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.

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1907111954440692112

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/…

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). 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.

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. 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.

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… It's almost as if there is something else driving price increases over than carbon taxes?

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...

https://twitter.com/FoodProfessor/status/1861043005060272446

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.

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...

https://twitter.com/FoodProfessor/status/1856407513794826609

Table 4 lists "Major articles on carbon tax" and talks about their country of focus. Five of the papers listed focus on Canada.

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? And, we'll just put this one here too. Could be a fun day.

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/

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/

https://twitter.com/David_Moscrop/status/1773777905664852345

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/

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.

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.

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.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/1750672750560379086

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…

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/

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 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/

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... I'm not kidding people. Here's how it would work:

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/

What should have been in @theAESO presser:
1) Here's what the federal reg requires right now
2) Here's what that means in terms of the AB market with current rules in place.
3) Assuming limited changes to the CER, here's what we would recommend to government re: market design. 4) If these design changes aren't implemented, here are the changes we would have to make between now and 2035 to ensure we meet our mandate to ensure reliability.
5) The implications for prices for consumers depend almost entirely on investment decisions. We can't know that.

There's something fishy about #ableg moratorium timing. Work with me: in today's presser the Premier said that pause was initiated at the request of the AUC and the AESO. But, as @EmmaLGraney and @CGriwkowsky pointed out, that's not what letters say nor do the dates line up. 1/ @EmmaLGraney @CGriwkowsky The order was issued on August 3rd, 2023 and at that point the Government states that this was in direct response to a letter from the AUC, which the Government provides in its press release as "AUC letter requesting government initiate a pause" in the links. 2/

A thought: in 2008, confidence in CCUS was high enough that the Harper gov't was going to require it for all new oil sands projects, Alberta had a climate strategy which projected roughly 25Mt/yr from CCUS by today, and 135 Mt/yr by 2050. How has that worked out? Compare that to, for example, solar. In 2008-9, industrial solar costs were about $400/MWh, Alberta didn't foresee any development at all (it's not even mentioned in the 20 year AESO plan from 2005).

Corbella: "Thankfully, the UCP brought in surplus budgets and whittled away at Notley’s reckless debt."

Reality: total taxpayer supported debt in 2019 was $62.7B. Total in 2023 was $79.4B.

Does whittled not mean what I think it means? Or is Corbella lying again? #ableg Corbella: "Every economic indicator went down except the debt."

Reality: Employment? Up. GDP? Up. Population? Up. Labour productivity? Up.

It's almost as if Corbella just makes stuff up and Postmedia will print it.

A little data point for you, #ableg.

Wondering how much of a diff 8% vs 11% provincial tax rates can make? For a new, in situ oil sands project, it changes the break-even (10% rate of return) WTI oil price from $44.99/bbl to $45.35/bbl. Think that's changing investment? 1/ Doing the same calcs for an existing project (using Surmont), the oil price at which the forward-looking NPV drops to zero is $37.91/bbl with an 8% tax and that changes to $37.98 at an 11% tax, holding other assumptions at Sproule April 2023 forecast levels. 2/