Naheed Nenshi, the NDP leader of Alberta’s Opposition, is accusing Premier Danielle Smith of a scheme that could increase power bills for Albertans “so she can build AI data centres for her foreign billionaire friends.” 

The comments come from a news conference organized by the NDP in response to reporting by The Narwhal on a leaked document — labelled a “cabinet report” and bearing the Alberta government logo — that appears to show the provincial government is planning to take control of Alberta’s natural gas pipeline system to increase both supply and demand. 

The document outlines plans to wrest regulatory control over the province’s main natural gas transmission line, called the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, owned and operated by TC Energy, away from the federal Canada Energy Regulator, and to create two new government-owned corporations. One of those Crown corporations could force companies to build natural gas pipeline expansions based on government priorities, while the other could build and operate the pipelines itself. 

Those moves, according to the document, would raise prices on ordinary Albertans and businesses, but would bring in more royalties for the government. 

“Let me reiterate this: Danielle Smith is rolling out the red carpet for data centres, and that will cause higher electricity prices, and she doesn’t care if it spikes your electricity and your heating bills,” Nenshi said.

Detailed questions were sent to several Alberta ministries prior to publication of the original story, but the government did not respond by publication time. 

Late Friday afternoon, the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean sent a statement to The Narwhal in response to a follow-up email asking for comment on the original story.

“Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions,” it said.

“An increasing number of project proponents across a variety of industries have raised concerns about accessing industrial quantities of natural gas in several regions of Alberta. We are working with industry, including the natural gas infrastructure owners, to better understand these issues and identify practical solutions that support future growth and investment.”

The document on which the reporting was based was leaked to The Narwhal by a source within the Alberta government, whose identity is being kept confidential due to personal and professional risks stemming from the leak. 

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

This story uses information from sources The Narwhal has agreed not to name. The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. 

As Canadian governments become increasingly secretive, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight. 

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

The moves could cost billions of public dollars if the government builds its own pipelines, according to the document. The document estimates it will cost more than $160 million just to institute the changes and fight anticipated legal battles with companies such as TC Energy, or potentially First Nations. “There may also be litigation risk from Indigenous communities and organizations where they believe that they have not been meaningfully engaged from early on in any proposed projects,” the document reads.

Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation Chief Sheldon Sunshine said his community, which is fighting a massive data centre proposal in northern Alberta led by celebrity investor Kevin O’Leary, is “outraged” by the details outlined in the document, which he says he has independently reviewed.

“For years, our Nation has been fighting for meaningful consultation and effective regulation of hyper-scale data centres — including the massive O’Leary Project,” he said in a statement sent to The Narwhal. Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is not specifically named in the leaked document.

“Now we find out that the United Conservative Party government is trying to artificially drive up the demand for natural gas to lure even more of these data centres to Alberta — all while knowing that this would trample our Treaty Rights and send electricity prices soaring for all Albertans.”

The document estimates building a pipeline to meet government expectations could cost as much as $6 billion. The capacity from that new pipeline could provide enough gas for six gigawatts of power generation for data centres, according to the document. A recently rejected AI data centre near Olds, Alta., would have required a 1.4-gigawatt power plant and used as much power each day as the City of Edmonton.

According to information on TC Energy’s website, the company has invested approximately $15 billion into the Nova Gas Transmission system since 2015, with double the capacity increases outlined in the document.

The document points to the need to feed natural gas to AI data centres as a primary motivation for the moves, but also highlights desired growth in the oil and gas sector, saying “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyper-scale data centre capital and other investors.”

Nenshi, who said he has now seen the leaked document himself, was blunt. 

“This report makes it clear that their strategy all along was to do whatever they could to increase natural gas prices, to promote the government’s own bottom line due to their own fiscal mismanagement,” he said. The document suggests the moves could increase royalties to the government while consumers could end up paying higher prices for their natural gas and electricity bills under the proposed plan.

Document leaked by whistleblower for whom Canada affords little protection: expert

According to David Hutton, a senior fellow with the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University, whistleblowers who leak sensitive information to the media run a considerable risk, from losing their jobs, friendships or families through divorce.

He said Canada is “back of the bus” when it comes to protections.  

“International experts have done surveys of various countries and rated them, and we come out at the bottom,” he said in an interview. The federal government has a whistleblower program, but Hutton said there’s never been compensation awarded through it. 

Provincial laws are similar to the federal protections, including Alberta’s, and “are really not of any value,” he said. 

He stresses how crucial it is for public-interest information to see the light of day. As The Narwhal has reported, this is becoming increasingly difficult in Canada as multiple levels of government tighten freedom of information legislation. 

“Research done over decades now has consistently shown that tips from whistleblowers account for usually more than 40 per cent of all of the frauds that are uncovered [globally],” he said, highlighting one aspect of information that is shared.

There is no indication of fraud in the leaked document in Alberta. 

The plans outlined in the document single out TC Energy, which owns and operates the largest gas pipeline system in the province, as a likely source for legal action pushing back against the plans, due to the impacts on its business. 

The company did not respond to questions for the original article or for this follow up. 

Nenshi said he has not yet spoken with representatives from the company after the revelations were made public, but intends to. 

“To actually say government wants to step in in order to hurt people, and that government is strong-arming a company to make billions of dollars in investments that they don’t want to make, with the threat of competing with them if they don’t?” he said. “That’s textbook bullying behaviour. It’s also bad economics and it’s bad business.”

Document points to constraints imposed by feds, says Alberta seeks to ‘achieve greater control’

The document points the finger not just at TC Energy, but also at constraints imposed by the federal regulation of the natural gas transmission network.

“Federal regulatory oversight … is now compounding Alberta’s gas access challenges,” the document reads, adding this oversight “has caused growing concern about the pace of infrastructure development for the [natural gas transmission network].”

The document suggests moving TC Energy’s Alberta pipelines back under provincial regulatory control and under the authority of one of the new government corporations.

Some pipeline networks within the province are already under provincial jurisdiction, including the ATCO distribution network that interconnects with TC Energy’s system. ATCO operates approximately 8,500 kilometres of pipelines in Alberta, whereas the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, the province’s main natural gas transmission line operated by TC Energy, is about 25,000 kilometres.

“Without provincial regulatory oversight, the Government of Alberta is limited in its ability to compel federally regulated pipelines to invest in capacity expansions,” reads the document.

“Due to the federally regulated [natural gas transmission line] system being fully subscribed, the province cannot guarantee the timely expansion of gas transmission capacity required to support new demand.”

Have something to share about Alberta’s push for more data centres and oil production? Send us a story tip.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Editor’s note: Go here to read The Narwhal’s story on the backlash that followed this investigation.

Alberta is so determined to usher in a wave of AI data centres and increase oil and gas production that it is considering rewriting legislation and creating government-owned corporations that would force private companies to invest in natural gas pipeline expansions — or allow the government to build and operate those pipelines itself — according to a document leaked to The Narwhal. It’s also willing to pay for any legal challenges that follow. 

The document — labelled a “cabinet report” and bearing the Alberta government logo — contains a broad swath of recommendations it indicates were prepared for the Energy and Minerals Ministry led by Minister Brian Jean, and says it was scheduled to be presented to a high-level cabinet policy committee on Sept. 10.

The document says private ownership of natural gas transmission pipelines is throttling growth and that “escalatory and direct measures are now required,” especially as “the Government of Alberta is actively courting hyper-scale data centre capital and other investors.”

The document notes Alberta risks losing investment from AI data centre companies if it can’t come up with “speed-to-market” solutions.

According to the document, the government has been in talks with TC Energy, which owns and operates Alberta’s main natural gas pipeline system, since 2024 in an attempt to force the company to invest in new pipeline capacity, but the company refuses to build based on “speculative demand.” TC Energy did not respond to detailed questions.

Talks with the company stalled, according to the document, after the company pitched a plan that would involve the province assuming more financial liability for the pipeline system and forcing higher rates on those who use it. 

“Discussions continued until 2026 and escalated with the premier’s involvement,” reads the document. “Extensive discussions with TC Energy [have] produced no viable solutions to date.”

The document is critical of TC Energy’s track record, saying the company’s “underinvestment in [natural gas] pipeline capacity has caused a market failure in the natural gas sector leaving key growth regions unable to access gas,” calling the result a “dysfunctional natural gas pipeline network.”

The document was leaked to The Narwhal by a government official whose identity is being kept confidential. The Narwhal has verified they are in a position that would likely have access to such a document. The Narwhal has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of the document, but Alberta’s lobbyist registry confirms TC Energy has been in talks with government officials regarding “increased support for gas market access,” as well as discussions on “strategic natural gas initiatives.”

A note on trust, integrity and unnamed sources+

This story uses information from sources The Narwhal has agreed not to name. The Narwhal only agrees to keep names confidential when we believe two things. First, that the person we’re speaking with is putting themselves at genuine risk, either personal or professional, by sharing this information with us. Second, that the information they’re sharing is in the public interest. Our decision to do so is never made lightly. 

There are two types of unnamed sources. A confidential source is someone whose name we know, but aren’t sharing. We make multiple attempts to verify their identity and information with other sources. If we aren’t able to get a second source, we say so. 

An anonymous source is someone whose name we don’t know. It is incredibly rare for The Narwhal to publish a story with a completely anonymous source. In these instances, we don’t publish until we have verified the information shared with us with at least one other source. 

And again, these stories must be in the public interest. 

As Canadian governments become increasingly secretive, the courage of whistleblowers is to be admired. We value them greatly. At the same time, our promise to readers is The Narwhal will always make sure the facts are airtight. 

Have something to share? Send us a story tip.

Detailed questions sent to the premier’s office, including for confirmation of details in the document, were sent to the press secretaries for the premier and the ministers of affordability and utilities, energy and minerals, jobs, economy, trade and immigration, and treasury board and finance. There was no response by publication time. 

There was also no response to an email and phone call to Vitor Marciano, the chief of staff to the energy minister.

Late Friday afternoon, following the morning publication of this story, the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean sent a statement to The Narwhal saying “Governments routinely examine a wide range of policy, regulatory and legislative options when considering complex issues, and internal materials do not represent government decisions.”

“An increasing number of project proponents across a variety of industries have raised concerns about accessing industrial quantities of natural gas in several regions of Alberta,” it added. “We are working with industry, including the natural gas infrastructure owners, to better understand these issues and identify practical solutions that support future growth and investment.”

According to the document, the full slate of proposals for cabinet consideration include taking regulatory control for the pipeline transmission network operated by TC Energy away from the federal Canada Energy Regulator, creating a Crown corporation that would guide pipeline construction based on government forecasting, and another Crown corporation that would oversee, or build and operate, its own pipelines. 

That would give the government the power to control some private investment decisions, including directing companies to build pipelines, and it could also make the government a direct competitor of companies such as TC Energy. 

The document argues the moves are necessary to rapidly build natural gas pipeline capacity to help increase oil and gas production and spur data centre growth. The government’s data centre strategy explicitly encourages the use of natural gas for power generation. 

Since the release of that strategy, the government has restricted AI data centre access to the provincial grid until 2028 because there is not enough power to fuel demand and keep the lights on. Developers are required to build their own power supply, which is currently restricted to natural gas power plants.

Albertans could be on the hook for hundreds of millions — or billions — to help support power for AI data centres: document

The moves could cost Albertans. 

The document is clear one of the main drivers of the plan, in addition to increasing the province’s oil and gas production, is attracting AI data centres to the province. “Alberta’s ability to attract and retain data centre investment depends on reliable access to natural gas service,” the document says. 

The recommended changes would result in “significant legal and cost impacts for the Government of Alberta,” according to the document, as well as likely result in “increases for utility ratepayers.”

The document notes Albertans may be “sensitive” to what it calls “any change in perceived affordability.”

The preliminary estimated cost of the proposed changes, including the planning and creation of Crown corporations and potential ensuing legal battles, could exceed $162 million, according to estimates in the document, but that does not include possible infrastructure costs.

The document estimates building a pipeline to meet government expectations could cost as much as $6 billion. The capacity from that new pipeline could provide enough gas for six gigawatts of power generation for data centres, according to the document. A recently rejected AI data centre near Olds, Alta., would have required a 1.4-gigawatt power plant and used as much power each day as the City of Edmonton.

The total cost includes anticipated litigation from TC Energy and other companies, including concerns over “significant claims for compensation” for “alleged expropriation of valuable contractual rights.” 

The document warns First Nations could also initiate lawsuits. 

The moves could also make things more expensive for residents and businesses by driving up the price of natural gas, according to the document.

“While low prices benefit customers (Albertans and industrial users), they limit provincial royalty revenues and can discourage natural gas investment by reducing producer revenues,” the document reads. 

“Increased natural gas demand could contribute to higher costs for households, businesses and gas-intensive industries, which could deflect stakeholder support.”

The document also notes “potential disproportionate impacts on seniors and rural residents can be mitigated by monitoring affordability and exploring mitigation measures specific to households and small businesses.”

The government’s aim is to almost double natural gas prices to support and expand production, which would increase the cost of electricity generation by up to 25 per cent, based on calculations in the document. 

It’s unclear exactly what that could mean for Albertans’ power bills, but those costs could be passed down to Albertans, who the document warns could be upset about government spending and increased costs. 

A recent analysis from the Pembina Institute, estimates the recently announced Meta data center near Edmonton could add $270 to $460 to electricity bills each year.

The document suggests government messaging could sell the plan to Albertans to “help strengthen social licence.”

Have something to share about Alberta’s push for more data centres and oil production? Send us a story tip.

Updated on Sept. 13, 2026, at 2:11 p.m. MT: This article was updated to include a statement from the office of Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean. The statement was received after publication of the article. No response was received to questions sent in advance of publication.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government says keeping the federal gas tax off at the pumps will create indirect savings felt all through the economy. But critics argue it could drive up Canada’s emissions while benefiting wealthy households the most.

Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne announced last week Canada would be extending its suspension of the federal fuel excise tax until February 2027 and then phasing it back in at half its regular rate through the end of next March.

Government MPs are now fanning out across the country to promote the tax cut.

Excise taxes are imposed on specific goods like fuel or tobacco, as opposed to other taxes that are applied more broadly. Canada charges an excise tax of 10 cents per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel and aviation fuel.

The government originally cut the tax on April 20 after the Iran war pushed up global oil prices, with the price of gasoline climbing to an average of $1.90 per litre across Canada in early May, according to the Canadian Automobile Association.

The tax break was supposed to last until Labour Day, but at a press conference held at a Canadian Tire store in Ottawa on Sept. 2, Champagne said “Middle East disruptions” continue to drive up the cost of energy and put “additional pressure on families, workers and businesses here at home.”

“This is real relief, right now, relief for families commuting to work … driving their children to activities, or managing the costs of everyday life,” the minister said. “Lower fuel costs help to bring down costs across the country.”

The government said it will forego $5.3 billion in revenue in total from the two tax suspensions.

Crude oil prices are still much higher than before the Iran war and the price of gas in Canada remains high too, with the national average for gasoline sitting at $1.80 per litre as of Sept. 8, or 60 cents higher than it was at Christmas.

But the high oil prices have also translated into billions of dollars in windfall profits this summer for Canada’s major oil companies. As gas prices remain stubbornly high, NDP Leader Avi Lewis has called for an additional tax on those profits, beyond the existing royalties oil companies pay. Lewis argued sharing the proceeds is a better way of delivering cost relief to individuals and families — with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives finding a windfall tax could net between $18 billion and $46 billion over the next year.

“People are getting gouged at the pumps, but another costly handout of public money to oil and gas companies is no solution,” Lewis said in a statement after Champagne’s announcement.

“Instead of more corporate welfare, it’s time for a windfall tax on the big oil giants that are set to make $100 billion in profits this year because of Trump’s illegal war in Iran. Doing so will generate billions in new revenue that we can use to give Canadians real relief at gas stations and grocery checkouts.”

Gas tax breaks are most beneficial to wealthy households

When the government first announced the fuel tax suspension, the Winnipeg-based think-tank International Institute for Sustainable Development called it a “fossil fuel subsidy” because the only way Canadians receive it is by consuming fuel.

Nichole Dusyk, Canada energy transition lead at the institute, said she recognizes there’s an affordability crisis and that a tax break on fuel can distribute a little bit of money to a lot of people.

But she said the relief isn’t targeting the people who need it most. Wealthy households tend to buy more gas and drive more often, she said, so they see the greatest benefits from gas tax breaks compared to lower-income households.

When the tax was first suspended, the parliamentary budget officer estimated that households with the lowest incomes would save only $59 between April 20 and Labour Day, while the highest incomes would see $211 in savings.

For those families who don’t own a car at all, they have no way of directly accessing this relief, Dusyk said.

Asked about these criticisms, Champagne’s press secretary John Fragos argued the measure “promises to not only bring down costs at the pump but across the board too.”

“Canadians will benefit, just as truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors will similarly save, and because fuel is so omnipresent, a reduction in one area, drives savings through others altogether,” Fragos wrote in an emailed response.

The Narwhal asked the minister’s office if it had any estimates on hand for what kind of indirect cost savings the government was expecting to see.

Fragos said there were “too many variables at play” to offer any firm estimates. But nevertheless he expected to see around 30 cents on the litre in total savings, as the cut reduces production and transportation costs for a wide range of goods.

The federal government has no requirement that manufacturers or transportation companies pass gas tax savings on to consumers.

Experts offer cost-savings alternatives to Canada’s gas tax break

Removing the gas tax also encourages more fossil fuel consumption, Dusyk said. That may mean Canada’s emissions will rise, leading to increased costs on society and more difficulty implementing the country’s official goal of net-zero emissions.

Climate change is leading to more frequent and intense wildfires, which generate toxic smoke that drives up hospital emergency visits, costing the health-care system, while air pollution creates more burdens through increased heart disease, stroke, cancer and premature death. Emergency response and evacuations are also expensive for governments and individuals.

A federal climate science report released on Sept. 3 said this extreme weather will continue to get worse with climate change, and that the question of whether global warming can stabilize after 2050 “will be determined by the level of global greenhouse gas emissions.”

“On both fronts, it’s not really working,” Dusyk said of the tax break. “It’s not an effective policy to really tackle affordability, but it’s also making the climate crisis worse.”

She said a better approach could be to take the billions of dollars in revenue associated with the tax and use it to boost the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit, which is the new name for the federal GST/HST credit.

That could allow households in lower income brackets to decide whether the money should go towards fuel, if they do drive a lot, or for covering other essentials.

Another approach could be to reduce Canadians’ exposure to fossil fuel price volatility by supporting the electrification of heating or transportation, or improved public transit, she said.

While the Carney government has recently committed billions to transit and clean energy, the amounts are dwarfed by its multibillion-dollar commitments to fossil fuel projects, including part ownership of a new oil pipeline to the West Coast and financing for a carbon capture project that will address only a small fraction of oilsands emissions.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

One of Turza Humchitt’s earliest memories is of her grandmother’s table, where family sat on benches on either side and shared from a large pot that might hold soup, clams, cockles or Dungeness crab.

Fresh clams were steamed with rice, fried in the half-shell or eaten with broth sipped straight from the shell. For Humchitt, they still taste like childhood.

“It reminds me of what’s always been there,” Humchitt, a Heiltsuk community member who lives in Bella Bella, on B.C.’s central coast, said.

Now, that food is harder to find close to home. Humchitt said her husband has had to travel farther in recent years to harvest clams — thanks to an invasion hastened by a disaster.

A decade after the tugboat Nathan E. Stewart ran aground and spilled diesel into the nation’s clam harvesting areas, Heiltsuk guardians — trained Indigenous stewards who monitor the nation’s lands and waters — say the damage is still spreading. In Gale Creek, near Bella Bella, guardians have found European green crab populations have increased dramatically since the spill. 

European green crabs are native to Europe and North Africa, but have spread widely in North America. Unlike native Dungeness crabs and the larger blue crabs commonly eaten on the U.S. East Coast, green crabs are small and carry little meat. They are edible, but often more practical for stocks, sauces, fertilizer or other products than as a crab people crack and eat at the table, Carolyn Tepolt, an associate scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said.

Tepolt said green crabs are unusually well-suited to spread and survive in new places because they tolerate a wide range of conditions, eat many different foods and may be able to withstand some polluted environments. 

“If you were going to design a great invasive species, it would probably have a lot of the qualities the green crabs have,” Tepolt said.

Crews are removing the invasive crabs as they eat young clams and show up in more parts of Heiltsuk territory — threatening clam beds that have sustained Heiltsuk food, culture and livelihoods.

Diana Chan, natural resource manager with the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department, said the possibility that an oil spill could be followed years later by a green crab surge was not something the nation had initially been watching for.

When a spill happens, the response often focuses on containing and cleaning up the oil, Chan said. “The long-term monitoring has really been lacking,” she said. “Heiltsuk was left to just do all of it on our own.”

A surge in green crabs

Green crabs were present in Gale Creek before the spill, but in much smaller numbers. Guardians usually caught 10 to 20 crabs per trap and commercial clam harvesters killed crabs they found on the beaches.

A July 2026 report prepared by Chan and Milène Wiebe — a PhD candidate at the University of Alberta — and reviewed by Canada’s National Observer determined the spill was “likely a significant contributing cause” of the crab explosion that followed. Green crabs are highly resilient to pollution and environmental disturbance and may survive those impacts better than many native species, it says. The spill also closed the commercial clam fishery, meaning the usual 40 to 50 harvesters were no longer on Gale Creek beaches for weeks each winter, killing crabs as they worked and detecting changes early.

By 2019, three years after the spill, some traps were regularly catching more than 50 crabs. In one three-month stretch in 2024, Heiltsuk crews removed more than 32,500 green crabs from about 20 Gale Creek clam beaches.

To protect clam beds, Heiltsuk crews need to drive crab numbers down. But as trapping increased, Chan said crews also began watching for another risk: adult crabs eat their young and if too many adults are removed from a contained area, more young can survive as predation drops.

Researchers call that the “hydra effect.” Edwin Grosholz, a distinguished professor emeritus at UC Davis, led a study documenting it in Seadrift Lagoon, a small California estuary, after an intensive eradication effort cut adult green crabs by more than 90 per cent. Within a year, the population rebounded more than 30-fold, from fewer than 10,000 crabs to about 300,000.

“This kind of thing can happen where adult animals in the population consume or cannibalize the young,” said Grosholz, who has studied green crabs since their early spread along the West Coast in the 1990s. “If you remove most of the adults, then the juveniles are free to survive and then the population suddenly explodes.”

Chan said Heiltsuk has not seen signs of that happening in Gale Creek. But crews now use traps that can catch smaller crabs too, including minnow traps and prawn-style traps, so they can track whether juvenile numbers rise as adult numbers fall. 

Winter catches often drop because crabs are less active, so summer catch numbers offer a clearer measure of the trapping effort. “When we see the numbers remaining low in the summer, we take that as a sign that the trapping has been working,” Chan said.

What the crab boom is costing Heiltsuk

The Nathan E. Stewart spilled about 110,000 litres of diesel and other pollutants in October 2016, contaminating some of Heiltsuk’s most productive clam beds. Nearly 10 years later, Heiltsuk has settled with Kirby Corporation, the U.S.-based company connected to the vessel, but key questions about long-term restoration and compensation remain unanswered.

The First Nation says current green crab removal efforts fall far short of what is needed. The report estimates a large-scale green crab response would cost more than $22 million over six years. It calls for scaling up to 10 vessels on the water each day, with 30 full-time green crab removal positions and the goal of achieving “functional eradication” within five years — reducing green crab numbers enough that they no longer cause major harm, so clam populations can recover. 

In the sixth year, trapping would drop to one or two vessels a day to prevent another population surge and determine what level of control will be needed indefinitely.

Chan said Heiltsuk currently has one dedicated green crab crew, though in some years, when additional funding has been available, it has had two. The nation now has six full-time employees trapping green crabs, with 300 traps deployed across the territory.

Gale Creek alone has more than 20 clam beaches. Crews can usually set about 40 traps a day, meaning they can only focus on a few beaches at a time. Some beaches are also difficult to reach because of the tides, Chan said.

The trapping effort has also had to account for other wildlife. Researchers have documented coastal wolves pulling up submerged crab traps to steal bait. Chan said crews now use only herring after wolves were drawn to traps baited with sea lions.

Heiltsuk has seen what it takes to make a dent. On one small beach in Gale Creek, crews trapped so intensely over the summer that crab numbers dropped and stayed lower than nearby areas. But the success was tightly contained: just metres away, traps were still pulling up 60 to 100 green crabs, Chan said. 

That makes the work a balancing act: crews need to trap hard in Gale Creek while also watching nearby areas where green crabs are appearing in smaller numbers.

The green crab response is also reshaping the guardian program. William Housty, director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department, said crews with limited capacity are being pulled between protecting clam beds and monitoring salmon habitat, shellfish safety, fisheries, wildlife and other species across Heiltsuk territory.

“It puts us in a really difficult spot to have to choose which is more important because they’re all very important for us,” Housty said. 

Chan said adult Manila clams are still present on some Gale Creek beaches, but juvenile clams have declined sharply. That means today’s adult clams may not be replaced as they die. “It’s really the smaller clams that are most vulnerable to the green crab,” Chan said. “That’s why we can go to beaches here and still find lots of adult clams, but not the babies.”

Housty said Gale Creek was known for “football fields” of clam beds and once supported a commercial Manila clam fishery that employed 30 to 40 people, along with shore workers. 

For Heiltsuk, clams are not only a commercial resource. Marilyn Slett, chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Nation, said they are a staple food, a winter economy and part of community life. Families harvest them, jar them, preserve them and serve them at potlatches and feasts.

“Our people rely on the ocean for our sustenance,” Slett said. “Clams [are] one of those keystone species that we rely on.”

Possible uses for green crabs

The crabs now being removed from Heiltsuk waters are frozen and taken to Bella Bella’s composting facility, where they are mixed with household compost for community use. The Heiltsuk are also exploring whether they could be used for food, fertilizer or bioplastics.

Chan said she is aware green crabs are eaten in some parts of the world, especially as soft-shell crab, but she has not heard of people eating them locally. The nation is in early discussions with Fisheries and Oceans Canada about whether green crabs removed from Heiltsuk waters could be put to use rather than discarded.

Across the coast, other Nations are also looking for incentives that could make green crab removal more useful.

Gaagwiis Jason Alsop, president of the Haida Nation, said their crews have been monitoring and removing green crabs as the species spreads into Haida Gwaii. But the work takes consistent labour and funding, while the crabs keep reproducing. Without a practical use for them, every crab pulled from the water remains a cost with no direct benefit.

“They are a challenging species to get control of,” Alsop said. “They are prolific. And I think we’re seeing that you kind of need some economic incentive, something you could do with them, that would hopefully motivate people to catch them and help keep their numbers under control.”

Hasheukumiss, also known as Richard George, hereditary chief of Ahousaht First Nation on the west coast of Vancouver Island, said he has pushed for green crabs removed from local waters to be used as food instead of treated only as waste. He said he and his mother experimented with cooking green crabs in a bisque and found them “very delicious.”

“There’s no reason why the government can’t sign a piece of paper over to myself and my nation to do good for the island and the mainland as well,” George said.

The department is developing a regulatory process for proposals to use European green crabs for purposes other than disposal, Renny Talbot, a senior fisheries protection biologist with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, told Canada’s National Observer. He said the department may be able to issue licences that allow people involved in green crab control to use or sell the harvested crabs, but said that would still be part of an invasive species response, not a commercial fishery. Fisheries and Oceans Canada would regulate the licence for catching the crabs, he said, but if they were used as food, harvesters would also need to work with other authorities, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the province, on processing and food requirements.

“We don’t want to have it as a sustainable fishery. We want them gone,” Talbot said.

Talbot said European green crabs were first found on the west coast of Vancouver Island in the late 1990s and have continued moving north through ocean currents. They are now present on the west coast of Vancouver Island, parts of B.C.’s central coast and Haida Gwaii. Green crabs are Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s top marine invasive species priority and the department is working with Indigenous partners on management plans that focus removal efforts on key habitats and culturally important areas, he said, noting that the department expects to update Heiltsuk on alternative uses for green crab by the end of the year.

That might help the Heiltsuk in the future, Housty said. But it does not eliminate the need for a larger removal and restoration program now, as every season without enough trapping leaves the next generation of clams exposed.

Slett said the 2016 oil spill helped galvanize coastal opposition to oil tanker traffic. Nearly 10 years later, she said, Heiltsuk is still dealing with the consequences of that spill, even as governments continue to discuss major projects and marine shipping on B.C.’s north coast.

“That’s one of the reasons why we pursued upholding the tanker ban so hard,” Slett said. “It’s our lived experience with the Nathan E. Stewart and knowing that it’s still unresolved.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Alberta has introduced new rules that will allow landowners to destroy broad categories of wetlands across the province without seeking government approval. It’s a move the province calls common sense and critics call worrying. 

“What I’m seeing is what I like to refer to as policy-based evidence making,” said Tracy Scott, who recently retired from his role as head of industry and government relations with Ducks Unlimited Canada, a wetland conservation organization.

The changes to the province’s Water Act will allow farmers to remove what are known as temporary and seasonal wetlands on private land to improve crop efficiency. Temporary wetlands are covered by water for a few weeks in spring or after a heavy rainfall, according to the government — they can be dips in the landscape where water naturally pools. Seasonal wetlands hold water for most of the growing season but dry out by the fall.

Previously, landowners had to pay for a detailed assessment of the impacts of such moves, and pay for wetland replacement costs. 

“Farmers should not have to spend thousands of dollars and wait on government approval to carry out routine work on their own land,” Grant Hunter, the minister of environment and protected areas, said in a news release. “We are restoring private property rights and getting government out of the way where it doesn’t need to be.”

That sort of language irks Kennedy Halvorson, a conservation specialist at the Alberta Wilderness Association.

“It’s a bit of deceptive messaging, kind of depicting these wetlands as if they have no value, they’re just a hindrance for our producers,” she said. 

“The reality is that these wetlands have a lot of ecological value. They’re basically the only other sort of water bodies that exist other than the rivers.”

Halvorson said there is plenty of scientific research to show wetlands help retain water in dry years, help prevent flooding, filter things like pesticides and herbicides, recharge groundwater and provide habitat. 

She says the changes put the vast majority of the remaining prairie wetlands at risk — approximately 94 per cent.

Wetland ‘benefits accrue to society’

Wetlands are among the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. They’re home to countless species of birds, bugs and animals. But rapid human development, including agriculture, has ravaged many wetlands.

Globally, experts estimate more than half the world’s wetlands are gone. In Canada, approximately 70 per cent of historic wetlands have been degraded or dried up. Three-quarters of what are known as prairie pothole wetlands have been lost to agricultural developments and some areas have lost 90 per cent of their wetland cover.

Alberta’s changes apply to a broad swath of wetlands classified as “non-permanent.”

“Whether wetlands are large or small, temporary or permanent, they all make a positive difference,” reads Alberta’s landowner guide to wetland policy. 

And they can be a nuisance for farmers trying to operate large machinery and increase crop yields.

“The changes will make it easier for farmers to cultivate, seed, spray, ditch, drain and infill on their own cropland without going through an unnecessary approval process,” the government said in a press release.

These types of wetlands cause “production inefficiencies,” Sarah Weigum, the chair of Alberta British Columbia Seed Growers Association, said in the government’s press release announcing the changes. “By managing these short-lived wet areas and reducing their impacts earlier in the season, it allows farmers to have greater efficiency in the field.” 

Scott, a farmer himself near Camrose, Alta., says working around wetlands is “not fun,” and he can understand some of the frustration for landowners. 

“The challenge here is that the benefits accrue to society, by and large,” he says. “The landowners bear the cost.”

Wetlands do provide agricultural benefits, too: they provide habitat for pollinators, nutrients for crops, pest control and contaminant filtering. They store carbon and help manage water flow during droughts and floods. Healthy wetlands absorb phosphorus and nitrogen, helping manage explosions of algal blooms.

In the past, provincial governments relied heavily on research and consultation to develop policy to protect wetlands, something Scott said this government has turned away from. 

“We do have a policy that I was heavily involved in, in 2013, that involved extensive consultation as well as review of the available science, of which there is a lot,” Scott said. 

“This change is, in my opinion, based on political favour.”

The office of the minister of Environment and Protected Areas and the office of the minister of Agriculture and Irrigation did not respond to questions from The Narwhal by publication time.

Halvorson said another element of the changes may mean wetlands that were established as part of the province’s wetland replacement program, which forced landowners or companies who wanted to destroy a wetland to pay to construct a new wetland in another location, could also now be destroyed without penalty.

“How do we ensure that those wetlands that have been funded to be restored or replaced aren’t now just also at risk of being lost or degraded?” she wonders. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Records from the Alberta Energy Regulator show coal mines struggle to prevent discharges of potentially harmful sediments into waterways, raising questions about impacts on water and wildlife as the Alberta government pushes to open more land to coal mining along the Rockies.

The Narwhal analyzed data from the regulator from the past three years and found there have been 42 incidents since 2023 tied to existing coal mines located in west-central Alberta, along the foothills and eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains. All of those incidents are related to impacts on water. Many of the incidents were related to the release of sediment into nearby lakes and streams, which can be toxic for fish and other aquatic wildlife.

Of the 42 incidents, only six — 14 per cent — resulted in enforcement actions by the provincial regulator.

Going back to 2013, there have been 23 provincial enforcement actions levied against coal mines in the province, with total fines of just under $1.1 million. 

Almost all of the fines were tied to one incident, the Obed mine disaster, which dumped 670 million litres of wastewater into the Athabasca River about an hour east of Jasper, Alta. The mine’s owner was ordered to pay $925,000 in provincial fines (and $3.5 million in federal penalties), and the mine is no longer operating. 

Of the existing mines, Coal Valley, owned by Westmoreland Coal, is tied to the most incidents — 16 in total — in the past three years. The Coal Valley mine, near Hinton, Alta., produces thermal coal, used to create electricity and primarily burned in Japanese factories. But the mine’s owners say numbers alone do not tell the whole story. 

“One should consider the number of reportable events alongside their causes, environmental significance, the company’s monitoring and reporting practices, its co-operation with regulators and the corrective actions taken,” a spokesperson said in response to questions from The Narwhal. “This provides a better context for what is really happening at our mine sites.”

Coal Valley does not produce high levels of selenium

Westmoreland was the only company to respond to questions about regulatory compliance in Alberta. It also invited The Narwhal to tour the Coal Valley mine to provide more context for some of the incidents.

A significant distinction the company was eager to highlight was the fact the coal produced at its mine does not contain high levels of selenium — a claim backed up by independent environmental assessments commissioned by the company and submitted to the regulator. Selenium is a key chemical pollutant concern for most existing and potential mines along the rocky spine of the province. 

Coal mining can produce selenium, which is harmful to human and fish health if it accumulates in high quantities, as well as toxins such as arsenic, a key concern in the ongoing debate about opening new mines in the headwaters that feed rivers, lakes and streams across Alberta, Saskatchewan and into Manitoba. 

Groundwater and surface water assessments submitted to the regulator appear to show most water at Coal Valley is within guidelines for a host of contaminants, including selenium. 

Almost all of the incidents tied to Coal Valley are for exceedances of “total suspended solids” — an overabundance of debris and sediment — including one infraction in April in which the company was almost triple the allowable limit. 

The company said it was hit with heavy snow-melt that overwhelmed its systems. It also said it conducts extensive testing to evaluate potential effects and that those results “remained within applicable regulatory parameters following the event.”

The regulator, in response to questions from The Narwhal, says it will conduct its own testing “when required for enforcement activities.”

Climate change could exacerbate run-off and have significant impacts: retired government scientists

The Alberta government has waffled on its coal policy since first reopening Alberta’s Rocky Mountains to coal mining in 2020, prompting immense public backlash. It has since reinstated the earlier ban, but not before some exploration projects were approved, then it suspended those approvals and finally rescinded those suspensions to allow them to go forward as it prepares a new coal policy — anticipated this fall. A committee sought input from Albertans on a new policy in 2021.

As part of that process, some experts rang alarm bells related to heavy snow-melt akin to that experienced at Coal Valley.

Weather events overwhelming mine infrastructure is something a group of retired provincial government scientists warned about in a submission to Alberta’s coal committee.

“High snowfall run-off and major rainfall events have happened on a regular basis, often causing flows that were well above the levels that regulatory agencies and companies anticipated, included in modelling and for which infrastructure was designed and built,” wrote the five scientists. “This will be exacerbated by climate change making historic rainfall, snowfall and streamflow data increasingly out of date for planning and engineering purposes.”

Those same scientists warn that sediment and the chemicals used to treat waste “can be toxic to fish.” Sediment-laden waterbodies can also impact fish spawning and rearing, as well as aquatic insect production — food for fish. 

Katie Morrison, the executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society in southern Alberta, says there’s a lot of focus on selenium because it has such a big impact and because no mine has ever successfully prevented it from entering waterbodies. 

“I don’t think there’s too much focus on selenium, but I do think the fact that there are many other contaminants that are released is sort of lost in that conversation a little bit,” she says. 

Westmoreland says it “conducts approximately 8,000 surface-water sampling events” each year at 47 different locations around the sprawling mine, as well as groundwater, wetland and biological health monitoring. 

“We also sample 20 additional locations upstream and downstream of the mine and exceed a number of the minimum monitoring requirements contained in approvals,” the company wrote after a tour of the mine site.

Coal Valley is not alone in releasing sediment into Alberta waterways. 

‘Enforcement action may not be required’

In 2023, CST Canada Coal Ltd., which operates the Grande Cache coal mine, released wastewater into the Smoky River for 17 hours and was ultimately fined $10,000 by the provincial regulator for the release and for failure to report it for more than seven hours. 

Again, the issue was total suspended solids, but the regulator makes it clear in its report about the incident that it’s not just a question of murky water. 

The run-off can release harmful chemicals even as it settles, and fine sediment can harm fish through gill abrasion and behavioural changes.

CST was also fined $23,000 in 2024 for dumping mine wastewater into the Smoky River after a sensor malfunctioned when a pond overflowed. The company did not report the incident for five days. 

The same company was fined $20,000 by the regulator in July for another incident in 2024, which dumped at least 1 million kilograms of sediment into Sheep Creek, although the exact quantity is not known. The total suspended solids were 1,920 times the regulatory limit on the day of the release. According to the regulator, the company didn’t report the incident for more than 22 hours and when it did, it withheld important details. 

The causes of the spill included high rainfall and “known drainage problems” at the mine. 

An inspection by the regulator showed “elevated levels of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons” with potential risks to bull trout spawning habitat, although that risk was listed as “unlikely.” 

The Alberta Energy Regulator, in response to questions emailed by The Narwhal, said it takes into account several factors when determining whether to fine a coal company for violations. 

“If the operator is compliant and responsive in early stages to mitigate and address incidents, further action may not be required,” wrote an unnamed spokesperson. “Also, if there is no emergency phase and little or no impact to waterbodies or wildlife, enforcement action may not be required.”

The regulator will issue orders to companies to fix an existing issue or try to mitigate impacts, issue warning letters to force compliance or, as in one case involving the Obed mine disaster, prosecute a company in court. 

“The tools we use depend on the significance of the noncompliance,” the spokesperson wrote. “We keep a record of every company’s compliance and enforcement history. If a company purposely (or repeatedly) fails to follow the rules, our enforcement actions will escalate, and the consequences will become more severe.”

Morrison says it’s not about simply punishing companies for non-compliance. 

“I don’t think we’re saying, ‘Hey, we need to immediately close down the operating mines,’ but we do need to still hold those operating mines to standards,” she says, adding there also has to be a clear path from an incident to enforcement. 

“But I think more than that, we don’t want to just penalize companies for infractions, we want to prevent those things in the first place.”

The chemistry of coal

James C. Hower has been studying coal for more than 50 years and is a research professor at the University of Kentucky. He says there’s a lot to consider when assessing the impact of coal mining on the environment, including the type and grade of coal, as well as individual companies and the regulations in place. 

“We’ve got plenty of examples in the Appalachians of people who have mining companies that, in general, are good operators and seem to be doing things the right way, and then something goes wrong,” he says. 

He cites flooding as a major risk to a well-ordered mine operation. And while he doesn’t study Alberta in particular, he says concerns over water quality are legitimate, particularly for ranchers in the south of the province, where new mines are being proposed. 

A key factor, he says, is ensuring contamination does not get out of control so that reclamation is possible.

“If it’s done wrong in the first place and things get out of hand, you got a big problem,” Hower says.

Land-use planning is supposed to precede new coal policy: conservation advocate

The province is expected to unveil its new coal policy this fall, outlining new rules for where and when a new coal mine can operate. The policy is the outcome of years of on-again off-again restrictions on coal mining in the Rockies, particularly in sensitive areas to the south. 

The policy follows public consultations by a government commission that made numerous recommendations including the need for robust land-use planning, which considers cumulative impacts from other industries and users, ahead of any coal policy that could allow new mines to operate. 

“That hasn’t happened,” Morrison says. “So they are already going ahead with a coal policy without that land-use planning.”

She says the risks to the landscape, the environment and even to coal companies, is too great to allow new mines in the province. 

“It also doesn’t make sense from a company side to say to companies, ‘Yes, you can come and pitch a project here,’ knowing that it’s actually not going to be compatible down the road if our regulatory system was working as it should be.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In July, Lions Bay Search and Rescue responded to a call for help from hikers who had planned their hike of the Howe Sound Crest Trail using Google Maps. The 18-kilometre route they chose was Cypress Mountain to the West Lion peak, then descending to Lions Bay. According to Lions Bay Search and Rescue, the route has “well over 1,300 metres of elevation gain, sustained alpine terrain, route finding, scrambling sections, loose rock and countless ups and downs.”

Translation: it’s a big day out. But Google Maps showed the hikers their trip would take 5 hours and 13 minutes. (Inputting a similar itinerary into Google Maps produced a slightly longer route, and an estimated time of under six hours.) In fact, the hike can be an 8- to 14-hour trip and is often done as a two- or three-day backpacking adventure. The hikers were rescued successfully, but it’s not the first time this sort of incident has occurred. 

“We have this case where AI has given false information, false directions. It’s pulling from unknown sources, and those sources aren’t always correct,” Maria Masiar, search manager for Lions Bay Search and Rescue, tells The Narwhal. “Whether that’s imagery or weather alerts or fire hazards … as an online user, you have to be really prudent.” 

Masiar is also the training officer for Lions Bay Search and Rescue, a role that requires her to run weekly training sessions for team members, everything from medical simulations to helicopter operations. In her eight years of search and rescue, she’s responded to a number of calls that involved bad information.

One rescue was prompted by a group that wanted to write a song about climbing a mountain, and turned to AI for suggestions. “It recommended Mount Unnecessary, which is further along the Howe Sound Crest Trail,” she says, and also a pretty challenging hike for novices. “They get there, and they’re overwhelmed and it ends up precipitating a rescue.”

The trouble with relying on your phone for directions 

The issues with Google Maps directions for the outdoors are nothing new: in 2023, North Shore Rescue told CTV they believed people were regularly getting lost on Mount Fromme due to directions from Google Maps that showed a non-existent trail. By email, John Blown, air operations coordinator for North Shore Rescue, told The Narwhal the trail has since been removed, but not before prompting “quite a few rescues and a near fatality.” Blown says the volume of calls related to Google Maps has stayed fairly consistent, though “thankfully there are no trails in our area that don’t actually exist (anymore).”

The Narwhal reached out to Google to ask whether they are aware of these issues, and if they are making any changes as a result. By email, a spokesperson wrote: “Walking navigation on Google Maps is designed for streets — we calculate [estimated times] based on standard walking speeds and show clear warnings that conditions may vary. We encourage hikers to use trail maps and apps designed specifically for hiking.” 

So why do people rely on these tools? For one thing, they’re at your fingertips: if you enter a hiking route, Google Maps will probably generate one. (You won’t get a disclaimer telling you not to trust it.) 

But using AI also changes the way people think. A recent study by researchers from France and Italy found that “merely having access to AI nearly eliminated participants’ willingness to suspend judgment.” What’s more, even though AI information was incorrect as part of the study design, participants were more confident in their answers. This ignorant bravado is annoying when your friend is quoting ChatGPT at you; it can be downright dangerous when it guides people into the backcountry.

AI isn’t the only tool distorting perceptions of the outdoors. Masiar points to social media as another realm of inaccuracy. “We see a shortcut, oftentimes, on Facebook or Instagram, where people will just show one part of that journey,” she says. “They’ll show the big, beautiful summit with the dramatic views. But that’s not encapsulating what goes into a trip like that, right?” Regardless, many people are inspired by what they see to try to recreate it; just look at the endlessly repeating images of nearly any iconic summit in B.C. 

“People just go in so unprepared into these areas,” Masiar says, “and I do feel like a lot of it is fuelled by validation and these Instagram journeys.” 

Masiar, who has been hiking in one of B.C.’s most popular parks, Joffre Lakes, for 20 years, has seen that Instagram effect first hand. “There’s a lineup of people waiting to walk out onto this log,” she says. “And it’s not just a park-and-go. It’s a real hike. You can twist your ankle. … These are real mountains. There is real wildlife out there.” 

For Lions Bay Search and Rescue, that Instagram trap is Tunnel Bluffs, which Masiar says used to be a place “almost nobody knew about.” Now, thousands of visitors pass through each month, drawn by the picturesque west-facing lookout toward Bowen Island. It’s become, Masiar says, the number-one spot for twisted ankles. “The traffic and the incidents on that trail continue to increase because people want that cool sunset photo.” 

Ultimately, neither social media nor AI can provide what Masiar says is most important: hard-earned wisdom. “This is what I feel like a lot of people are lacking,” Masiar says. “Fitness does not equal judgment and experience.” 

Hiking apps and resources to use over of Google Maps

Masiar recommends BC AdventureSmart, an education project of B.C.’s Search and Rescue Association, to make a trip plan. The Alpine Club of Canada and the B.C. Mountaineering Club also help people access training, mentorship and resources for navigating the outdoors. 

“If people have the means, I always recommend guiding services as well,” she says, particularly if people want to attempt a challenging trail for the first time. “You know they’re going to keep you safe, and that’s something you should definitely consider. Your life is worth it.” 

For maps, she recommends AllTrails, which is regularly updated with current conditions and is accessible for beginners. (Though AllTrails raised concerns among many search-and-rescue teams when the company added a feature for users to customize routes using AI.) 

“If you’re a more advanced user, I’d say Gaia GPS or Outmap are the two really good ones,” she adds. Her search-and-rescue team uses CalTopo, which is geared toward backcountry travel. 

But the most helpful tips come from asking more experienced hikers. Local hiking groups on Facebook or in person are more reliable than Google search results. 

July and August are the busiest months for calls. “We usually have four or five calls in July,” Masiar says, when we speak in late July. “This year we’ve had 10.” Some are from dehydration, when temperatures are high and water is scarce; others are injuries from slipping or falling. “And it’s wasp season,” she adds. 

In other words, there are plenty of natural hazards, which even experienced hikers might not be able to control. AI-generated directions of dubious origin? That’s within even the most beginner hiker’s grasp.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For over a decade, Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 has been the centre of a political and environmental battle in Michigan. The legal conflict included state officials, federal agencies, tribal nations, environmental groups and the Canadian energy company fighting over what the future of the aging pipeline should look like.  

But, in recent weeks, that debate has only become more complicated. 

Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy issued a key environmental permit for a proposed tunnel on July 15, appearing to move the project closer to construction. 

Two weeks later, the construction timeline moved farther away after the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Michigan Public Service Commission did not adequately consider the tunnel’s environmental consequences when giving the project its own permit. The court sent the case back to the commission for further review.

The decision added another layer to a dispute that already involved state and federal courts, multiple government agencies and competing arguments about Michigan’s energy needs, the Great Lakes and tribal Treaty Rights.

“We’re still in a state of limbo,” Mike Shriberg, director of the University of Michigan Water Center, said. “The decisions in the last few weeks, rather than clarify, have probably muddied the waters more and extended the lifetime of the conversation and the decisions about the future of Line 5.”

And on Aug. 12, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a long-desired permit for Enbridge for the construction of the tunnel. The next steps are securing the remaining permits and approvals needed for construction.

A long history

In 1953, Line 5 was built running 1,038 kilometres from Superior, Wisconsin, through Lake Michigan and Sarnia, Ont. Initially, the pipeline’s lifespan was supposed to be around 50 years. Its 50th birthday was 23 years ago. 

Most of the pipe is about 75 centimetres, with the exception of the position beneath the Straits of Mackinac. There, the pipe splits into two 50-centimetre lines that sit on the lake-bed for about seven kilometres.

That section has become the main bearer of controversy, with the central focus being a possible rupture that could release oil into the Great Lakes.

Safety concerns heightened after an approximately two-metre rupture in another Enbridge line, near Marshall, Michigan, in July 2010. The break released more than three million litres of heavy Canadian crude oil into Talmadge Creek and the Kalamazoo River.

In 2018, due to human error, a ship’s anchor hit Line 5 causing minor dents, but no oil was spilled. 

The proposed Great Lakes Tunnel Project would run beneath the lake-bed. Enbridge says the pipeline would sit about 30 metres below the lake-bed, protecting it from ship anchors. 

But the tunnel has yet to be built.

Why the debate is still ongoing

The newly proposed tunnel is only one piece of the larger Line 5 dispute.

In 2019, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel sued Enbridge in hopes of shutting down the existing pipelines in the Mackinac straits. She argued that Enbridge did not have a valid agreement to operate the pipeline under the straits — mainly that Line 5 was violating Michigan environmental laws.

This year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nessel’s lawsuit belongs in state court after Enbridge attempted to move it to federal court.

Separately, a federal judge ruled in December that Michigan could not enforce its 2020 order to shut down Line 5 — saying the federal pipeline safety laws overruled the state’s order. Since then, Michigan has appealed the decision.

The result is a series of overlapping cases moving through different courts.

“I think it’s mostly because the legal system that we have is set up to make it easier to delay than to move forward,” Shriberg said. “It’s pretty easy in our legal system to draw things out, to appeal, to stop things from happening.”

That’s why Line 5’s problems are difficult to summarize in a single legal storyline.

“It’s a complicated array of things going on that’s very hard to explain in a straightforward manner,” Shriberg said.

Enbridge’s case for keeping the pipeline

Through the last decade of controversy, Enbridge has maintained that Line 5 is an important part of the region’s energy infrastructure.

Ryan Duffy, an Enbridge spokesperson, said the pipeline carries light crude oil and natural gas liquids, with about 80 per cent of the products being light crude oil and 20 per cent natural gas liquids.

The company says Line 5 transports as much as 540,000 barrels of product each day, a figure also cited by the Michigan Public Service Commission. The company estimates that Line 5 supplies 65 per cent of propane demand in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and 55 per cent of the state’s overall propane needs.

“A lot of people still heat their homes with propane in [Michigan’s Upper Peninsula],” Duffy said.

Line 5 is “at or near capacity,” Duffy said, adding that the only other pipeline moving product toward Sarnia is Line 78 which is also at or near capacity.

“There is really no viable alternative to transporting the product that Line 5 carries,” Duffy said.

Enbridge’s proposed solution to safety concerns is the tunnel.

According to Duffy, the tunnel was determined to be the best solution for protecting Line 5 in the Straits. He said the project would eliminate the possibility of oil or other products escaping into the Straits. 

Enbridge also points to the pipeline’s operating history. 

The company says the straits crossing has never leaked during more than 65 years of operation and is subject to continuous monitoring and maintenance.

Yet, Line 5 has experienced spills elsewhere along its route. In 2017, a National Wildlife Federation analysis identified 29 known spills, busts and equipment failures along the pipeline since 1968. Between those spills, more than three million litres of oil and natural gas have been released.

Concerns beyond safety

“The tunnel is really the common-sense solution going forward because it both protects the environment and makes sure that the product that people need continues to be delivered safely and reliably and affordably,” Duffy said.

For Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle, located in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, Line 5 is not a question of safety or energy supply.

“For my tribal nation specifically, Line 5 is a threat to our way of life, to our tribal Treaty Rights, to our cultural resources,” Gravelle said.  

Line 5 crosses territory included in the 1836 Treaty of Washington, where tribal nations yielded millions of acres of property to the United States while retaining certain rights, including what the treaty describes as the “usual privileges of occupancy.”

Gravelle said those rights depend on the health of the natural resources around them.

“You can’t have a treaty right to fish without clean water for fish to spawn,” she said. “And you can’t have a treaty right to hunt if you’re cutting down forests and filling wetlands.”

Protecting the Great Lakes is inseparable from protecting the tribe’s culture for Bay Mills. 

“We cannot be Ojibwe, Anishinaabe, without the Great Lakes,” Gravelle said. “Our entire being, our culture, our language is interwoven into the Great Lakes.”

She says the tribe opposes the tunnel because it believes moving Line 5 underground would extend the pipeline’s operation rather than eliminate the threat. 

“We’re only focused on these four miles in the straits without looking at the 645 miles that Line 5 traverses and asking ourselves, 100 years from now, do we still want Line 5 in the state of Michigan?” Gravelle said. “Because that’s what the tunnel would do. It would cement Line 5’s existence for the rest of time.”

Others have raised similar concerns.

Jeffrey Insko, an English professor at Oakland University who writes a newsletter on Line 5, said the tunnel could lock in fossil fuel transportation for decades.

“What the tunnel really means is locking in fossil fuel transport for another 100 years,” Insko said.

For the tunnel, he said he is also concerned about whether the project would adequately protect the Great Lakes from environmental harm during construction.

“We need to be thinking about ways and investing in ways to reduce fossil fuel consumption rather than investing in prolonging the lives of fossil fuel consumption,” Insko said.

How needed is the pipeline?

At the heart of the disagreement is a key question: does Michigan need Line 5?

“The one thing that people haven’t looked into or covered enough is: What’s the need for Line 5?” said Shriberg of the University of Michigan. “There’s extremely good information out there that shows that Line 5 is not needed for use in the U.S.”

Enbridge says it is. Opponents say alternatives exist.

Gravelle said Enbridge should decommission Line 5 and instead use alternatives like using Line 78, which runs through southern Michigan from Indiana to Sarnia. She argues Michigan could continue getting energy supplies without Line 5. 

“This ultimately is about Enbridge’s profits. It’s not about energy infrastructure,” Gravelle said.

Over the years, the state should have used the time to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, she said. 

“What could we have done in those 10 years to actually reduce our reliance on those issues?” Gravelle said. 

Enbridge disputes any claims that there could be other ways to supply what the line holds, saying there are no viable alternatives capable of replacing everything Line 5 currently carries.

What’s next

The immediate future of the Great Lakes tunnel is uncertain.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s July 31 decision requires the Michigan Public Service Commission to revisit its analysis of Enbridge’s tunnel proposal — which includes the environmental impacts that the court said were not adequately considered.

“The Great Lakes tunnel is on sort of an indefinite hold right now,” Shriberg said. “There’s not going to be any dirt moving in the near future.”

Duffy said the decision is disappointing and delays a project the company has spent years planning and permitting.

“We view that as disappointing because that is going to be an additional delay,” Duffy said.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has also issued a federal permit for the tunnel project, adding another approval to the project’s permitting process.

At the same time, the legal battle over whether the existing Line 5 pipelines can continue operating in the Straits remains separate from the tunnel permitting process.

“They’re on separate tracks,” Shriberg said.

The goal remains clear for Enbridge: keep Line 5 in operation and move the straits crossing into an underground tunnel.

After more than seven decades, the pipeline remains in operation. And after years of lawsuits, reviews and political battles, the question of what happens to Line 5 is still unsettled.

“I would not expect any final decisions on a Great Lakes tunnel until 2027 at the earliest,” Shriberg said.

For now, the pipeline continues to carry petroleum through the straits while the courts and regulators decide whether its future lies beneath the water, inside a tunnel, or somewhere else entirely.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A major Canadian oil and gas company reported dozens of incidents at its pipelines after the provincial regulator exempted thousands of its pipelines from normal clean-up timelines. 

According to provincial data reviewed by the Investigative Journalism Foundation and The Narwhal, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., or CNRL, reported 45 incidents since 2020, many of them spills of unspecified amounts of natural gas and other toxic cargo caused by metal corrosion at aging pipelines. 

Those spills came after a 2020 decision from the BC Energy Regulator to exempt roughly 4,300 of the company’s pipelines from the usual requirement that inactive pipelines be fully decommissioned within 18 months. Decommissioning, or deactivating, a pipeline includes removing any fluid and disconnecting it from the system. The sealed-off pipeline will remain in the ground in perpetuity. 

A CNRL spokesperson did not directly respond to a question about whether the spills occurred at pipelines associated with the exemption. Neither did the BC Energy Regulator.

Most of the pipelines operated by CNRL are short, transporting fracked natural gas and other fuels from wells scattered across northeastern B.C. to larger pipelines which carry the products to consumers or exporters. But even after those wells have run dry, the pipelines associated with them can still leak leftover contaminants into the local environment.  

“If it’s not properly [decommissioned] after its end of life, you have a substantial risk of groundwater contamination,” Philip Gass, a director of the energy program at the Ottawa-based International Institute for Sustainable Development, said in an interview. 

Gass said such spills might go unnoticed.

“If it’s been sitting there for a long time, you have to be really careful about the monitoring because this isn’t an active pipeline where you would notice a spill right away,” Gass said.The BC Energy Regulator reports for the CNRL incidents include leaks of natural gas, liquid hydrocarbons and produced water — a byproduct of oil and gas extraction that often contains heavy metals and hydrocarbons. Of the 45 reported instances, 23 were due to metal loss, often internal corrosion that allowed toxic fluids to escape.The regulator said incidents don’t automatically mean spills, since they can also include “incidents with the potential to affect pipeline integrity.” But many of the CNRL incident reports explicitly indicate that they resulted in spills or pipeline failure.

The regulator did not say how much of each fluid leaked into the surrounding environment or if there was any ecological damage associated with those spills.

Critics argue the spills are further evidence the regulator erred in giving CNRL such a broad exemption, which they called a sign of the undue influence the oil and gas industry has on provincial regulators. 

“It doesn’t give us a lot of faith that the regulatory system is operating as it should,” BC Green Party MLA Jeremy Valeriote said. 

‘No impact to the environment’: CNRL

For comparison, in the six years prior to 2020, CNRL reported 25 incidents at its pipelines, 17 of which were due to metal loss. 

A CNRL spokesperson said the company operates 14,896 kilometres of pipelines in B.C. and that spills are dealt with properly and promptly. 

“Clean-up and remediation activities were completed, resulting in no impact to the environment,” the spokesperson said of the 45 incidents since 2020. “When events occur, such as equipment malfunction that results in an incident, we have safety and environmental management systems in place to quickly manage these events. To mitigate any impacts, incidents are quickly and effectively managed in accordance with our structured emergency management and spill preparedness programs.”

Daryl Foley, president of Group 10 Engineering, said producers like CNRL work hard to minimize incidents.

“Their intention is to do the right thing and to prevent spills because it costs them an enormous amount of money when they have a substantial spill,” he said in an interview. Foley’s Calgary-based company works with companies and producers on pipeline integrity issues and advises the Alberta and B.C. regulators on best practices. “I’m not claiming that everybody’s perfect — if perhaps they’re ignoring it and there is a residual risk of environmental impact, well, they need to pull up their socks and get after it and prioritize based on where the highest risks are.”

Foley said corrosion affecting pipelines has been an issue for decades, but fracking can exacerbate the problem.

“The challenges are real,” he said. “Northeast B.C. in particular, they’re fracking these wells to try to enhance production. The challenge is after fracking, they’ve run into issues where they can get some of these frac solids, and some of them can be really aggressive sulphur compounds.”

Frac solids are a mixture of silica sand, water and chemicals used in fracking to extract oil or gas trapped in underground rock formations. Those mixtures, if not properly removed from sections of pipeline that move material from wells to larger, safer transportation pipelines, can damage the metal and cause leaks or spills. Foley said any pipelines with potential or identified corrosion issues associated with active wells should be prioritized.

“Are these wells known to have been discontinued properly?” he wondered. “That’s really what they should be checking in on and making sure of. Any that hasn’t been discontinued properly, that needs to be dealt with immediately.”

CNRL pipelines exempt from clean-up timelines

The BC Energy Regulator said a 2020 audit identified thousands of CNRL pipelines that were either inactive or soon would be. The regulator said that’s what prompted it to strike a deal with the company, one of the largest oil and gas producers in the country.Under that deal — which was not publicly disclosed at the time — the regulator agreed to exempt thousands of CNRL pipelines from normal clean-up timelines in exchange for the company committing to deactivate all of them by 2028, with targets to meet every year until then. 

The regulator later found in 2023 that the company was not meeting those commitments, but reinstated the deal without penalizing CNRL.

A regulator spokesperson said the deal was “the most effective way to bring CNRL into compliance” and claimed the agreement “was not a removal of oversight.” 

As of this month, the regulator said only 474 pipelines remain to be deactivated out of an original total of 4,312.

“As such, CNRL continues to meet and exceed the required deactivation targets set out in the conditions of the exemption,” the spokesperson said.

Drew Yewchuk, an environmental lawyer and PhD student at the University of British Columbia, said it’s not clear what the regulator or the public gained from the deal with CNRL. 

“The regulator is getting less than what the legal requirements are, and the company only has to do less than what was the legal requirement. So what is the regulator getting from these deals?” Yewchuk said.

He said oil companies often argue meeting regulatory requirements would endanger their operations, putting pressure on politicians to intervene.

“They don’t want to cause job losses, and that’s the threat that companies always have in the background,” Yewchuk said. “They say, ‘Look, if you force us to invest too much here, we’re going to move out of this jurisdiction.’ ” 

But he said CNRL isn’t a struggling company. The Calgary-based company reported net earnings of $10.8 billion in 2025.

“CNRL is not out of money,” Yewchuk said. 

Regulator ‘way too tied to industry’

Gass said oil and gas remediation can become a public responsibility if the operating company goes bankrupt. Some provinces, including B.C. and Alberta, charge oil and gas companies an annual levy to clean and shut down so-called “orphan wells” left by defunct firms.

But if the company is still active and profitable, the regulator’s role should be to enforce the rules, Gass said.

“In an ideal situation you have a regulatory regime that assures the accountability and has the enforceability to level penalties for actors that don’t do the remediation as needed,” Gass said. 

The BC Energy Regulator, like other regulators in Canada, is funded by an annual levy charged to oil and gas companies.

While proponents argue an industry-funded regulator is sustainable, critics like the Green Party’s Valeriote argue it creates a dependence that gives energy companies undue leverage in negotiations.

Valeriote said granting exemptions like the one given to CNRL is unfair to other companies following the rules and is “erosive to the regulator’s reputation.”

“I think there’s probably a cultural and systemic issue there and that they’re way too tied to the industry,” Valeriote said. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Starting next month, Ontario hunters will have a shot at sandhill cranes — for the first time in a century.

The long-legged, grey birds with a nearly two-metre wingspan are widespread across Ontario from the Great Lakes as far north as southern James Bay — nesting in wetlands and swampy areas after migrating up from the southern United States and Mexico in the spring.

Mark Peck recalls waking up at 4 a.m. to see thousands of sandhill cranes fly over the banks of the Platte River in Nebraska, where 80 per cent of the species migrate to rest and eat before flying back south for the winter. 

Like Peck, many of them travel from Canada, while others make the journey from Alaska and Siberia.

“It was an incredible experience. … There were about 10,000 sandhill cranes, all on the river,” Peck, president of Ontario Field Ornithologists, said. “As the sun was coming up, the birds were slowly leaving, but they were dancing and bugling, and it was just an awesome experience. … I think it would be hard to hunt after witnessing that.”

Sandhill cranes have a distinct, rattling bugle call that can be heard up to four kilometres away. To Peck, it’s akin to the call of a common loon or the howl of a wolf, a “beautiful sound of nature.” Their distinctive mating dance — wings flapping, beak pecking and legs strutting — have been widely captured and shared online.

While birders love them, sandhill cranes have a long and complex history in Ontario. 

In the early 20th century, the species was hunted to near-extirpation in the province, meaning they were almost locally extinct. In the last few decades, thanks to increased protection from unregulated hunting and more sources of food from agriculture, they have surpassed population expectations. To some, this is a huge success.

“It really is a wonderful, good news story,” Peck said. “They’ve made a remarkable comeback. I’m 67. When I was growing up, it was unusual to see a sandhill crane in southern Ontario. Now, they breed across the province.”

Not everyone sees it as good news, though. Farmers in Algoma, Timmins and as far as Thunder Bay have advocated for an open hunting season in northern Ontario. They say sandhill cranes have caused extensive damage to their crops, wreaking havoc in the spring by pulling up freshly planted seedlings, and again in the fall before harvest.

“It is very discouraging to certain farmers that they’re planting their spring crops, and these birds are coming in and just annihilating it,” Bill Groenheide, Northern Ontario director of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, said. “Farmers are having an increase of up to 30 per cent loss in their crops.”

Birgit Martin, who farms on Manitoulin Island, told Ontario Grain Farmer Magazine she has had to replant 25 per cent of her corn acres due to sandhill crane damage. 

Sandhill cranes are omnivores and eat a wide variety of food including insects, plant roots, small animals like rodents and frogs, berries, seeds and even other small birds. But when they find themselves in agricultural areas during the fall migration, the crops hit the hardest are corn, soybeans and potatoes, Groenheide said — some of the most common, and profitable, crops for Ontario farmers.

“When so many birds come into one area and totally destroy your livelihood, there’s got to be compensation somewhere,” Groenheide said. The province’s wildlife damage compensation program focuses on livestock, and doesn’t cover crop losses to migratory birds. “There’s got to be something done about it.”

Ontario sandhill crane hunt allows for one bird per hunter per day

Ontario farmers have been asking the government to open a hunt for years. Environment and Climate Change Canada assessed the status of sandhill cranes earlier this year and found that a “conservative” hunt would have a “minimal impact” on the population of sandhill cranes — which is currently more than 103,000 strong, and considered to have a large, increasing population size. It proposed a hunt running for 14 days, with a “small bag limit” of one bird per day that will allow the federal government to carefully monitor the harvest in the first four years of implementation.

While Ontario’s Ministry of Natural Resources determines harvesting regulations for most wildlife in the province, the federal environment department oversees migratory birds, like sandhill cranes.

Environment and Climate Change Canada’s population objective for the cranes sits between 30,000 and 60,000, and explains on its website that a “managed harvest” could slow or stabilize population growth and potentially minimize crop damage.

The federal agency told The Narwhal in an email that the primary goal of this open season is to provide additional hunting opportunity, adding that “while the intent of the season is not to significantly decrease the sandhill crane population in Ontario and Quebec,” the season may also provide “some direct relief of conflicts.” They also said there may be some indirect reduction of conflicts as hunted sandhill cranes may respond better to scare techniques used by farmers to protect their crops, such as propane cannons that make loud noises.

“Obviously that’s great from a recovery perspective … that this population was able to rebound to that extent,” Matthew Robbins, a fish and wildlife biologist at Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, said. “It also means that, based on the modelling that exists, they can certainly handle some sustainable use.” 

The current hunt will allow Canadian residents to hunt one sandhill crane per person per day in the area around Hudson and James Bay, from Sept. 1 through 14, and on farmland only in other parts of northern and central Ontario including Algoma, Nipissing and Temiskaming, on Sept. 12 through 25. A similarly limited hunt is being opened in Quebec this September as well. 

This new season creates opportunity for hunters and gourmets — sandhill cranes are known to some as “ribeye of the sky” for their rich, red meat — that the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters says is appropriately limited to start.

“The proposal is a very conservative approach,” Robbins said. He doesn’t anticipate a significant hit to the population as a result of the hunt, but says slowing the population growth by some amount may help those farm conflicts.

“It would be worth exploring expanding it in some capacity as long as we can ensure that that’s going to be sustainable,” Robbins said. “From a conservation perspective, it definitely makes sense to start this off from a fairly cautious position, and then go from there.”

Peck is also optimistic about the conservative nature of the hunt’s parameters. But conservation organizations like Ontario Nature have argued reinstating a sandhill crane hunt is a “controversial and concerning proposal.” The birds can live up to 30 years in the wild, meaning they take a long time to mature, while very few of their young survive to adulthood. This makes it more difficult for populations to replenish quickly if adults are killed off.  

The federal government said it received opposing comments from an animal welfare organization, ornithology and naturalist groups, birdwatchers, an unnamed First Nation and individuals during the public comment period last winter.

Environment and Climate Change Canada says on its website that the current strategy accounts for sandhill crane life history and low productivity by allowing only a very limited harvest. It argues the “daily bag limit is intentionally set below” the level the population can sustainably support, and that the population is still expected to grow, though more slowly than if there were no hunt.

At the same time, Groenheide from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture worries the plan for the hunt is not enough to protect farmers, but Environment and Climate Change Canada told The Narwhal it does not anticipate making changes to the proposed harvest framework until the end of the 2029-30 hunting season.

“In Canada, they want to regulate it because they want to drop the amount of birds [killed], and I do understand that,” Groenheide said. “But on the flip side, how do we protect the farmers?”

Farmers organization wants higher sandhill crane harvest and in more areas

In early 2024, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture released a statement recommending Environment and Climate Change Canada alter its plans. The organization wants farmers to be allowed to defend their crops from sandhill cranes at any point during the year, as well as increased hunting limits, more hunting areas and an earlier season. 

While changes have not been reflected in the final regulations, Groenheide said this year’s hunt is a good first step.

“It’s great to see these birds in great numbers. Don’t get me wrong,” Groenheide said. “But there has to be a playing field. Farmers are out there and the value of their crops is in big demand. There’s a lot of money put into this. They’re losing it all. They’re getting nothing for it. So there has to be a trade-off somewhere.”

He said the way this species is managed represents part of a larger picture related to expanding agriculture in northern Ontario, proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness in April 2026.

“We have ministers now wanting to expand the north, wanting the great clay belt to be opened up and all that,” Groenheide said. “I always call it the great frontier of the north.”

“It’s great land,” Groenheide said, but farming new areas comes with new challenges. Wildlife like deer, bear, moose and elk can conflict with agriculture as farming expands northward, he said.

“It’s their territory, so how do we work around it? How do we compensate farmers if we are inviting them out there?” Groenheide said. “There’s got to be a plan.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

On Aug. 6, with much of southern B.C. blanketed in wildfire smoke, Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix kicked off a Campbell River press conference by thanking wildfire fighters and the BC Hydro employees working to address infrastructure damaged by the flames.

“The impact of climate change and the impact of wildfires presents challenges to BC Hydro,” Dix acknowledged, adding wildfires had knocked out power for about 24,000 B.C. homes over the previous week.

A few days prior to the minister’s announcement, wildfires near the central B.C. communities of Clinton and Vernon had destroyed hundreds of homes and prompted evacuation orders affecting about 8,000 people.

But Dix wasn’t on Vancouver Island to talk about the wildfires. He was there to announce the purchase of Island Generation, a 275-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant, by BC Hydro. Despite a mandate that all electricity generated in B.C. come from renewable sources by 2030, BC Hydro now says it needs to continue getting electricity from gas to meet an anticipated surge in power demand over the next few years: a 20 per cent increase by 2030 and a 50 per cent increase by 2050.

That surge in demand is driven largely by mining and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, as well as increasing numbers of electric vehicles and heat pumps in B.C. homes.

Keeping gas in BC Hydro’s generation mix will allow the provincial power utility to focus on developing more renewable energy sources, Dix argued.

“It’s better to continue to build out clean electricity and to ensure that resources like Island Generation stay in B.C. and support the system,” he said, calling climate action “essential” to B.C.’s environmental, economic, social and cultural well-being.“Surely things like our own wildfires, and then witnessing what’s happened, for example, in France, in Spain, in other parts of the world, demonstrate this,” he said.

The day after the Campbell River announcement, the Bald Ridge fire ignited near Summerland in southern B.C., leading to the evacuation of more than 20,000 people. On Aug. 8, Premier David Eby declared a provincial state of emergency due to the wildfires. B.C. is now in its third state of emergency in five years, including those prompted by the November 2021 atmospheric river and the extreme wildfires of 2023.

“Climate scientists have connected the dots to all three of those emergencies and been able to identify that climate change made them both more likely and more extreme,” Dan Woynillowicz, a climate policy expert and principal with Polaris Strategy + Insight, said after watching Eby declare a state of emergency. “And neither the premier nor either of his ministers made even passing reference to climate change in that whole press conference.”

Some might say that connecting the “explosive and extremely dangerous” conditions driving this year’s wildfires to climate change is in poor taste while people are being displaced and losing their homes, but Woynillowicz takes a different view. 

“I think British Columbians are sophisticated enough to be able to hear those different messages,” he said. “What we need to continue to do to better prepare and adapt to a world in which we are going to be experiencing this with greater frequency and greater extremity, but also what we need to do to prevent even worse impacts in the future by reducing our combustion of fossil fuels that are that are creating the problem and making it worse.”

Failure to plan for future electricity demand makes Island Generation purchase an ‘unfortunate necessity’

Gas isn’t a big part of BC Hydro’s electricity generation, about 2.5 per cent. The emissions reduction from BC Hydro ditching gas would not be huge, and there are arguments for keeping facilities like Island Generation online as energy demands grow across B.C.Island Generation is what’s known as a peaker plant, mostly called on to generate power at times of peak demand like hot summer days and cold winter nights. Over the past five years, it’s been running for about five days per year and BC Hydro expects that will continue. 

The plant can create enough electricity to power about 125,000 homes — about one-quarter of all the electricity that can be produced on Vancouver Island, making it an important local asset.Evan Pivnick, associate director of public affairs for Clean Energy Canada, called the Island Generation purchase an unfortunate necessity — one that shows BC Hydro’s planning has not kept pace with the growing electricity demand it faces.

“This needs to be an opportunity to learn from those mistakes, so that we truly look at natural gas as an option of last resort, not as something that plays a growing role in our electricity systems,” he said. 

B.C. is set to achieve just half of its legislated target of reducing emissions by 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030, according to the most recent climate accountability report. 

“Rather than closing the gap to the 2030 target year after year, we’ve been getting further away from it,” Kathryn Harrison, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia who studies climate and energy policy, told The Narwhal.

“Since that report was published [in 2025], the B.C. government has weakened some climate policies and, as far as I can tell, abandoned others,” she added, citing B.C.’s discarded pledges to develop an oil and gas emissions cap and reduce medium- and heavy- truck emissions, as well as the elimination of the consumer carbon tax.

Electrification — replacing fossil fuel power sources with electricity — is central to almost all of B.C.’s emissions reduction goals. But as B.C. fast-tracks energy-intensive resource projects, BC Hydro has yet to figure out how and when it would have those resources ready to supply them with power. 

“There was no accompanying electricity strategy,” Pivnick said. “There was a disconnect where the ambitions around electrifying industry, electrifying households, never translated into what does this mean for our electricity system and how do we think about the buildout of the supply that’s required?”

Even the 50 per cent increase in electricity demand by 2030 that BC Hydro is currently working to meet is likely a conservative estimate. Woynillowicz noted the federal government’s electricity strategy projects a doubling in electricity demand across Canada by 2030.

“BC Hydro has continued planning for, relatively speaking, a lower-growth future, and I think that is now coming back to bite,” Woynillowicz said.He wondered whether a more proactive planning approach could have allowed BC Hydro to develop renewable resources and avoid continuing to rely on Island Generation. Despite launching the CleanBC program in 2018 and investing $3.5 billion in its efforts to cut greenhouse gases, B.C. has not been successful at reducing emissions in the province and has admitted the program’s goals are no longer “accurate or workable.”   

“Hindsight is 20/20, but I think it raises questions,” he said. “Between BC Hydro and the government, was planning happening in the way that it needed to be? I would say that no, it wasn’t. That there was fundamentally a disconnect between CleanBC and the future that BC Hydro was planning for.”

LNG ambitions could lead to electricity crunch and higher gas prices

The pressing need for power that B.C. faces is relatively new. Before the NDP government committed to completing the Site C dam, some experts estimated the province would not need the 1,100 megawatts the dam can produce for a decade or more after it began operating. There were also those who argued renewable power sources would be a better bang for the B.C. government’s buck.

But just electrifying all proposed LNG terminals in B.C. — something the government has made a condition for those projects to proceed — and some of the gas infrastructure to supply them would take 40,000 gigawatts per year. That’s 7.5 times the capacity of Site C, as noted in the CleanBC review co-authored by Woynillowicz and fellow climate expert Merran Smith.

Electrification is key to the main marketing slogan for B.C.’s LNG, as Premier Eby emphasized during a recent press conference.

“Our LNG is the lowest carbon in the world because it is electrified as much as possible throughout the chain [and] because we have high standards around methane leakage and emissions,” he said. 

“We take climate change very seriously, but we also recognize that B.C. can play a role in driving down carbon pollution around the world.”

But the massive electricity demand for LNG could put B.C.’s electrification and emission reduction goals in peril.

“If we don’t have enough electricity to power LNG and potentially also electric vehicles and home electrification and other industries, we will end up either not pursuing those projects or increasing our emissions,” Harrison said. 

She also pointed out that B.C.’s most recent emission projections don’t include some of the LNG projects the provincial government has been pushing hard to see built: LNG Canada Phase 2 and Ksi Lisims. If those facilities fire up, it will add “many millions of tonnes difference” to how realistic the province’s emissions reduction goals are.

The economic opportunities offered by becoming a global LNG supplier are real, Pivnick said, but they may not outweigh the downsides.

“The world would be very happy to see Canada and B.C. invest in more and more fossil fuel projects that ensure there’s a secure supplier available to purchase from as they go through their own transitions, but that’s Canada and B.C. choosing to invest as essentially a shock absorber for a world that’s trying to move away from our goods,” he said.

A robust LNG industry will also mean much higher demand for natural gas in B.C. The province’s 2026 budget banks on a doubling of natural gas prices. That could be bad news for affordability in B.C. down the road, given natural gas accounts for about 31 per cent of all energy used in the province, while electricity accounts for about 18 per cent.

“Whether we’re talking about burning natural gas in our homes or burning natural gas for electricity, continuing to have that reliance at the same time that we’re actively trying to secure higher prices, [that is] good for the oil and gas sector, good for the province in terms of royalties, but it’s actually pretty lousy for British Columbians from an affordability perspective,” Woynillowicz said.

Back in April, Dix told the legislature Island Generation had been having trouble with its gas supply, an issue he attributed to demand from the Woodfibre LNG project in Squamish. In July, The Narwhal’s questions to the Energy Ministry, Island Generation and Woodfibre LNG about the supposed supply issue mostly went unanswered.

At the Aug. 6 announcement, Dix said he is confident Island Generation will be able to get the gas it needs, but offered no further information.

Concern for climate change has spiked as wildfire smoke spreads, creating an opportunity for conversation

A very dim silver lining to the summer’s wildfires is that they seem to have put climate change back on many Canadians’ radar. A recent Angus Reid poll found 21 per cent of Canadians put climate change as their top concern, up from 14 per cent in March. In B.C., 25 per cent of respondents said climate change was their top concern, putting the issue in third place behind cost of living and healthcare.

That’s a notable shift from the past few years, when climate change has consistently polled low as a priority for many Canadians. But just because people aren’t telling pollsters climate change is a top concern doesn’t mean they aren’t worried about the impacts of a warming world, Harrison argued.

“I don’t think it is the case that that means people are willing to sacrifice their safety from wildfires, their children’s health from breathing smoke, their elderly parents’ safety in extreme heat in exchange for a lower cost of living today,” she said. “They’re just not connecting those dots.”

That lack of connection isn’t helped, she said, by politicians who claim they take climate change seriously while continuing to support fossil fuel development and failing to address emissions effectively.

“Politicians are reassuring people, ‘Don’t worry, we’ve got the whole climate change thing in hand,’ and people at the same time are worried about the economy,” she said.

Instead of offering reassurances that things will be okay, Woynillowicz wishes politicians would communicate what they are doing to directly and effectively address climate change.

“One of the messages we’re hearing from government is that they’ve got our backs,” he said. 

“I would feel more comfortable that they’ve got my back and my kids’ backs if I knew that … they are actually being proactive, both in terms of helping make us more resilient to future impacts that we know are coming — but also what they’re doing to prevent even worse impacts in the future by doing more to reduce the pollution that’s causing the problem.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.