Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Andrew Leach Profile picture
Andrew Leach
@andrew_leach
Professor of Economics and Law. Wrote a book on climate change. Blocks anonymous reply guys aggressively but not exclusively.
Apr 22 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
On resources and infrastructure, this platform is premised on a view of the world where provinces and First Nations are pushing for development and its the feds saying no. Q I'd be asking CPC today is what happens when that's not the case. 1/ First, on provinces, what would you do where a prov says no to a major project, e.g. a power plant, data centre, or LNG terminal? And what of pipelines or corridors? Some of the projects the CPC platform lists have been rejected by provinces and most are provincial jurisdiction.
Apr 8 • 17 tweets • 6 min read
So, this announcement is interesting since it commits to greenlight (or at least work with proponents and First Nations to approve) ten specific projects. I thought it was worth taking a look at a few of them (they are shown below): 1/ Image The first one is pretty easy: LNG Canada Phase 2. The project has federal approval for the full two-phase capacity. The proposed emissions cap would not place output restrictions on LNG Canada. And, the power supply questions are provincial.
Apr 2 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
One of the largest projects on this list, the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, was approved by the NEB in 2010, and issued a CPCN in early 2011. The project was expecting a 4-year construction timeline. How was the project not built during a strong, stable Conservative majority govt? Image This might give you a sense: markets changed. They were a little worried that shale gas might be an issue, but were still counting on a North American market served by *NET LNG IMPORTS*. This is from the NEB Reasons for Decision in 2010. Wonder if the market might have changed? Image
Image
Apr 2 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
In case you're wondering, here's the list of currently approved but not under construction oil sands projects per the Alberta Energy Regulator. Wonder why companies aren't applying for new projects? All the players have decades of project backlog. Image Oh, but why is no one applying for a new pipeline? CER has seen the Mainline expanded, the TMX pipeline built (and running under capacity) and there is an outstanding permit for KXL. Any new line has to justify need beyond that.
Apr 1 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
Let's dig a bit into Frontier, because it's hilarious. First, reviewed under CEAA 2012 by a joint AB/Canada review panel. The applied in November, 2011 shortly after a strong, stable conservative majority government was elected. 4 years later, there was no decision. The updated application for the project came in 2015, which is why it was assessed under CEAA, 2012 not CEAA 1992. In 2019, the review panel *finally* delivers a report. The report () finds the project to be in the public interest, but subject to conditions iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/documents/…Image
Apr 1 • 7 tweets • 3 min read
None of these projects were reviewed under the legislation contained in Bill c-69. Most were reviewed under CEAA 2012 ex MVP (CEAA 1992) and (where applicable) the same vintage of the NEB Act. Some were cancelled before Trudeau was elected. Some were DOA years before that. How did the Liberal government block Carmon Creek? It was cancelled before they were elected. And Mackenzie Valley? Not even @PierrePoilievre can believe that was going to happen after gas prices collapsed from 2008 onward. And Frontier? After Teck lost money on Fort Hills? Nope.
Mar 16 • 5 tweets • 2 min read
As usual, the @FoodProfessor is making stuff up. The now-zero-rated carbon tax already exempted most on-farm fuel consumption. With the elimination of the fuel charges on natural gas, and the elimination of the BC carbon tax, farmers will pay no carbon taxes on fuels (ex QC). Image He next talks about how the trucking companies will continue to pay carbon taxes on fuel. Again, with a zero rating, there is (ex -QC) no carbon taxes payable by trucking firms. He talks about mills. Some mills and other food processors are large enough to hit industrial pricing. Image
Jan 16 • 10 tweets • 3 min read
I would love to hear @PierrePoilievre sketch out the sequence of events a government could have followed to get a pipeline built to the west coast. The application for Gateway was filed in May, 2010. The Harper government was in office for five and a half more years after that. Image The Joint Review Panel Report was delivered on December, 20 2013. It recommended approving the project. Harper govt had 6 months to make a decision on the pipeline and direct the NEB to issue the permits. Any idea how long that took? They issued the decision on June 17, 2014. Image
Dec 12, 2024 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
This paper concludes that GHG pricing in Canada has had a minimal impact on inflation. It's well-written and clearly supported with evidence and based on clearly-sourced public data. But is it peer reviewed? Yes. And it's well worth the read. irpp.org/wp-content/upl…Image It's almost as if there is something else driving price increases over than carbon taxes? Image
Nov 27, 2024 • 27 tweets • 9 min read
The Food Professor would very much like you to know he has a new paper out, let me encourage you to read it. Read every word. Read it twice. Yes, I mean it. Think of it as a personal favour to me.

And, since I read it, I have some thoughts... When reviewing a paper, I start with a summary of what the paper does and why that's important. This paper purports to assess the impact of Canadian carbon pricing on food prices. That's an important topic and an area of substantial political and policy discussion in Canada.
Nov 13, 2024 • 14 tweets • 5 min read
So, following @GK_Fellows' lead, I thought it would be interesting to dig a bit into this literature review. A quick look at some of the papers mentioned in Table 4 tells you how carefully this work was done... Table 4 lists "Major articles on carbon tax" and talks about their country of focus. Five of the papers listed focus on Canada. Image
Jun 20, 2024 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
NBD, @DalhousieU. My picture, your prof, and the clear implication that I should await violent consequences amplified for all of his followers. I suppose this too falls within his areas of expertise? Image And, we'll just put this one here too. Could be a fun day. Image
Apr 6, 2024 • 13 tweets • 3 min read
Shortly after the UCP took office in 2019, @theAESO put out their semi-annual long-term outlook. This would have given the UCP gov't a look forward at what those who, to use their own words, were "uniquely positioned" to forecast what was to come in Alberta were expecting. 1/ It would also have given a distinct impression of what the impacts of the NDP policies were to that point, as well as forecast load growth and other measures. So, let's have a look at what the AESO was expecting at that point. 2/
Mar 30, 2024 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
This is absolutely right. And, re: carbon pricing, most of the debate isn't really about how we act, it's whether we act. As long as there has been climate policy, there have been those arguing "in favour" of a policy not on the table in lieu of arguing against action. 1/ Don't like a "sector by sector regulatory approach" w more stringent targets on oil and gas than any other? Talk about how experts favour economy-wide carbon pricing. Don't like carbon pricing? Maybe regulation would be better. Experts say we could get more stringent policies. 2/
Mar 27, 2024 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Want to understand the challenge of the Cdn LNG business case? Asian gas is now sub $9. Take from that roughly $1 in shipping costs, $2.50 in CGL pipeline tolls, and $1 or so in operating costs, and that leaves you $4.50 to pay for the capital costs of the terminal and the gas. Capital costs of the terminal, depending on your assumptions, is $4-5 for LNG Canada, and less than that for some others. Suppose capital costs are *half* the estimates for LNG Canada, you're left with about $2.50 for gas. So, basically the same price as right now.
Mar 26, 2024 • 6 tweets • 2 min read
Since 2015, @PBO_DPB has started doing more work on distributional effects of policies. That's great news. But, about 70% of their distributional analysis has focused on one policy: carbon pricing. Child care? Dental care? Pharmacare? Child tax benefits? I must have missed them. On carbon pricing, the PBO analysis is very clear: roughly 80% of Canadians get back more than they pay in carbon tax, and the net benefits to the lowest-income Canadians are big, especially in AB and SK: up to a 3% boost in household income.
Feb 7, 2024 • 8 tweets • 2 min read
Since a food professor is commenting today on the impact of carbon prices on farmers, it's worth re-hashing this thread. Almost all (~ 95%) of on-farm emissions are exempt from carbon pricing, not to mention exemptions from fuel excise taxes and other favourable tax policies. And, if you're wondering "yeah, but what about those emissions beyond the farm gate," they are small for most foods. For a great interactive look at this, see @_HannahRitchie's interactive graph here: 2/ ourworldindata.org/grapher/food-e…
Image
Jan 26, 2024 • 9 tweets • 3 min read
So, after @PierrePoilievre comments yesterday and the consistent focus on the impact of carbon pricing on farming, I thought I'd take a little look into the data. There are 3 major sources of emissions from agriculture: enteric fermentation (cow farts), fertilizer, and fuels.1/ Neither GHGs from enteric fermentation (animal production) nor fertilizer (crop production) are covered by carbon pricing, other than via opt-in offsets which compensate farmers for GHG reductions. The lion's share of GHGs from farming are in those exempt categories. 2/ Image
Jan 14, 2024 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
A quick note to all who might be concerned: the Noey government early coal phase out deal covered 6 coal units (sheerness 1 and 2, genesse 1,2,3 and keephills 3). The deal was to compensate those units and only those units for shutting down in 2030 instead of later. 1/2 Image If you check the AESO dashboard, all 6 of the affected units are in service right now. 3 fully converted to gas, 2 as coal but to be converted and expanded this spring, and one as dual fuel. Other coal units (battle river 3, Sundance, milner) were affected by Harper coal regs. 2/

Image
Image
Image
Jan 3, 2024 • 4 tweets • 2 min read
Guys, I've been handed a sneak peek at the federal Conservatives' clean electricity strategy. I'm told the working title is Powering Canada into the Future... Image I'm not kidding people. Here's how it would work:

Image
Image
Image
Oct 17, 2023 • 13 tweets • 3 min read
Re: the implications of the SCC Impact Assessment Act on future electricity (and oil and gas) regulations, I think this piece from Marla Orenstein @CanadaWestFdn misses some really important points and misinterprets some of what the majority opinion held. theglobeandmail.com/opinion/articl… It's true that the Court wrote that "“[a]ny legislation that related to non-carbon pricing forms of [greenhouse gas] regulation … would not fall under the matter of national concern,” referring to the GGPPA findings, but that's not likely to be at issue for CEPA regs. 2/