By Chris Bonasia

A new power purchase agreement by Saskatchewan’s Crown-owned utility, SaskPower, has set the stage for a 100-megawatt solar farm to be built and operated with 50% Indigenous ownership.

The Mino Giizis solar project is being developed by Neoen—–a French renewable energy company that has built other solar farms in Canada— with the Anishinabek Power Alliance (APA), a partnership of four Treaty 4 Nations with political participation from the Yorkton Tribal Council. Neoen and APA will co-own the project through a 50% equity partnership.

The project “shows what genuine partnership looks like: shared power, shared responsibility, and shared benefit,” says a joint statement from five APA leaders: Kinistin Saulteaux Nation Chief Felix Thomas, Zagime Anishinabek Nation Chief Lynn Acoose, Cote First Nation Chief George Cote, The Key First Nation Councillor Fernie O’Soup, and Yorkton Tribal Council Tribal Chief Isabel O’Soup.

“Our Nations see this as a way to move into the future without harming the land, while creating much-needed revenue and employment opportunities for our people,” the statement continues. “Rooted in the spirit of Treaty and our responsibility to future generations, this historic moment is taking our Nations to another level in Treaty 4 Territory.”

On Jan. 14, the two partners signed a 25-year power purchase agreement for SaskPower to buy all the electricity generated by the solar farm. The project is set to go online in 2028, reports SaskToday.

“Southern Saskatchewan and Southern Alberta have the best solar resources in all of Canada,” explained Ryan Dick, Neoen’s province director for Alberta and Saskatchewan. “SaskPower targeted south central Saskatchewan, where they wanted the procurement to take place. So that’s where we began our prospecting in order to site the project.”

The Mino Giizis project was chosen through a two-year procurement process led by the First Nations Power Authority (FNPA), which provided technical support and evaluated team project proposals from Saskatchewan First Nations and their independent power-producing partners.

According to the Canadian Renewable Energy Association, the project will be the largest-ever solar farm in Saskatchewan and will bring the province’s total installed capacity of renewables to just under 1,000 MW. The organization says more such projects are expected in coming years, given SaskPower’s 2022 commitment to procure 3,000 MW of wind and solar by 2035.

Construction is set to begin in 2027. Neoen has said it aims to hire 350 people to build the project, 75% of whom will be Indigenous.

Dick said Neoen is working with First Nations and Métis educational and employment organizations “to really figure out how can we hire people, how can we train people, and how can we not only create jobs for this project” but also  provide future work “in the growing solar industry in western Canada,” reports CTV News.

The Regina Leader Post says the project will create five full-time jobs once it goes into operation.

“When we look at projects like this, we see opportunity for our children and grandchildren, economic reconciliation taking root, and our voices and actions helping to shape Saskatchewan’s energy future,”  the First Nation leaders wrote in their joint statement.

“That is what truth and reconciliation means. We move forward together, in a good way.”

The post SaskPower Signs Power Purchase Deal with 50% Indigenous-Owned Solar Farm appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Justina C. Ray and Dave Poulton

Over the summer, the Canadian government announced that it’s setting up a Major Projects Office to identify and fast-track projects deemed to be in the national interest. The projects under consideration are spread across Canada and focus on mining, power generation and port expansions.

But each update to the list throws a spotlight on a persistent gap in Canada’s planning processes. The federal government has signalled it wants to see these projects move quickly — but without a clear way to help ensure they proceed without sacrificing the climate resilience, biodiversity or community trust that Canadians also value.

For example, the government has signalled interest in expanding the Port of Churchill, Man., with new shipping, road, rail and energy infrastructure to support expanded Atlantic access for Prairie industries.

These facilities would introduce industrial activity into Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems that have seen little prior disturbance and are already stressed by rapid climate change. The siting and design choices will be critical — raising questions about how early ecological risks are being weighed.

What Canada needs alongside its list of major projects is a principled, transparent sequence of steps that governs how those projects are planned and assessed.

Without such a strategy, the focus centres on pushing the project through. And planners and policymakers fail to consider those early, fundamental questions about ecological risk, or whether the location and design make sense in the first place.

Adopting a well-established mitigation hierarchy, as outlined in our recent report, can help Canada avoid the tangled and dysfunctional outcomes we see again and again in current planning and assessment processes.

In this context, mitigation refers to the full set of tools available to deal with environmental impacts, applied in a clear sequence or hierarchy: first avoiding impacts where possible, then minimizing those that remain, then repairing damage on site, and only as a last resort compensating for residual losses elsewhere.

Step 1: Avoid harm with early-stage planning

Too often planners focus only on reducing impacts after basic design decisions are made. This leaves decision-makers boxed into weaker options than if they had first asked what could be avoided — and it can be far costlier as late-stage fixes mean redesigns, deeper ecological damage and heightened conflict.

Effective planning requires backing up and taking in the big picture. What comes into view is a sweep of globally important, largely intact ecosystems — places that anchor our climate, support communities and sustain wildlife and their movements.

That means the first step in any sensible hierarchy is to steer development away from places like sensitive peatlands, areas important for biodiversity, cultural keystone places and headwaters that sustain vital watersheds.

Early-stage planning enables the most important questions to be asked: Is the proposed option the best means of meeting the need, or do lower-cost or less damaging alternatives exist? Are projected ecological, climate and community impacts supported by evidence of commensurate economic and social outcomes?

Answering these questions well depends on strong baseline information about ecosystems and communities — something too often missing at the outset, causing delays while data is gathered.

Governments can begin closing this gap by strengthening the evidence base needed to inform projects before they advance. This includes support for sustained regional ecological monitoring, Indigenous and community knowledge programs and fuller use of strategic and regional impact assessments. All of these measures can identify cumulative effects and landscape-level priorities and provide shared information for planning across entire regions.

Delivering on the Liberal commitment to “map Canada’s carbon and biodiversity-rich ecological landscapes … to enable a more holistic ecosystem approach to conservation, carbon accounting, and project development” would substantially advance and improve early-stage planning. Integrating existing data held by public agencies, private proponents and consultants would further clarify environmental strengths and vulnerabilities.

Step 2: Minimize harm that cannot be avoided

Only after fully considering ways to avoid impacts should the focus shift to minimizing unavoidable damage. This is where design and operational choices matter: adjusting scale, routing, timing and methods to reduce a project’s footprint and its effects.

In ecologically intact regions — places where human pressures have not yet reached levels that compromise core ecological functions — minimization also means confronting growth-inducing impacts head-on by limiting new access, managing roads and corridors and regulating the pace and scale of development to prevent cascading cumulative effects.

Done properly, minimization protects ecological function and reduces long-term environmental, social, and financial liabilities for proponents.

Step 3: Remediate to make impacts temporary

Once all feasible steps for minimization have been taken, it becomes appropriate to move on to onsite remediation — rendering unavoidable impacts temporary through progressive reclamation, revegetation and decommissioning.

Prioritizing remediation in already stressed landscapes reduces cumulative effects, restores ecological function and builds trust by demonstrating recovery during the life of a project, not decades later.

Step 4: Offsetting is the last tool, not the first

The final step in the mitigation hierarchy is offsetting — the idea of restoring or protecting habitat elsewhere to compensate for what is lost to development. In theory, this promises no net loss, or even a net gain.

In reality, it’s the riskiest and least reliable form of mitigation, which is why it must be treated as a last resort. When offsetting is used in isolation, long after a project’s design is locked in, it becomes a poor substitute for the harder, but more valuable, work of avoiding and minimizing impacts at the outset.

As we stress in our report, that kind of sequencing failure matters. Once decisions are made and footprints fixed, ecological losses can no longer be undone, and offsets are expected to carry a burden they cannot realistically bear.

Offsetting should therefore function as a backstop — not a shortcut. Yet, it is frequently looked to as if it were the first tool in the box rather than the last.

A unified federal policy framework

Deploying the mitigation hierarchy is a technically simple approach to project planning, and it can make a substantial difference in getting projects built without unnecessary delays.

It requires a planning mindset open to alternatives and a willingness to invest early in understanding ecosystems and community needs. The hierarchy also aligns with Indigenous perspectives that view natural systems as interconnected, offering pathways for more meaningful engagement.

There is nothing new about this approach. The mitigation hierarchy has guided major-project planning and financing in other countries for decades and appears — albeit inconsistently — across several federal policies. But in this moment of renewed ambition for “nation-building” projects, Canada has an opportunity to bring coherence and discipline to the management of environmental and social impacts.

This is why we are calling for a unified federal policy framework, so that the mitigation hierarchy is applied consistently across federally supported projects. A clear hierarchy — applied early, consistently and transparently — would make decisions stronger, projects more credible and our commitments to biodiversity, climate, and Indigenous rights more than words on paper.

The post Fast-tracking without foresight: Canada’s risky approach to major projects appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

by Lois Parshley

As Kristen Moreland waited for the livestream to buffer, her thoughts drifted to the years she’d devoted to defending Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the northeastern sweep of Alaska where the mountains give way to the coastal plain. On screen, the chatter of aides stilled as men in dark suits gathered behind a lectern. Then Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum announced plans to open the area, roughly the size of South Carolina, to drilling.

It marked another round in the decades-long tug-of-war over developing one of the country’s largest remaining protected areas — an effort that came to a head during President Donald Trump’s first term, and ground to a halt when President Joe Biden took office. Burgum also restored seven oil and gas leases that a state-funded corporation bid on during the final days of the first Trump administration, and that his successor later revoked.

Moreland, a Gwich’in leader and executive director of the tribal committee dedicated to protecting the Nation’s sacred coastal plain, sat stunned as the YouTube stream continued. The place she grew up — where generations have lived on the tundra alongside the caribou, weaving their history into the land — had been reduced to a line item on someone’s balance sheet. When Burgum said opening the refuge would benefit northern communities, “it felt like a slap in the face,” she said.

“They’ve never reached out to us to listen to how this would affect our livelihood,” she said. Moreland fears development will drive the herd that the Gwich’in rely on out of range and contaminate rivers in a region where hunting and fishing are a matter of survival. For her, it felt like erasure. “It’s another disrespectful action from decision-makers,” she said. “It ignores our voice as Gwich’in and violates our rights as Indigenous people.”

As the fight over development in the Arctic continues, federal officials are racing to fulfill Trump’s “energy dominance” agenda. Though the government is shut down and many employees are not getting paid, officials continue approving permits for extractive industries. In a wood-paneled Beltway office, Burgum framed his “sweeping package of actions” as a declaration that “Alaska is open for business.”

To that end, the administration also signed permits for the controversial 211-mile Ambler Road to mineral deposits, including one owned by Trilogy Metals — which the Trump administration now holds a 10 percent stake in — and authorized a land exchange that will allow for construction of a road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, at the tip of the Alaskan Peninsula. “I told the president it’s like Christmas every morning,” Republican Governor Mike Dunleavy said. “I wake up, I go to look at what’s under the proverbial Christmas tree to see what’s happening.”

Last week’s announcement may not end up being the gift the governor is hoping for.

The fight over drilling in the refuge began almost as soon as President Dwight D. Eisenhower established the site, once called Arctic National Wildlife Range, in 1960. The most recent volley began in 2017, when Trump signed a tax bill requiring two oil and gas lease sales there within seven years. When the first sale was held in 2021, the state corporation Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, or AIDEA, was the only major bidder. It hoped to keep drilling prospects in the region alive, despite weak industry interest. The sale ultimately generated less than $12 million — a fraction of the nearly $2 billion projected by the Tax Act for the last decade.

The Biden administration later found the leasing program’s environmental review inadequate. It conducted a new analysis, then canceled the leases in 2023, citing “fundamental legal deficiencies” and its failure to “properly quantify” greenhouse gas emissions. The second mandated sale, in early 2025, received no bidders. Compounding the challenge, major banks and insurers have refused to finance or underwrite projects in the refuge, citing environmental risks. Oil majors have also steered clear: In 2022, Chevron and the company that took over BP’s leases on private land within the refuge paid $10 million to walk away from them. That same year, Exxon Mobil told shareholders it has “no plans for exploration or development” there.

Still, this spring Trump issued an executive order calling for the reinstatement of AIDEA’s leases, and a federal court ruled that their cancellation was handled improperly. The state-funded investment firm remains the sole holder of leases in the refuge.

The problem is AIDEA doesn’t have the capital or technical expertise to build out these areas on its own. It has authorized spending nearly $54 million to develop them and move permitting for Ambler Road forward. That includes hiring consultants for seismic testing to map oil and gas deposits. But first it must get permission from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to harass polar bears, something that has sparked viral protests in the past. AIDEA authorized another $50 million for Ambler following Burgum’s announcement.

Ultimately, the state corporation is spending public money on infrastructure that private firms would normally fund, while sidestepping oversight, said Suzanne Bostrom, a senior staff attorney at Trustees for Alaska. The watchdog legal organization accused AIDEA of having redirected money toward refuge leases and Ambler from accounts within its Arctic Infrastructure Development Fund, and later its Revolving Fund, to avoid the need for legislative approval. Randy Ruaro, AIDEA’s executive director, wrote in an email that it was not legally required to seek authorization.

All of that aside, AIDEA’s track record is pretty grim. Financial records suggest the corporation lost at least $38 million on its last oil and gas venture, the Mustang field on the North Slope west of the refuge. After oil prices fell in 2020, the corporation foreclosed on the project. The state provided another $22 million in a 2023 bailout before AIDEA sold the field for an undisclosed sum. Bostrom says AIDEA has “no actual plan for seeing a return” on its spending in the refuge. In fact, the people of Alaska often lose money in its deals; one analysis found that almost half of the agency’s investments have been written off as worthless. The economists who crunched those numbers found the state would have come out about $11 billion ahead if that money had been put to work elsewhere.

In an email, Ruaro called the analysis a “hit piece” and said the corporation has  recorded its best financial performance in six decades over the past two years. He said that analysis “failed to account for the billions of dollars generated in economic benefits” by the Red Dog Mine, which produces lead and zinc in northwest Alaska. The corporation poured $160 million — about one-third of the project’s startup costs — into infrastructure to support the operation. At the same time, AIDEA’s own consultants concluded that the mine would be built regardless, and the investment was unnecessary. “AIDEA loves to point to the Red Dog mine as a shining example of their success,” Bostrom said, but even taking those claims at face-value “doesn’t erase that AIDEA still has no viable financial plan in place to cover the cost of building the Ambler Road.”

Ultimately, any plans for the refuge and Ambler Road — which the Bureau of Land Management has said would harm Indigenous and low-income communities — raise questions about who benefits from such development. AIDEA has, for example, proposed financing the private Ambler road through Gates of the Arctic National Park with bonds repaid by tolls, a plan critics call unrealistic, given the cost could hit $2 billion. “It’s hugely problematic for the state to issue bonds with no viable plan for repayment,” Bostrom said. “That’s not a good investment decision.”

But Ruaro wrote that is only one of several options, and that he is “confident the mines … have billions of dollars in minerals needed by the nation.” He also said AIDEA now estimates the cost at $500 to $850 million, and said the road can be built in phases.

Even with prudent financial strategies, the economics of extraction remain precarious — especially as domestic oil prices dropped below $60 a barrel this summer. Given the average breakeven price of $62, new Arctic production may not be profitable — though it would extend the life of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline that carries crude from the North Slope. The U.S. is already the world’s top producer, and more output won’t necessarily lower consumer fuel prices, says Boston University’s Robert K. Kaufmann, because OPEC and other nations still influence global markets. (As to the “energy emergency” that Trump declared, Kaufmann said, “I want what he’s smoking.”) Instead, the leases will bring more production online when “any rational scientist is calling for reducing carbon emissions.

Despite the risks, some communities in the region support new oil and gas projects. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge sits within North Slope Borough, which is larger than 39 states. Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat — a nonprofit funded by the regional Alaska Native Corporation — notes that 95 percent of the borough’s tax revenue comes from the industry, funding things like schools and clinics. Fossil fuel royalties directly benefit Indigenous communities like Kaktovik, funding essential services. “When Uncle Doug [Burgum] calls, I answer,” Josiah Patkotak, the borough’s mayor, said in a statement praising the Interior secretary’s announcement.

It can be difficult to disentangle genuine local support from efforts quietly backed — or directly compensated — by the industry itself. During a legislative hearing earlier this year, state Representative Ashley Carrick said one person who testified as a community advocate was paid by AIDEA, something Ruaro confirmed to her that it routinely does. This can create the impression these projects are widely embraced.

“There’s this wide consensus that [Iñupiat] people all want the oil and gas projects. It’s not true,” said Nauri Simmonds, executive director of Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic. Many of those adversely impacted by drilling stay silent for fear of losing work or social standing, she said — and some who have spoken out have faced threats and violence.

Simmonds says what might be lost by developing the refuge can’t be counted in dollars. AIDEA now holds leases in a part of the refuge where the Porcupine caribou herd gathers to bear its young. The Gwich’in name for the region, where cool coastal winds protect the newborns from insects and heat, translates to “the sacred place where life begins.” Beyond its shelter, calves are 19 percent more likely to die. Scientists and Indigenous peoples fear the clamor of development will drive the herd away, severing a bond that has sustained people and animals alike for millenia. Even as climate change reshapes one of the country’s last undisturbed ecosystems, it is political forces that now endanger it most.

“One of the most wounding pieces is that this wouldn’t be something that the companies would have gone after on their own,” Simmonds said. “It is the enticements from Alaska, from the corporations, from the political landscape, that creates the appeal.”

The post Trump officials say Alaska is ‘open for business.’ So far, no one’s buying. appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Mark Winfield

The acceleration of federal approvals for “nation-building projects” was the major theme of this week’s first ministers meeting in Saskatoon. A rush to streamline approvals for resource development and infrastructure projects has been central to the Canadian response to United States President Donald Trump’s profound disruptions to longstanding trade and security relationships.

At the provincial level, Ontario’s Bill 5 and British Columbia’s Bill 15 also propose to move aggressively to fast-track mining and infrastructure projects.

These fast-tracking efforts are fuelling debate, particularly in terms of the implications for Indigenous rights and the implicit trade-offs pertaining to the environment and climate change.

Read more: Mark Carney wants to make Canada an energy superpower — but what will be sacrificed for that goal?

Regulations often a minor factor

Project review and approval processes in Canada have already been aggressively streamlined over the past decade. The 2019 Federal Impact Assessment Act, also known as Bill C-69, was largely modelled on Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2012 Bill C-38 rewrite of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

It’s important to determine why projects are delayed in the first place. Most move through assessment processes with little delay or controversy. Problems emerge when proposals are poorly designed, face serious technical or economic doubts, raise major environmental, climate or safety concerns, and spark significant social, political or legal conflicts over their costs, benefits and impacts.

A recent study on mining approvals in B.C., for example, found that far more mines were approved than ever actually developed. The main cause of delays was changing economic conditions. Regulation was found to be only a minor factor.

While there are always potential ways to improve review processes, the results of previous streamlining efforts suggest the need for caution about the potential for these initiatives to backfire.

Impact assessment and similar processes emerged as more than a way to accurately assess projects and their risks and benefits. They also provided a framework for managing intense social and political conflicts those projects may generate.

If these processes are streamlined too much, the conclusions of these assessments may seem illegitimate. There could be a trade-off between clear, certain outcomes and ensuring the approval process is fair and trustworthy.

Exacerbating conflict

The Harper government’s Bill C-38 reforms were intended to facilitate the construction of more oil pipelines. In the end, they only escalated the spiralling political and legal conflicts around projects like the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines.

The accompanying Alberta-to-B.C. Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline was only approved after a tortuous process. That culminated in the federal purchase and completion of the pipeline at a cost to taxpayers of $34 billion.

Read more: Why the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion is a bad deal for Canadians — and the world

A similar process unfolded under Ontario’s 2009 Green Energy Act. The legislation’s aggressive bypassing of local approvals reinforced a backlash against renewable energy projects in rural communities. The end result was a nearly decade-long de facto moratorium on renewable energy development. The situation has only recently eased.

The political consequences of these efforts at streamlining are noteworthy. The Bill C-38 episode was seen as playing a role in the Harper government’s defeat in 2015. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s loss of his majority government in 2011 was also partly attributed to the rural response to the Green Energy Act.

Checks and balances

Aside from the political aspects, it’s important to recognize the value of thorough reviews for projects that are likely to be high-risk, high-cost and high-impact.

When past reviews have been rushed or cut short, they’ve undermine confidence in the decisions made — especially when even faster processes could increase the risks and costs passed on to taxpayers.

The Muskrat Falls and Site C hydro projects in Labrador and B.C., respectively, stand as testament to those risks. Both projects ran years behind schedule and billions over budget and continue to face major technical, environmental and economic challenges. Review processes can be important checks on poorly conceived, politically motivated projects.

It’s also important to think carefully about the long-term economic rationales being presented for projects. Canada is a relatively high-cost fossil fuel producer, making it unlikely to be among the last standing in a decarbonizing world.

That should raise serious questions about major investments in new fossil fuel export infrastructure. The irony of developing such projects as major wildfires, widely attributed to the impacts of climate change, burn in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba cannot be overlooked.

Global markets for commodities like critical minerals are also uncertain and in deep flux.

The high costs of nuclear projects, as demonstrated by recent experiences in the U.S., the United Kingdom and Europe, also make them unlikely candidates to form the foundation for clean energy superpower status.

Read more: ‘Elbows up’ in Canada means sustainable resource development

‘Special economic zones’

Ontario’s Bill 5 represents the most aggressive streamlining proposal seen so far. The legislation would exempt designated “special economic zones” and even trusted proponents — such as mining companies assigned to lead projects — from all applicable provincial and municipal laws and regulations.

The province’s approach has raised fundamental questions about the rule of law, democratic governance and Indigenous rights, and jurisdictional boundaries.

Some commentators have pointed out that these zones are common in authoritarian regimes like China’s, or in jurisdictions in deep economic distress.

Others have accused Ontario of racing to the bottom in terms of health, safety and environmental standards, respect for the rule of law, Indigenous rights and basic democratic values.

All of this suggests a need for caution in further streamlining review and approval processes for major projects. These are undertakings with risks and costs that could stretch far into the future and must be properly understood before they proceed.

The post Opinion: Why the federal government must act cautiously on fast-tracking project approvals appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Leah Levac, Jane Stinson, Leah M. Fusco

Canada’s recent federal election was regularly dubbed one of the most consequential of the last 50 years. Economic and sovereignty threats from United States President Donald Trump were key issues in the campaign. In response, pledges about energy infrastructure and resource development played an important role in party platforms.

We have been studying impact assessments, the uneven consequences of resource development and sustainable energy transitions for over 15 years. We’re concerned about what and who may be overlooked as the government moves to become “an energy superpower,” in part by getting projects “done faster and better.”

We’re also interested in how the newly elected Liberal government can support more just energy transitions — that is, moving toward low carbon energy and economies that prioritize equity for workers and communities.

Read more: How to ensure Alberta’s oil and gas workers have jobs during the energy transition

Challenges with Liberal promises

The Liberal Party platform includes renewed attention to an east-west energy corridor. It also promises to speed up and streamline the review of major resource projects and “get big projects built quickly” by “shifting the focus of project review from ‘why’ to ‘how.’”

The platform also promises more support for Indigenous participation in major projects and commits to using Gender-Based Analysis Plus — or GBA Plus — in policies and programs. GBA Plus is a method for assessing how diverse groups of people experience policies, programs and initiatives.

Through our research, we have advocated strongly for applying GBA Plus in the resource sector, including by centring community knowledge in impact assessments and proposing strategies for improving how Indigenous women’s experiences and knowledge are considered in impact assessments.

Over the last year, we also produced — along with our colleague Deborah Stienstra — two major research reports for the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. Both were on the application of GBA Plus in regional assessments for offshore wind in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Regional assessments are a planning tool used before specific projects are proposed. They help identify important issues to consider if specific project assessments — for instance, for critical mineral mines, offshore wind projects or other resource developments — are conducted. If done well, regional assessments can help with more equitable and efficient project planning and development in the long run.

What do the findings from our work in this area suggest in terms of how the Liberal government should proceed with its energy vision?

Duty to consult

The 2019 Impact Assessment Act requires meaningful execution of the duty to consult with Indigenous people affected by a major economic development.

The Liberal Party made important promises to advance Indigenous participation in major projects and to double capacity support so more Indigenous communities can take an active role in project decisions at various stages.

But what the Liberal platform overlooks is Indigenous Peoples’ right to resist and refuse developments in their territories, or how specifically to ensure that Indigenous women and gender-diverse people are meaningfully engaged.

Moving forward, the Liberals must meet their constitutional duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, while being guided by the United Nations’ principle of free, prior and informed consent per legislation that confirms Canada’s commitment to the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

GBA Plus

During the campaign, the Liberal Party reiterated its support for GBA Plus by listing it as one of six key themes in its Make Canada Strong vision.

The Liberals seemingly recognize that GBA Plus is an important tool for advancing equity for women, gender-diverse people, people with disabilities and racialized people by:

“Identifying direct and indirect benefits of programs (e.g. job opportunities, access to programs and services) … and considering how these benefits will be distributed across diverse groups.”

The Liberal platform does not explicitly raise GBA Plus in relation to becoming an “energy superpower.” But GBA Plus has been gaining attention in the resource sector — particularly in relation to the development of specific projects — since the requirement to consider “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors” was included in the 2019 Impact Assessment Act.

GBA Plus needs to be applied in project-specific assessments (for specific developments, such as mines and hydroelectric dams) and in planning assessments (like regional assessments).

In our work on the regional assessments for offshore wind in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, we demonstrate the value of applying GBA Plus throughout all impact assessment processes.

Doing so helps strengthen community engagement efforts, identify potential effects early, determine the data sources required for monitoring those effects, fill data gaps and highlight barriers that prevent diverse groups of people from benefiting from energy projects.

For example, without adequate child-care options, many women cannot access the high-paying jobs that sometimes accompany resource projects. The Liberal government’s support for GBA Plus must therefore be explicitly incorporated into its energy proposals.

What and who is lost with fast tracking

A just energy transition is one concerned not only with planetary survival, but also with the effects of the transition on people who will be most affected.

The Liberal party’s vision for becoming an energy superpower includes “conventional energy resources” (like oil) as well as clean and renewable energy (like solar and hydro) and critical minerals needed to support decarbonization and energy transitions.

We disagree with the Liberal Party’s commitment to “shifting the focus of project review from ‘why’ to ‘how.’”

We need to ask how — and even whether — an energy project contributes to a just transition. Answering questions about whether projects will meet climate commitments and help advance equity for workers and communities is critical. These questions are best asked early, during planning phases and as part of regional assessments, before specific projects are proposed.

The duty to consult, GBA Plus and just energy transitions are interconnected and necessary commitments for sustainable energy production.

Together, they can contribute to a relationship with Indigenous Peoples that recognizes their sovereignty and to a more equitable and sustainable future. But these commitments cannot be meaningfully realized when fast-tracking development, because they require time and relationship-building.

Prioritizing fast-tracking — thereby falling short on these priorities and legal commitments — will backfire. It will lead to delays rather than more efficient processes, and will worsen existing inequities.

The post Opinion: Mark Carney wants to make Canada an energy superpower — but what will be sacrificed for that goal? appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Chris Bonasia

A Mi’kmaq community in southeastern New Brunswick is seeking proposals for microgrid projects that will cut emissions and reduce reliance on the province’s grid system.

The rural community of Amlamgog, also known as Fort Folly First Nation, has experienced multi-day power outages in the past, Kevin Woods, energy services director at the North Shore Mi’kmaq Tribal Council (NSMTC), said in an email to The Energy Mix. The council represents seven Member Nations in New Brunswick, including Amlamgog, which is working with Foresight Canada to launch a “microgrid challenge,” soliciting projects that propose cost-effective, scalable renewable energy technologies that enhance the community’s energy resilience, reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, and boost its economic self-determination.

Though grid connected, the geography and size of the Amlamgog community, which has approximately 140 registered members, “well support the establishment of a microgrid with embedded clean energy generation,” Woods said.

“The ultimate goal is to develop a community-led microgrid that enhances local energy security, ensures stable and affordable electricity, and sets an example for other Indigenous and remote communities across Canada,” Foresight said in a press release.

Amlamgog has already made efforts to build a resilient, low-emissions energy system that can function independently of the grid. In 2021, the First Nation installed solar panels on four of its commercial buildings with support from the federal government’s low-carbon economy fund. Last year an assessment showed that the community’s total electrical consumption in 2023 was roughly 50% lower than the New Brunswick average.

Applications for the microgrid challenge opened on March 13 and will close on April 25, with winners announced in May. An information webinar for applicants is scheduled for April 2.

Project proposals must integrate seamlessly with the existing network or a microgrid serving Amlamgog, and accommodate challenges linked to siting, feedstock logistics, and operating costs. Proposals will also be evaluated for their ability to reduce emissions and costs in comparison with using the provincial grid. Proposals that create a new revenue stream for the community, like selling excess power back into the grid, could be an advantage.

Asked if the council will be open to proposals that use fossil fuels—such as gas with carbon capture—Wood replied that “technologies that result in enhanced energy independence and lowering the community’s GHG emissions profile will be considered.”

The post Mi’kmaq community launches microgrid challenge to cut emissions, boost energy security appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Lynne Couves

This spring, the Pembina Institute is hosting the fourth Renewables in Remote Communities conference – a unique gathering focused on the clean energy transition taking shape in remote communities across the country. Ahead of this important gathering, Lynne Couves, director of the Pembina Institute’s Renewables in Remote Communities program, answers a few questions about remote energy systems and what they represent in Canada’s evolving economic, social, and environmental landscape: 

In Canada, there are considerable differences between the way remote communities access electricity and heating compared to urban centres. What do Canadians need to know about these differences?  

Canada is home to more than 240 remote communities, scattered across nearly every province and territory in the country. The reason these communities are called “remote” is because, in contrast to the rest of Canada, these communities (and the three northern territories) must produce all their electricity and heat independently from the rest of North America.

Since remote communities are isolated from provincial electricity systems, they get their power from isolated microgrids. These microgrids are often powered by diesel fuel that is transported to the community by plane, truck, or barge.

This system comes with very high costs for consumers and governments and creates a system of diesel reliance that impacts every aspect of community life from public health to the local economy. In terms of economic cost alone, our research shows that remote communities pay six to ten times more for energy than the rest of Canada – and that’s with the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies that federal, provincial, and territorial governments spend to bring down the costs of diesel every year. Without subsidies, remote communities would pay an average of 10-30 times more for energy (depending on location, among other factors).                                                                                                                                                                                   

How do energy systems in remote communities relate to Indigenous rights?

Of the roughly 240 diesel-dependent remote communities in Canada, about 170 are Indigenous. This has a number of implications for the way Canadian governments approach and address both remote clean energy development and diesel reduction.

Most energy systems in remote communities were developed without local input and collaboration. This approach to development has undermined Indigenous rights to self-determination (meaning, the rights of communities and their inhabitants to make their own choices about what is best for themselves and their communities) and social and economic development. The result has been a costly and unhealthy system of diesel reliance that – In addition to being both very expensive and insecure – stands counter to many Indigenous worldviews and approaches to energy, community development, and environmental stewardship.

What can Canada as a whole learn about remote communities’ experience with energy development and the transition to cleaner alternatives? 

Canada is suddenly alive to the issue of energy security due to the trade war with the United States. Within this context, it has become abundantly clear that the answer to building strong, resilient, healthy economies is powering them with locally-produced, low-cost clean energy: this is what many remote communities and Indigenous clean energy advocates have understood for decades.

The transition to clean energy in remote communities is a natural response to the closely linked relationship between energy and sovereignty. Because many remote energy systems are powered almost exclusively by imported diesel fuel, communities are often exposed to fuel price volatility that is triggered by external forces outside of their control, this includes disruptions to fuel supply chains caused by changing weather patterns due to climate change.  This volatility demonstrates how important it is to develop systems that are resilient and reliable.

Beyond this, the energy transition has exposed policymakers to the social and political realities of energy development in remote communities. These realities are interweaved with the need to prioritize Indigenous governance, collaboration, and consent as part of energy development and policy reform processes. For many jurisdictions, a complex web of technical, regulatory, economic, and policy related barriers make the work of creating more resilient and diversified energy systems exceptionally more challenging. These complexities tell an important story about the history of energy development and reinforce the role of sovereignty in facilitating strong economic, energy, and social development.

Is change possible in diesel-dependent remote communities?

Change is possible, but has historically proven very difficult to achieve – our work within the Pembina Institute’s Renewables in Remote Communities program is about doing all we can to improve this.

In remote regions across Canada, communities, government, and the private sector have worked collaboratively to initiate and drive change. The results of this work are encouraging, from 2015-2020, renewable energy projects in remote communities nearly doubled, with solar capacity increasing an astounding 11 times. Altogether, this has led to a reduction of over 12 million litres of diesel use per year. This type of progress shows that change is not only possible, but it is also happening in communities across Canada.

Though these findings are encouraging, many regulatory, policy, and technical barriers remain and pose a real threat to continued gains in diesel reduction. Today, with increasing economic instability, intensifying climate disasters, and changing labour conditions, it is becoming ever more challenging for communities to begin their clean energy journey. For progress to continue at the pace and scale required to meet community, climate and energy goals, a lot has to change – and fast.

What are Pembina’s recommendations to governments, regulators, system operators to remove some of those barriers to progress?

Governments, regulators, and utilities play a central role in supporting the remote transition to clean energy. While there are a great number of changes needed to concretely support the remote transition to clean energy, we focus our attention on a few key issues that continue to stand in the way of accelerated progress at scale. These include legal, regulatory, and funding related recommendations:

1. We strongly recommend that governments at every level work to implement the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into energy legislation and regulation so that Indigenous rights to self-determination and social and economic development are fully reflected in regulatory processes and legislative decisions.
2. To fully transition to clean energy, considerably more Indigenous-led and -owned renewable energy projects must be developed. This will require strengthened policy frameworks and pricing structures that account for the environmental, social, and cultural benefits that Indigenous-led energy projects bring. Given this reality, we recommend that governments, regulators, and utilities prioritize the development and implementation of policies and programs that support Indigenous governance of clean energy projects with fair and equitable rates.
3. Finally, we encourage governments to adequately fund and strengthen programs for capacity building and project development. While there currently exist a number of federal and provincial programs that provide funding, support, and training to remote clean energy leaders, these programs are consistently underfunded and oversubscribed. Urgent funding adjustments are needed to fully support this work, with unique considerations for communities in the territories.

These are just a few of many needed actions that can support Indigenous-led diesel reduction and clean energy development. Governments, utilities, and regulators must take collaborative action to support communities as they continue the work of energy transformation.

To learn more about the work we do to support remote communities, visit: https://www.pembina.org/programs/remote-communities

The post The clean energy transition in remote communities appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By The Energy Mix Staff

An Indigenous joint venture is just weeks away from cutting the ribbon on a C$52-million, 23.6-megawatt solar farm in southeastern Alberta that will generate enough electricity to power 20,000 average homes per year.

The Tilley Solar project is a combined effort of the Alexander Business Centre, based in Morinville north of Edmonton, and British Columbia-based First Nation Power Development, which connects Indigenous communities with renewable energy projects. “Developed in collaboration with renewable power developer Concord Green Energy and the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB), the project is intended to serve as a model for other Indigenous-owned clean energy projects,” the Globe and Mail reports.

“Having a sustainable, consistent revenue stream from a project like this is important for us, just as it’s important for other First Nations,” said Alexander Business Centre CEO Ian Arcand.

When funding was announced in April 2024, the CIB said the project would consist of 69,450 fixed-tilt photovoltaic panels, create up to 150 full-time jobs during construction, and reduce climate pollution by 14,200 tonnes per year once it goes into operation this spring.

The Globe notes that Tilley Solar was approved before the Alberta government slapped a seven-month moratorium on renewable energy development in August 2023, costing the province 53 cancelled projects and $91 million per year in local tax revenue. Subsequent restrictions were expected to close off 40% of the province from renewables development, triggering a period of policy uncertainty that led power purchase agreements across the province to stall out.

Before the provincial moratorium and subsequent interventions, Alberta accounted for about 92% of the growth in Canadian renewable energy markets, the Globe writes.

“Alberta needs to proceed with caution: it is counterproductive to jeopardize existing wind and solar projects,” Canadian Renewable Energy Association President and CEO Vittoria Bellissimo said in December, after Alberta introduced new electricity market rules that undercut the financial viability of renewable energy development.

“These projects were built in good faith but could fail if they cannot repay their debt, causing credit downgrades across the sector,” Bellissimo added. “This will raise borrowing costs for companies and ultimately increase the cost of electricity for customers.”

The post Indigenous joint venture closes in on completing 23.6-MW Alberta solar farm appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Jody MacPherson

The new chief executive officer of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) lobbied the agency on behalf of his former oil and gas company as recently as April of last year, and only appears to have resigned from another regulator’s industry advisory committee after The Energy Mix asked about a possible conflict of interest last week.

Rob Morgan, who started in his new role with the regulator on Feb. 18, is the former president and CEO of Strathcona Resources Ltd.—a company with many dozens of abandoned wells that are subject to AER regulation.

The post Oil exec takes charge of AER, stoking fears of industry capture appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.

By Jody MacPherson

A First Nation in northern Alberta is telling the provincial government to “cease and desist” with plans for a C$70 billion artificial intelligence data centre proposed by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary on its traditional territory.

On January 13, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation wrote [pdf] an open letter to Premier Danielle Smith, stating it first learned about the proposed project—described by O’Leary Ventures as “the largest AI data centre industrial park in the world”—through [pdf] a press release.

The post First Nation demands Alberta halt O’Leary’s $70B data centre project appeared first on Thoughtful Journalism About Energy's Future.