On April 19, 2023, the Alberta government released its Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan [PDF] (the Alberta Plan), which aligns with the federal target of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 but does not accept certain federal emissions reduction targets for 2030. In this blog post, we highlight some aspects of the Alberta Plan, including where it conflicts with federal plans to achieve a national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction of 40–45% (below 2005 levels) by 2030.
Overview of the Alberta Plan
At a high level, the Alberta Plan seeks to maintain energy security and position Alberta as a leader in emissions reductions, while attracting investment, working with Indigenous communities and supporting jobs. It highlights achievements to date and gives broad plans for GHG emission reductions. Key measures include continued financial support for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) adoption, carbon price increases to $170 per tonne by 2030 under the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation (consistent with the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act) and further tightening of methane regulations.
Notably, the Alberta Plan rejects the goal of requiring a net-zero electricity grid by 2035 as stated in the federal government’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. The Alberta Plan states that this federal goal is not technologically feasible and threatens electricity affordability and reliability. While it notes that the Alberta government sees opportunities for emissions reductions through CCUS, hydrogen and renewables, the Alberta Plan positions natural gas as the primary feedstock for electricity generation in Alberta beyond 2035.
The Alberta Plan also does not accept the federal government’s target to reduce oil and gas sector methane emissions by at least 75% (below 2012 levels) by 2030. While not an outright rejection, the Alberta Plan frames this federal target as a challenge due to its “prescriptive and costly approach”, and its potential to disproportionately impact Alberta and result in carbon leakage. The plan notes that the Alberta government intends to assess the target’s feasibility, while maintaining its own goal to achieve a 45% reduction in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector (below 2014 levels) by 2025.
Other specific aspects of the Alberta Plan
Key sector-specific activities and next steps in the Alberta Plan include
| Oil and gas |
|
| Oil sands |
|
| Electricity |
|
| Hydrogen |
|
| Bioenergy |
|
| Transportation |
|
Conclusion
With the United Conservative Party’s recent re-election as a majority government, the Alberta Plan is unlikely to change in the near future. In the immediate aftermath of the election, Premier Danielle Smith stated in a “warning to Ottawa” that she will not allow the “contemplated federal policies to be inflicted upon Albertans”, in reference to goals in the federal government’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan.[1] While there is alignment on some aspects of the federal and provincial emissions reduction plans — such as increased adoption of CCUS and hydrogen — conflicts between other aspects of the plans and political rhetoric may present challenges to collaboration between the federal and Alberta governments. They may also result in constitutional challenges to federal emissions reduction initiatives by the Alberta government, similar to its previous challenges of the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act[2] and Impact Assessment Act.[3]
[1] See CBC, “Hear Danielle Smith’s victory speech” (May 30, 2023), online: https://www.cbc.ca/player /play/2217888323532.
[2] The Alberta government’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was unsuccessful before the Supreme Court of Canada, as discussed in our previous post in 2021.
[3] The Alberta government’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Impact Assessment Act was successful before the Alberta Court of Appeal , as discussed in our previous post in 2022. That decision has since been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which had not issued its decision as of the date of this post.
