleaner options more accessible and affordable for all British Columbians,” said Adrian Dix, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions.

The Lake Country location was built in collaboration with the District of Lake Country and was selected to support growing EV adoption in the Okanagan travel corridor. Located at the corner of Pelmewash Parkway and Oyama Road in Lake Country, this hub features one 350-kilowatt charger which can provide up to 100-kilometres of driving to an electric vehicle in about five minutes. The charger also offers power sharing so two vehicles can charge together on the same unit and receive up to 175-kilowatts each.

“We are leading the charge,” said Blair Ireland, Mayor of the District of Lake Country. “We are excited that BC Hydro chose Lake Country to install the latest in EV charging technology and we understand there is a lot of interest in this new state-of-the-art EV charging site.”

The site also has eight 180-kilowatt dual port chargers and four Level 2 chargers. Some of the units are also equipped with NACS (North American Charging Standard) connectors to support charging a variety of different electric vehicle models. This hub can also accommodate large trucks and trailers because of its pull-through design.

“British Columbians are embracing electric vehicles faster than any other jurisdiction in Canada and that’s why we are continuing to make investments for growth within our current system and building out our fast charging network across B.C.,” said Chris O’Riley, President and CEO of BC Hydro. “This charge site in Lake Country currently has the highest-powered charger in our network and will allow for a greater turnover of customers so they can spend less time waiting for their vehicle to charge up.”

As BC Hydro continues to build its fast charging network, it plans to focus on building more hub sites with multiple chargers along highway corridors to provide a faster and more convenient experience for its customers. Future charge hubs are planned for Prince George, Delta and Colwood.

The adoption of electric vehicles across British Columbia has increased significantly. There are now more than 170,000 EVs on the road in B.C., and BC Hydro predicts there will be between 700,000 and 900,000 EVs within the next 10 years.

BC Hydro’s provincewide fast charging network currently includes 394 charging ports at 130 sites in communities throughout B.C. BC Hydro is looking to double the number of charging ports in its network to 800 over the next 18 months. The chargers are funded in a partnership with the Province of B.C. and Natural Resources Canada.

The post BC Hydro launches its first EV fast charging hub in the Okanagan, featuring higher-powered charger appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Tova Gaster and The Energy Mix staff

Vancouver City Council voted Wednesday night to reinstate a ban on natural gas in new buildings, reversing a decision it made in July.

After two days of deliberations and input from over 140 local residents, council members voted in favour of banning gas for space and water heating entirely, rather than allowing it with stricter energy efficiency requirements. The main motion, which took the form of a proposal to reverse the city’s 2020 ban on gas in new construction, was defeated on a tie vote.

“The nays have it—[Councillor Brian] Montague’s July amendment-inspired recommendation to reintroduce gas for space and hot water heating in new construction in Vancouver FAILS,” Councillor Pete Fry enthused on social media. The official record shows the measure failing on a 5-5 vote, with Councillors Rebecca Bligh, Adriane Carr, Lisa Dominato, and Peter Meiszner joining Fry in opposition.

“This decision is about so much more than protecting the health of Vancouverites; it is about respecting the significant body of science, health, and sustainability studies demonstrating that continuing to tie in new buildings to gas is a dangerous path,” Dr. Melissa Lem, president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said in a release. “With this decision, Vancouver has demonstrated that it cares about its residents’ health, and that mitigating carbon and air pollution take priority over the short-term interests of a sunsetting industry.”

“This is great news for Vancouver,” wrote public engagement veteran Shauna Sylvester, founder and lead convenor of Urban Climate Leadership, on LinkedIn. Sylvester extended thanks to councillors who “demonstrated leadership and voted in favour of climate action, and to the professional staff of the City of Vancouver who provided evidence-based information to support Council’s decision-making process.”

“Friends! Mobilization works!” wrote Climate Emergency Unit Team Lead Seth Klein. “The gas industry did all it could to bring fossil fuel heating back for new homes. Tonight, they failed.”

Earlier in the day, and into the early evening, Council heard over eight hours of public comment, all responding to the controversial bylaw vote to reinstate gas access for heating in new buildings. Originally scheduled for the previous day, the vote was deferred to accommodate the input of 142 speakers, including environmental advocates, restaurateurs, construction industry leaders and other interest groups.

The majority of speakers in opposition to reinstating gas emphasized its climate and public health impacts, while pro-gas advocates—including Montague and Mayor Ken Sim—raised concerns about the impacts of electrification on the BC Hydro grid.

Still Cooking With Gas

When city councillors voted to overturn the bylaw in July, they did so with vocal support from some in the restaurant industry who wanted to maintain access to gas for cooking. But the bylaw only affects space heating, with gas stoves for restaurants still allowed, city staff emphasized.

“We have no plans to ban gas for cooking,” a city staff member said Tuesday. “Space heating and hot water are the biggest sources of emissions in buildings, and we know that natural gas has cultural significance for cooking.”

Children’s Signs Removed

During the public comment session Tuesday, Fry and Carr both decorated their desks with signs by children in favour of banning gas, organized for For Our Kids Vancouver, a sustainability-oriented group of families.

Montague asked that they take down the signs, suggesting they could be “intimidating to speakers.” While Dominato questioned the decision, asking if she was correct in her assumption that the signs were “made by children,” Sim upheld the request, asking Fry and Carr to remove the signs.

Several of the speakers who addressed council on Wednesday emphasized the public health risks of gas, which pollutes indoor air when it’s burned for heating, as well as outdoor air quality via the broader impacts of climate change.

“Climate change has impacted all of society, and some groups have been impacted more from these harms, including children, older adults, people with disabilities, and people who are socially isolated,” said Dr. Michael Schwandt, a researcher specializing in air quality and climate change.

City Proposes Two Paths For Developers

On Tuesday, council heard proposals from city staff about the implications of the reversal while outside City Hall, advocates for the gas ban, including members of Women Transforming Cities, For Our Kids Vancouver, and Dogwood BC, rallied with banners and drums to oppose the bylaw change.

“Let’s put gas in the past, heat pumps for all!” attendees chanted.

City staff presented [pdf] a report following from the council’s July vote to reinstate gas for new buildings. They proposed offering developers two paths: Path 1 does not include gas, building to the highest level of the British Columbia Zero Carbon Step Code (ZCSC), while Path 2 allows gas for heating and hot water, but prioritizes energy efficiency through building envelope requirements.

“Path 1 offers the best outcome for climate, while Path 2 will increase annual carbon pollution,” said Patrick Enright, who leads the city’s small, existing and new developments team.

If all new developments took Path 1, it would decrease Vancouver’s carbon footprint by 15,900 tonnes per year by 2035, estimates the report. If all developments took Path 2, the annual footprint would grow by 65,100 tonnesby 2035—equivalent to putting 16,000 more cars on the road, Enright said. City staff predicted developers would pursue a mixture of Path 1 and 2, or gas and no gas.

Montague had raised concerns in July that the gas ban increased costs for builders. But city staff emphasized that neither path will reduce costs, speed up permits, or improve heating.

They added that engagement with the construction industry found that many have concerns that reinstating gas could jeopardize Vancouver’s regional reputation as a sustainable buildings leader. Others advocated for builders to maintain options about their energy path.

The second path “seems like a step backward on climate and doesn’t save money,” Fry said after the presentation.

Sim had cast the tie-breaking vote in July, when council voted 6-5 to rescind the 2020 city bylaw banning gas hookups in new low-rise buildings by 2025. The reversal followed “behind-the-scenes” discussions involving senior city officials with industry ties, reported Postmedia, raising transparency and potential conflicts of interest concerns.

A coalition of construction industry leaders, environmental advocates, small businesses, and medical professionals opposed the walkback of one of the city’s flagship climate policies. Advocates for the transition off gas say the reversal is a step backward from other Canadian jurisdictions like Quebec, which recently banned new gas heating in buildings by 2040.

“If we know we need to decarbonize society, why would we keep adding to the problem by building new buildings that we have to decarbonize later?” asked Paige Gorsak, an organizing manager at Dogwood BC.

Gas Warms the Atmosphere, Pollutes Homes

Gas in buildings harms health and reduces air quality. Electric heating systems, such as heat pumps, are also equivalent in cost, on average, according to research from the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada.

“It’s not only a climate issue, but a health and cost of living issue,” Sunil Singal, a campaigner at Stand.earth, told a Dogwood event held to organize against rescinding the gas ban.

Research suggests natural gas is just as harmful as other fossil fuels, if not worse. A new study finds that the greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be up to 33% greater than that for coal.

While natural gas releases less climate pollution when it’s burned, fugitive methane leaks in gas extraction and transportation pack a huge atmospheric warming punch that 2023 research suggests is worse than previously thought.

Buildings are also often the biggest source of carbon emissions in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

Lobbyists Turn Up The Heat, Local Businesses Respond

According to Dogwood BC’s Gorsak, rescinding the natural gas ban would make Vancouver the first city to reintroduce a known pollutant into homes.

But a Postmedia investigation found that the vote could be good business for Mayor Ken Sim’s senior advisor, who owns two private natural gas companies.

In an interview with CBC, Montague attributed his support for the rollback to homebuilder choice, and reducing red tape to make increasing housing supply cheaper.

According to construction industry leaders, however, emissions requirements and heat pumps aren’t the culprit for expensive housing.

“Energy and emissions requirements are not significant drivers of new housing costs; many other factors affect project costs and timelines,” said Mark Bernhardt, CEO of Bernhardt Contracting and president of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association of BC, in a release issued by Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Innovation Centre (ZEIC).

Rather, policy uncertainty—such as the ban reversal—increases costs for homebuilders.

Bernhardt is one of hundreds of homebuilders and small business owners who signed a letter in October calling on Vancouver to restore its gas ban. Dozens of construction industry leaders sent a similar letter.

“Burning fossil fuel in homes is like smoking—once considered normal, now clearly harmful to our health,” Chris Hill, Principal of B Collective Homes, said in the ZEIC release. “For the last over five years, we’ve built homes entirely free of gas or fossil fuels, demonstrating that electrification is not only possible but scalable. With thoughtful design and minimal effort, we can lead the way to healthier, all-electric homes that benefit both people and the planet.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Wednesday, November 27 with quotes from speakers who addressed City Council, then with the final vote.

The post Vancouver votes to reinstate gas ban for new developments appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Tova Gaster

Vancouver City Council has postponed a controversial, high-profile vote by one day to accommodate 142 speakers who signed up to share their views on whether the city should rescind its ban on gas hookups in new buildings.

On Tuesday November 26, council heard proposals from city staff about the implications of the reversal, expecting to cast a vote. Outside City Hall, advocates for the gas ban, including members of Women Transforming Cities, For Our Kids Vancouver, and Dogwood BC, rallied with banners and drums to oppose the bylaw change.

“Let’s put gas in the past, heat pumps for all!” attendees chanted.

City Proposes Two Paths For Developers

At the meeting, city staff presented [pdf] a report following from the council’s July vote to reinstate gas for new builds. Staff propose offering developers two paths for new buildings: Path 1 does not include gas, building to the highest level of the British Columbia Zero Carbon Step Code (ZCSC), while Path 2 allows gas for heating and hot water, but prioritizes energy efficiency through building envelope requirements.

“Path 1 offers the best outcome for climate, while Path 2 will increase annual carbon pollution,” said Patrick Enright, City lead for the small, existing and new developments team.

If all new developments take Path 1, it would decrease Vancouver’s carbon footprint by 15,900 tonnes per year by 2035, estimates the report. If all developments took Path 2, the footprint would grow by 65,100 tonnes annually by 2035—equivalent to adding 16,000 cars on the road, Enright said. City staff predict developers would pursue a mixture of Path 1 and 2, or gas and no gas.

Councillor Brian Montague had raised concerns in July that the gas ban increased costs for builders. But city staff emphasized that neither path will reduce costs, speed up permits, or improve heating.

They added that engagement with the construction industry found that many have concerns about Vancouver’s regional reputation as a sustainable buildings leader, which reinstating gas could jeopardize. However, others advocated for builders to maintain options about their energy path.

The second path “seems like a step backward on climate and doesn’t save money,” Councillor Pete Fry said after the presentation.

To hear all 142 registered speakers, Mayor Ken Sim motioned to defer the vote to Wednesday, Nov. 27.

Sim had cast the tie-breaking vote in July, when council voted 6-5 to rescind the 2020 city bylaw banning gas hookups in new low-rise buildings by 2025. The reversal followed “behind-the-scenes” discussions involving senior city officials with industry ties, reported Postmedia, raising transparency and potential conflicts of interest concerns.

A coalition of construction industry leaders, environmental advocates, small businesses, and medical professionals opposed the walkback of one of the city’s flagship climate policies. Advocates for the transition off gas say the reversal is a step backward from other Canadian jurisdictions like Quebec, which recently banned new gas heating in buildings by 2040.

“If we know we need to decarbonize society, why would we keep adding to the problem by building new buildings that we have to decarbonize later?” asked Paige Gorsak, an organizing manager at Dogwood BC.

Gas Warms the Atmosphere, Pollutes Homes

Gas in buildings harms health and reduces air quality. Electric heating systems, such as heat pumps, are also equivalent in cost, on average, according to research from the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada.

“It’s not only a climate issue, but a health and cost of living issue,” Sunil Singal, a campaigner at Stand.earth, told a Dogwood event held to organize against rescinding the gas ban.

Research suggests natural gas is just as harmful as other fossil fuels, if not worse. A new study finds that the greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be up to 33% greater than that for coal.

While natural gas releases less climate pollution when it’s burned, fugitive methane leaks in gas extraction and transportation pack a huge atmospheric warming punch that 2023 research suggests is worse than previously thought.

Buildings are also often the biggest source of carbon emissions in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

Lobbyists Turn Up The Heat, Local Businesses Respond

According to Dogwood BC’s Gorsak, rescinding the natural gas ban would make Vancouver the first city to reintroduce a known pollutant into homes.

But a Postmedia investigation found that the vote could be good business for Mayor Ken Sim’s senior advisor, who owns two private natural gas companies.

In an interview with CBC, Montague attributed his support for the rollback to homebuilder choice, and reducing red tape to make increasing housing supply cheaper.

According to construction industry leaders, however, emissions requirements and heat pumps aren’t the culprit for expensive housing.

“Energy and emissions requirements are not significant drivers of new housing costs; many other factors affect project costs and timelines,” said Mark Bernhardt, CEO of Bernhardt Contracting and president of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association of BC, in a release issued by Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Innovation Centre (ZEIC).

Rather, policy uncertainty—such as the ban reversal—increases costs for homebuilders.

Bernhardt is one of hundreds of homebuilders and small business owners who signed a letter in October calling on Vancouver to restore its gas ban. Dozens of construction industry leaders sent a similar letter.

“Burning fossil fuel in homes is like smoking—once considered normal, now clearly harmful to our health,” Chris Hill, Principal of B Collective Homes, said in the ZEIC release. “For the last over five years, we’ve built homes entirely free of gas or fossil fuels, demonstrating that electrification is not only possible but scalable. With thoughtful design and minimal effort, we can lead the way to healthier, all-electric homes that benefit both people and the planet.”

Editor’s Note: This story was updated on Tuesday, November 26, with news of the deferred city council vote.

The post Vancouver defers gas ban vote after surge in public interest appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Tova Gaster

Vancouver City Council is scheduled to vote November 26 on whether to move forward with reinstating gas access in new buildings—after reversing a ban on it earlier this year.

Council voted 6-5 in July to rescind the city’s 2020 city bylaw banning gas hookups in new low-rise buildings by 2025, with Mayor Ken Sim breaking the tie.

A coalition of construction industry leaders, environmental advocates, small businesses, and medical professionals opposed the walkback of one of the city’s flagship climate policies. The reversal followed “behind-the-scenes” discussions involving senior city officials with industry ties, reported Postmedia, raising transparency and potential conflicts of interest concerns.

Advocates for the transition off gas say the reversal is a step backward from other Canadian jurisdictions like Quebec, which recently banned new gas heating in buildings by 2040.

“If we know we need to decarbonize society, why would we keep adding to the problem by building new buildings that we have to decarbonize later?” asked Paige Gorsak, an organizing manager at Dogwood BC.

Reinstating Gas Won’t Help Affordability: City Staff

On November 26, City Council will hear a staff report [pdf] containing plans for how Vancouver could allow gas while sticking with provincial green building and emissions requirements.

The report recommends offering builders and developers two paths: one that includes gas for heating, and another that allows gas but also requires enhanced energy efficiency through building envelope requirements. Both allow gas for cooking.

The staff report says the second option will not increase affordability, instead passing on future costs to retrofit buildings. It could also put Vancouver in violation of BC’s Zero Carbon Step Code, which establishes clean building standards that grow stronger over time, by 2026.

Gas Warms the Atmosphere, Pollutes Homes

Gas in buildings harms health and reduces air quality. Electric heating systems, such as heat pumps, are also equivalent in cost, on average, according to research from the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada.

“It’s not only a climate issue, but a health and cost of living issue,” Sunil Singal, a campaigner at Stand.earth, told a Dogwood event.

Research suggests natural gas is just as harmful as other fossil fuels, if not worse. A new study finds that the greenhouse gas footprint of liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be up to 33% greater than that for coal.

While natural gas releases less climate pollution when it’s burned, fugitive methane leaks in gas extraction and transportation pack a huge atmospheric warming punch that 2023 research suggests is worse than previously thought.

Buildings are also often the biggest source of carbon emissions in cities like Toronto and Vancouver.

Lobbyists Turn Up The Heat, Local Businesses Respond

According to Dogwood BC’s Gorsak, rescinding the natural gas ban would make Vancouver the first city to reintroduce a known pollutant into homes.

But a Postmedia investigation found that the vote could be good business for Mayor Ken Sim’s senior advisor, who owns two private natural gas companies.

In an interview with CBC, Councillor Brian Montague attributed his support for the rollback to homebuilder choice, and reducing red tape to make increasing housing supply cheaper.

According to construction industry leaders, however, emissions requirements and heat pumps aren’t the culprit for expensive housing.

“Energy and emissions requirements are not significant drivers of new housing costs; many other factors affect project costs and timelines,” said Mark Bernhardt, CEO of Bernhardt Contracting and president of the Canadian Home Builders’ Association of BC, in a release issued by Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Innovation Centre (ZEIC).

Rather, policy uncertainty—such as the ban reversal—increases costs for homebuilders.

Bernhardt is one of hundreds of homebuilders and small business owners who signed a letter in October calling on Vancouver to restore its gas ban. Dozens of construction industry leaders sent a similar letter.

“Burning fossil fuel in homes is like smoking—once considered normal, now clearly harmful to our health,” Chris Hill, Principal of B Collective Homes, said in the ZEIC release. “For the last over five years, we’ve built homes entirely free of gas or fossil fuels, demonstrating that electrification is not only possible but scalable. With thoughtful design and minimal effort, we can lead the way to healthier, all-electric homes that benefit both people and the planet.”

On November 26, City Council will hear proposals from city staff about the implications of the reversal, and cast another vote.

The post Vancouver city council to vote again on allowing natural gas in new buildings appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Janetta McKenzie and Thomas Green

As it embarks on a new term, the B.C. government has some important decisions that will determine the province’s economic future. A new report on liquefied natural gas markets flags risks to inform those decisions.

B.C. has a big advantage: Its ability to generate lots of affordable clean electricity. If put to the right use, B.C.’s electricity grid could make the province an appealing investment destination in a low-carbon world. In neighbouring Alberta, for example, companies can enter into power purchase agreements directly with renewable energy producers. As the province witnessed in recent years, if you can guarantee access to emissions-free electricity, the Amazons and Microsofts of the world will bring jobs and investment to your province.

Not only that, but low-cost clean electricity will be the route to making many aspects of British Columbians’ lives better, by lowering their home energy bills with heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling, for example, and giving them more access to electrified transportation that is cheaper to run and results in cleaner, healthier neighbourhoods.

So, B.C.’s large (but nevertheless finite) supply of existing and potential clean electricity must be treated as a precious resource, its use prioritized in a way that gives the best net benefit to the province and to British Columbians.

This brings us to the issue of LNG expansion.

Right now, three LNG projects in B.C. are either moving through the government approval process or awaiting final investment decisions. An important consideration for the projects’ investors will be whether the provincial government agrees to cover the cost of hooking the terminals up to the grid and supplying them with clean electricity, so that the highly emissions-intensive process of turning natural gas into liquid for export via sea can be made net-zero, which is a requirement in B.C.

A Pembina Institute analysis found that, if all those projects are built and electrified, in addition to those already under construction, B.C. would need the equivalent of almost eight-and-a-half Site C hydroelectric dams to power just its LNG terminals and associated upstream gas production.

While further expanding its clean grid is something we think the province should certainly be concentrating on, before LNG projects are given priority access to publicly funded clean electricity, we urge the government to take an objective look at the likely return on investment.

Carbon Tracker, an international financial think tank that specializes in the impacts of the energy transition on capital markets, finds that B.C. is late to the LNG export game — one where well-established and less-expensive operations are likely to dominate. Projects in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the U.S. and Mozambique have the potential to supply an unprecedented volume of LNG over the next three decades at lower cost than B.C. Take Qatar: its unit cost of production is almost 80 per cent lower than B.C.’s.

Industry proponents point to increasing LNG demand, especially in Asia. But these bullish scenarios assume the global shift toward clean energy will stall, when the latest and best evidence suggests it continues to gain momentum each year. From 2022 to 2024, global solar capacity doubled — to two trillion watts of electric power. By contrast, it took 68 years for the world to install the first trillion watts. This rapid increase of renewable power will erode the need for natural gas in many countries’ grids.

In other words, instead of having customers clamouring for their products, B.C. LNG producers are likely to find that the global market is oversupplied by the end of this decade, as a glut of new, lower-cost production comes online in other countries, and global demand plateaus.

If private-sector proponents wish to bear these risks, they can. But the provincial government should focus on expanding the clean grid in a way that lowers the energy bills of British Columbians and creates an attractive investment environment for net-zero-aligned industries that are showing much more promising growth over the long term. Otherwise, British Columbians may soon begin to wonder why the government is prioritizing the interests of big oil and gas companies over everyday people. The prospects for the LNG sector’s long-term viability are uncertain. Instead, to achieve the type of sustainable prosperity that British Columbians deserve, the government should think hard about other opportunities to put its clean electricity advantage to the best use.

Janetta McKenzie is manager of the Pembina Institute’s oil and gas program; Thomas Green is senior climate policy adviser at the David Suzuki Foundation.

The post A changing energy market makes expanding LNG in B.C. risky business appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Gaye Taylor

British Columbia’s condominium scene has the potential to become a whole lot greener with the recent unveiling of a new condo building’s all-unit EV-ready parking garage and the launch of a strata energy adviser program to help such buildings achieve zero emissions.

In late October, a luxury condo developer in Burnaby, B.C announced “the largest fully electric vehicle parking structure in Canada,” reports the Globe and Mail.

All 1,974 parking spaces in the Hillside stage of Concord Pacific’s four-tower Concord Brentwood condominium project will be EV-ready and charger-equipped.

Concord Pacific is far ahead of the curve, particularly with the charger installations.

While Vancouver’s building code now requires multi-family buildings, including condos, to have EV-ready parking garages, only about 20 per cent of the spaces in those garages are now required to have “actual charging stations,” the Globe writes.

And with sufficient capacity to charge all 1,974 spaces simultaneously, the Globe says Hillside’s electrical system is “well ahead of the industry standard,” though large buildings can also turn to software to manage the load.

It may be some time before all those spaces are filled with electric vehicles. While B.C. leads the nation on adoption, there are still fewer than one million EVs currently registered in Canada.

But Terry Hui, CEO of Concord Pacific Group and Concord Green Energy, sees the shift to all-electric infrastructure as a “no brainer” whose value to the real estate market will steadily increase as EV adoption accelerates.

“Would I buy a place without a washer and dryer in it? Onsite charging in condos “is going to be something people are going to expect to have,” Hui told the Globe.

Recently, as well, Vancouver’s Zero Emissions Innovation Centre (ZEIC) launched its free Strata Energy Adviser program to help condominium buildings reduce carbon emissions and improve their energy efficiency.

“If your building is planning a retrofit and you’re considering—or simply curious about—switching from natural gas, adding cooling, or improving overall building performance, this program could be a great fit for you,” writes ZEIC.

For strata councils that meet EIC’s eligibility criteria and register for the program, an adviser will put together a decarbonization plan that outlines all the steps needed to achieve a zero-emission building over time, if that is their wish. The work of the adviser hardly ends there, however.

“If your strata chooses to pursue a low-carbon project, your adviser is with you all the way to support through all stages of the project to help navigate best practices, find information, and proceed with confidence,” writes ZEIC.

The Strata Energy Adviser program aims to craft decarbonization plans for 260 condo buildings in the province by 2027.

The post B.C. condo developer pledges all-electric parking garage appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Christopher Bonasia

British Columbia’s planned liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects will be outcompeted on price, making them even more vulnerable as global markets muscle out fossil fuels, warns a new report.

Recent analysis by Carbon Tracker frames the province’s nascent liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry as “a case study in the transition risks inherent in LNG investments.”

“LNG terminals are massive, capital-intensive infrastructure projects with long payback periods and even longer lifespans,” writes the financial think tank. “While the oil and gas industry may attest that LNG is a transition-proof fuel, the reality is that such investments, like all fossil fuels investments, are increasingly exposed to significant transition risks as energy systems develop, and risk becoming financially stranded.”

In this shifting market, five LNG export projects are expected to come online in B.C. over the next decade. Two are fully sanctioned, while the others await regulatory approval or remain in the proposal stage.

But when these pricey projects eventually launch, they could struggle to compete against lower-cost producers like Qatar and Mozambique. Carbon Tracker finds that unsanctioned LNG projects in B.C. have a unit cost approximately 26 per cent above the global average. Projected costs are high enough that three of B.C.’s proposed projects—Cedar LNG, LNG Canada Phase 2, and Tilbury LNG Phase 2—may not be competitive, even if demand were to remain high enough to support elevated LNG prices.

The feasibility of investing in LNG exports relies on the ability to sell it to countries in Asia. But price volatility has made LNG less attractive to some importing nations like those in Southeast Asia, potentially undercutting the anticipated market for B.C.’s LNG. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis recently highlighted how international conflicts have increased this price volatility, with extreme month-to-month price fluctuations of up to 29 per cent even when other commodities are unaffected.

By decade’s end, the LNG market is expected to be oversupplied, with a surge in new production coming online. And by then, global gas demand will likely plateau and begin to fall, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Even fossil fuel giants like BP and Shell have recently scaled back their LNG demand forecasts, and Carbon Tracker cautions that B.C.’s planned LNG projects risk generating “lower than expected returns” across all three of the IEA’s demand scenarios—fast, moderate, and slow energy transitions.

“Policy-makers in B.C. should be aware that long-term fiscal revenue streams from LNG are far from guaranteed,” Carbon Tracker writes. “Large-scale investment in LNG carries an opportunity cost versus investing in a clean energy system which would generate long-economic growth as the energy transition accelerates.”

The post New report flags mounting risks for B.C. LNG projects appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.