EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 1/9/26

PIPELINE NEWS

• KCCI: Iowa Senate Republicans float new carbon pipeline plan as property rights debate returns

• E&E News: Army Corps to offer streamlined water permits for data centers

• CT Mirror: Save the Sound, Brookfield want pipeline expansion approval blocked

• KCLU: Company faces new hurdle in controversial efforts to restart ruptured Santa Barbara County pipeline

WASHINGTON UPDATES

• ABC News: Senate advances war powers resolution to rein in Trump on Venezuela

• Common Dreams: Watchdog Demands to Know If Trump Admin Colluded With Big Oil in Lead-Up to Venezuela Attack.

• E&E News: Congress wants oversight of Venezuelan oil revenues

• Press release: IPCC Statement on the US announcement to withdraw from participation in IPCC

• E&E News: The IPCC said humans cause climate change. Is that why Trump quit it?

• E&E News: Senate Republicans shrug off Trump UN climate withdrawals

• Heatmap: Can Trump Exit a Senate-Approved Treaty? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.

• Politico: Inside the White House obsession with reducing energy prices

STATE UPDATES

• E&E News: Trump’s energy push faces a long road in Alaska

• Monterey County Now: People’s hearing in Monterey to oppose federal offshore drilling plan.

• Houston Chronicle: Solar supplied more power than coal to the ERCOT grid in 2025 for the first year ever, data shows

EXTRACTION

• Reuters: Chevron in talks with US government for expanded Venezuela license, sources say

• E&E News: Trump’s Venezuelan oil grab is bad for the climate — but the emissions math is uncertain

• Bloomberg: Trump’s Venezuela oil grab pushes Chinese refiners to Canada

• Lloyd’s List: It takes a lot of CO2 to capture CO2

• Insurance Business: The costly gaps threatening carbon capture and storage projects’ tax credits and compliance

• Harvard Media: Mikisew Cree First Nation to co host conference on oil sands tailings and water protection

OPINION

• Financial Post: Trudeau’s departure hasn’t made pipeline projects risk-free
  

PIPELINE NEWS

KCCI: Iowa Senate Republicans float new carbon pipeline plan as property rights debate returns
Amanda Rooker, 1/8/26

“One of the most divisive issues at the Iowa Statehouse is back as state lawmakers prepare to start the 2026 legislative session,” KCCI reports. “…The debate centers on eminent domain and property rights and is closely tied to proposed carbon capture pipelines… “Republican Senate Majority Leader Mike Klimesh told KCCI he is working on a proposal he believes could reduce the need for eminent domain altogether… “Klimesh’s proposal would widen the corridor pipeline companies are allowed to use, giving them more flexibility to route projects around landowners who do not want a pipeline on their property. Under current Iowa law, pipeline companies must stick to a narrow, approved route. If a landowner along that route refuses to grant an easement, companies have few options and may turn to eminent domain. Klimesh argues his approach respects property rights on both sides… “Klimesh’s proposal would not directly ban the use of eminent domain, and that could be a sticking point in the House. House Speaker Pat Grassley told KCCI protecting property rights will be the driving force for House Republicans this session. “I think you’ll see something from the House that’s a little more targeted and more centered just around the eminent domain, property rights issue,” Grassley told KCCI… “We believe that we can come up with a plan that is going to protect property rights for the property owners,” House Minority Leader Brian Meyer told KCCI. “But we also recognize that rural Iowa and agriculture need to kind of expand the market for ethanol.”

E&E News: Army Corps to offer streamlined water permits for data centers
Miranda Willson, 1/7/26

“The Trump administration on Wednesday renewed a streamlined permit program for oil pipelines, highways and other projects that disturb wetlands and streams, while making data centers eligible as well,” E&E News reports. “The Army Corps of Engineers finalized for the next five years its nationwide permit program, which allows infrastructure purported to have minimal adverse effects on water quality to get faster approvals under the Clean Water Act… “In recent years, the Army Corps has allowed large oil and gas pipelines to qualify for nationwide permits, rather than go through a more expansive Clean Water Act review process, so long as each individual pipeline segment would impact no more than half an acre of water or wetland… “Environmentalists have opposed opening up data centers to nationwide permits, on the grounds that the facilities can have a range of environmental impacts depending on their size, location and design. The data center industry, meanwhile, maintains that most data centers have few effects on wetlands and are built on previously developed lands.”

CT Mirror: Save the Sound, Brookfield want pipeline expansion approval blocked
John Moritz, 1/8/26

“Opponents of a proposed natural gas expansion project in the town of Brookfield filed a legal appeal on Wednesday to block the state’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection from issuing a final permit to the project’s developers, the Iroquois Gas Transmission System,” CT Mirror reports. “The move came in a lawsuit alleging procedural errors by DEEP regarding the type of hearing that was scheduled this week for opponents to raise concerns about the project. It was also part of a larger campaign to stop Iroquois from expanding its existing compressor station in Brookfield, which will in turn allow the company to push more gas through its 414-mile pipeline. In July, DEEP issued draft permits indicating its support for the project. In response to that decision, the town of Brookfield and the environmental group Save the Sound requested that DEEP hold an adjudicatory hearing that would give both parties an opportunity to challenge the permits under Connecticut’s Environmental Protection Act. Chiefly, they presented concerns that the new gas-fired compressors would release large amounts of pollutants and greenhouse gases, worsening local air quality… “An informational public hearing is still important, and we still encourage everyone with concerns to show up,” Jessica Roberts, an attorney for Save the Sound, told the Mirror. “That being said, it does not provide the same rights that an adjudicatory hearing provides.” While the lawsuit remains pending, the plaintiffs filed a motion on Wednesday for an injunction that would temporarily halt DEEP’s review of the permits for the new compressors.”

KCLU: Company faces new hurdle in controversial efforts to restart ruptured Santa Barbara County pipeline
Lance Orozco, 1/8/26

“A new state law may add another layer of review before an oil company can restart a Santa Barbara County pipeline that ruptured in 2015,” KCLU reports. “The law, which took effect on January 1, requires Sable Offshore Corporation to obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the State Coastal Commission. Getting the permit could take years and require new studies and a public review… “Late last year, a federal agency that oversees pipeline safety ruled that the repaired pipeline could be reactivated. Opponents are challenging the decision in court, saying that the required environmental reviews weren’t conducted. In a hearing related to another lawsuit on Wednesday, Sable attorneys said the pipeline system hasn’t been restarted.”

WASHINGTON UPDATES

ABC News: Senate advances war powers resolution to rein in Trump on Venezuela
Allison Pecorin, 1/8/26

“In a rare rebuke to the Trump administration, the Senate on Thursday advanced a war powers resolution that would block the president’s use of the U.S. armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress,” ABC News reports. “A small group of Senate Republicans joined with all Democrats to narrowly advance the resolution by a vote of 52-47. It needed 51 votes to move forward. The legislation, if ultimately approved by the Senate, would still need to be approved by the House and signed by the president. The bill did not pass the Senate with a veto-proof majority and it is unlikely that Trump would sign it into law. In order to override a presidential veto, Congress would need the support of two-thirds of the House and the Senate. Republican Sens. Rand Paul, Lisa Murkowski, Todd Young, Susan Collins and Josh Hawley voted with all Democrats in favor of the legislation… “After the vote, Trump called out the GOP senators who voted for the resolution, saying in a social media post that they “should be ashamed” and “never be elected to office again.” “This Vote greatly hampers American Self Defense and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump posted.

Common Dreams: Watchdog Demands to Know If Trump Admin Colluded With Big Oil in Lead-Up to Venezuela Attack.
Stephen Prager, 1/7/26

“A legal watchdog group is demanding information about the extent to which the Trump administration planned its attack on Venezuela last weekend with American oil companies, which are expected to profit royally from the takeover of the South American nation’s oil reserves,” Common Dreams reports. “The group Democracy Forward filed a series of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on Monday seeking records and information about the role of US oil companies in the planning of the attack, which killed an estimated 75 people and led to the US military’s abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and his wife. President Donald Trump did not inform Congress of the operation, which is required under the War Powers Act of 1973, but he told reporters on Sunday that he’d tipped off oil company executives both “before and after” the strike… “Democracy Forward has requested information about communications between senior officials at the US departments of Energy and the Interior and executives at top oil companies, including Chevron, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips, prior to the attack. This includes emails, attachments, and calendar invitations exchanged since December 2025. The group has said it will seek to determine whether these companies were given “privileged access or influence” over the administration’s policy toward Venezuela. “The president couldn’t find time to brief members of Congress before kidnapping a foreign head of state, but appears to have prioritized discussions with Big Oil. When government actions tied to foreign resources are preceded and followed by closed-door meetings with the world’s largest oil companies, transparency is not optional—it is essential,” said Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward. “The public deserves to know what interests are shaping decisions that have enormous consequences for global energy markets and democratic accountability.”

E&E News: Congress wants oversight of Venezuelan oil revenues
Josh Siegel, 1/7/26

“Congressional lawmakers from both parties are signaling that despite President Donald Trump’s assertion that he will control the money gained from selling Venezuelan oil turned over to the United States, they’ll want to check the books,” E&E News reports. “Democrats said they were appalled by the Trump administration’s plans to sell Venezuelan oil ‘indefinitely’ and control the revenue, suggesting it would amount to a takeover of the country’s fledgling oil industry… “Republicans expressed tepid support for the plan, and though they projected confidence in Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s ability to manage the funds, they demanded some oversight over how the money would be spent… “Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said the U.S. controlling oil revenues would provide important ‘leverage’ over Venezuela’s government, given the fragile state of its economy.”

Press release: IPCC Statement on the US announcement to withdraw from participation in IPCC
1/8/26

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has taken note of the US government’s announcement about its withdrawal from more than 60 UN and non-UN organisations, including the IPCC. The IPCC is an organisation consisting of governments that are members of the United Nations or the World Meteorological Organisation. As such, and in line with the principles governing IPCC’s work, participation in the work and processes of the IPCC is voluntary, free and open to all WMO and UN Member countries – with or without a formal announcement. “The preparation of the scientific reports agreed by the member governments for this assessment cycle is underway. The Panel continues to make decisions by consensus among its member governments at its regular Plenary sessions. Our attention remains firmly on the delivery of these reports,” said IPCC Chair Jim Skea… “The IPCC is the longest-standing intergovernmental panel. It has a unique capacity to assess and synthesise the vast and exponentially growing body of scientific knowledge on climate change, its impacts, and available responses.”

E&E News: The IPCC said humans cause climate change. Is that why Trump quit it?
Chelsea Harvey, Sara Schonhardt, 1/9/26

“When the White House announced Wednesday that it would withdraw from dozens of international organizations, tucked in among them was the world’s leading authority on climate science — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” E&E News reports. “The organization produces the most pivotal assessments about the impacts of rising temperatures, what’s causing them to climb upward, and the risks of failing to curb climate pollution. Governments use the highly detailed assessments to help shape their responses to global warming. In quitting the IPCC, as it’s known, President Donald Trump is signaling that those effects are unimportant, climate scientists say. “This is a move that is symbolizing something that the administration has been trying to make clear in many ways over the last year,” Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University and a lead author on the IPCC’s most recent assessment report, told E&E. The organization was among the world’s first scientific bodies to warn that human activities like driving and heating homes were causing temperatures to rise worldwide… “Leaving the IPCC cements what’s already happening under the Trump administration — the rejection of the effects of climate change on American society… “The future of the National Climate Assessment is also murky. The Trump administration in April dismissed hundreds of scientists working on the next report. Since then, the administration has invited several climate contrarians to write the next installment.”

E&E News: Senate Republicans shrug off Trump UN climate withdrawals
Amelia Davidson, 1/9/26

“Republican lawmakers — including moderates who have supported U.S. action against climate change — largely brushed aside President Donald Trump’s moves to quit the world’s overarching climate treaty and related programs,” E&E News reports. “The Trump administration announced Wednesday that the United States would withdraw from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On Thursday, the administration also pulled out of the Green Climate Fund, which is affiliated with the UNFCCC and invests billions in climate initiatives in developing countries… “But Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), one of two sitting senators to have served in the chamber during the treaty ratification, told E&E Thursday, “I think I would support the president” on withdrawing from the UNFCCC. Grassley has often dubbed himself the “father of wind energy” for championing the first federal tax incentives for wind. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has also advocated for clean energy and expressed concerns about the impact of climate change in Alaska, told E&E Thursday she had “no comment” on the administration’s withdrawals. Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) told E&E she was “not surprised” at Trump’s decisions to withdraw from the treaty and programs. She told E&E her committee would continue to focus on “keeping and improving the environment in this country,” rather than abroad… “EPW ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) called the UNFCCC withdrawal “polluter driven stoogery.”

Heatmap: Can Trump Exit a Senate-Approved Treaty? The Constitution Doesn’t Say.
Jillian Goodman, 1/8/26

“When the Trump administration moved on Wednesday to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, we were left to wonder — not for the first time — can he really do that?,” Heatmap reports. “…The U.S. has never before attempted to exit the UNFCCC — which, unlike the Paris Agreement, it joined with the advice and consent of the Senate. Whether or not a president can unilaterally remove the U.S. from a Senate-approved treaty is somewhat uncharted legal territory. As University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Jean Galbraith told Heatmap, “This is an issue on which the text of the constitution is silent — it tells you how to make a treaty, but it doesn’t tell you anything about how to unmake a treaty.” Even if a president can simply withdraw from a treaty, there’s still the question of what happens next. Could a future president simply rejoin the UFCCC? Or would they again need to seek the advice and consent of the Senate, which would require getting 67 senators to agree that international climate diplomacy is a worthy enterprise? And what does all of this mean for the future of the Paris Agreement? Is the U.S. locked out for good?… “Assuming they give their notice of withdrawal and wait a year, this is an issue on which the text of the constitution is silent — it tells you how to make a treaty, but it doesn’t tell you anything about how to unmake a treaty.”

Politico: Inside the White House obsession with reducing energy prices
Sophia Cai and Cheyenne Haslett, 1/7/26

“The White House has zeroed in on energy prices as a political and economic pressure point heading into this year’s midterms, ordering an all-of-government accounting of how the administration can make electricity cheaper for American households,” Politico reports. “In early December, officials across the government were asked to assemble a comprehensive briefing on the administration’s actions on energy affordability — a sign that lowering electricity and fuel costs has become a top priority for President Donald Trump with control of the House on the line as midterm elections approach… “Taken together, the push reflects Trump’s broader energy agenda: maximize domestic production, cut regulation and emphasize fossil fuels as a backbone of affordability and reliability. The administration has already reversed or weakened several of Biden-era climate and environmental rules, arguing that they constrained supply.”

STATE UPDATES

E&E News: Trump’s energy push faces a long road in Alaska
Ian M. Stevenson, Carlos Anchondo, 1/8/26

“President Donald Trump launched his second administration vowing to unlock Alaska’s energy potential and quash an ‘assault’ on the state’s sovereignty,” E&E News reports. “There has been a steady drumbeat of actions on Alaska since Trump signed a January 2025 executive order devoted solely to the state: pushing Trump’s energy dominance agenda during a high-profile visit from the National Energy Dominance Council to Alaska, advancing a 211-mile mining road and approving exploratory drilling and seismic activity in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, among other measures… “For environmentalists who would like to see the state transition to clean energy and protect its lands from extraction, the administration’s policies have amounted to a steady beating for the state’s landscapes and wildlife. “From the Arctic down to the Tongas, we’ve just seen wholesale attacks,” the Alaska Wilderness League senior policy director Andy Moderow told E&E, referring to the Tongas National Forest, where the Trump administration has moved to lift timber-harvesting restrictions.”

Monterey County Now: People’s hearing in Monterey to oppose federal offshore drilling plan.
Katie Rodriguez, 1/8/26

“People gathered for a press conference on Wednesday, Oct. 29, where U.S. Rep. Jimmy Panetta, D-Carmel Valley, and other local leaders in Santa Cruz, spoke to the significance of voter-approved Measure M—a grassroots ordinance first passed there barring gas and oil development,” Monterey County Now reports. “…Many opponents point to the 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, a disaster that helped spark Earth Day and a reminder of what’s at stake. It is what led to local cities and counties teaming up to require a vote of the people for zoning changes related to onshore support facilities. Assemblymember Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, summed it up well in her press conference on Tuesday, Jan. 6 in Sacramento, convening with other politicians and advocates to urge U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum to remove California from the Trump administration’s proposal to expand offshore oil drilling: “For the first time in 40 years, we have a president who is pushing to expand, not contract, but expand oil drilling off our shores, and it’s a threat to the industries that sustain us while providing minimal economic benefit for the people, as well as disastrous consequences for public health and vulnerable marine habitats,” Addis said. An official public comment period is open until Jan. 23, with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.”

Houston Chronicle: Solar supplied more power than coal to the ERCOT grid in 2025 for the first year ever, data shows
Claire Hao, 1/8/26

“In 2025 — for the first year ever — solar arrays provided more electricity to Texas’ main power grid than coal-fired power plants,” the Houston Chronicle reports. “Solar farms contributed 67,800 gigawatt-hours of electricity from January to December, according to newly released data from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the power grid operator for most of the state. In comparison, power plants burning coal supplied 63,000 gigawatt-hours of power to the ERCOT grid last year, according to the grid operator’s data. Annual power generation from solar usurping coal reflects the momentum of Texas’ ongoing energy transition — even as the Trump administration and some Texas Republicans try to throw up roadblocks against renewable energy’s rapid rise… “It’s a remarkable milestone,” Daniel Cohan, a Rice University professor who studies Texas’ energy transition, told the Chronicle. “I don’t think anyone 10 years ago would have thought that solar would have surpassed coal this quickly.”

EXTRACTION

Reuters: Chevron in talks with US government for expanded Venezuela license, sources say
Marianna Parraga, 1/8/26

“Oil producer Chevron is in talks with the U.S. government to expand a key license to operate in Venezuela so it can increase crude exports to its own refineries and sell to other buyers, four sources close to the negotiations said on Wednesday,” Reuters reports. “The talks come as Washington and Caracas progress in negotiations to supply up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil to the United States and President Donald Trump presses American oil companies to invest in the South American country’s energy sector. Chevron is the only U.S. oil major operating in Venezuela, which it does under an authorization from the U.S. government that exempts it from sanctions on the country. Washington is also pushing to have other U.S. companies involved in oil exports from Venezuela, including refiner Valero Energy, which was a customer of state company PDVSA before sanctions, and majors Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, whose Venezuelan assets were expropriated two decades ago, three separate industry sources told Reuters.”

E&E News: Trump’s Venezuelan oil grab is bad for the climate — but the emissions math is uncertain
Chelsea Harvey, 1/9/26

“President Donald Trump intensified his efforts to expand oil production by claiming control of Venezuela’s vast crude resources, in a move that threatens to worsen the environmental risks faced by a rapidly warming planet,” E&E News reports. “Energy experts told E&E it’s hard to quantify how much additional oil production would occur under Trump’s goal of revitalizing Venezuela’s degraded energy infrastructure, or how long it would take. The end result would almost certainly be bad for the climate — and likely worsened by Venezuela’s unusually carbon-intensive production process. Yet a wide range of uncertainties make it difficult to calculate the environmental impact. It’s unclear to what extent U.S. oil companies will invest in the country, or how increased Venezuelan production would affect the global market. And then, there’s a shortage of emissions information from the country itself. “Very little data is available on Venezuelan oil operations,” Adam Brandt, a professor of energy science engineering at Stanford University, told E&E.”

Bloomberg: Trump’s Venezuela oil grab pushes Chinese refiners to Canada
1/8/26

“China’s refiners, all but cut off from Venezuelan crude in the past week as the U.S. positions itself for access to the world’s largest oil reserves, are eying a pricier alternative source — Canada,” Bloomberg reports. “Chinese inquiries around Canadian supply have increased since the snatching of President Nicolas Maduro at the weekend, traders told Bloomberg, with processors considering the country’s grades seen as among the best replacements for Venezuela’s Merey crude… “China, the top buyer of crude from Venezuela, has benefited from sanctioned cargoes sold at a deep discount over recent years. Private and state-owned refiners have taken cargoes via Chinese equity in oil fields, through oil-for-loans arrangements, as well as with one-off purchases in the spot market, using Chinese yuan and so-called dark fleet tankers in order to sidestep U.S. restrictions. The Trump administration’s maneuvers over the past few weeks have brought an end to those flows, with an intensifying oil blockade and increasing pressure on Venezuela’s government. This week, the U.S. demanded the country reduce ties with China, Russia, Iran and Cuba, ABC News reported, and partner instead with the U.S. on oil production and sales… “Canada-to-China flows have increased since the successful expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMX) in 2024, which enabled producers to send more oil to the west coast for export to Asia.”

Lloyd’s List: It takes a lot of CO2 to capture CO2
Declan Bush, 1/8/26

“More findings from Singapore’s Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation’s ‘Project Captured’ highlight the trouble of counting the entire lifecycle emissions reduced by onboard carbon capture,” Lloyd’s List reports. “Using captured CO2 to make things is better than storing it, when it comes to avoiding emissions; Plenty of CO2 is emitted when trucking captured carbon to land storage; Waste heat recovery helps reduce the fuel cost of running the capture system on board.”

Insurance Business: The costly gaps threatening carbon capture and storage projects’ tax credits and compliance
Emily Douglas, 1/8/26

“As carbon capture and storage (CCS) moves from pilot projects into large-scale commercial deployment, the insurance industry is being pushed into new territory. The sector carries a blend of construction, operational, environmental, financial and regulatory exposures that simply don’t fit inside traditional insurance structures,” Insurance Business reports. “…Speaking to Insurance Business, Eric McCabe, divisional senior vice president at Great American Insurance Group Environmental, revealed that these risks are also rapidly evolving. “As carbon capture and storage projects scale up, the risks become more layered and significant. Traditional insurance often doesn’t account for the full spectrum of exposures, especially when it comes to the intersection of environmental, financial and regulatory challenges.” For example, a CCS facility isn’t just managing the risk of a pollution event or a construction mishap; it’s also navigating the complexities of qualifying for federal tax credits, maintaining compliance and protecting investor interests. “A single leak or a failed audit can have ripple effects, threatening both environmental goals and financial viability,” added McCabe. “The industry is seeing a need for coverage that’s as comprehensive as the projects themselves, addressing everything from construction and operational risks to the intricacies of tax credit compliance.” To meet this need, forward-thinking insurers are developing coordinated products that follow the full arc of a CCS project. Instead of placing separate policies with different carriers for construction, operations, environmental liability and tax credit exposure, the emerging model brings all of these functions together under one roof.”

Harvard Media: Mikisew Cree First Nation to co host conference on oil sands tailings and water protection
Jon Tupper, 1/8/26

“Mikisew Cree First Nation is co hosting a two day conference next spring focused on the environmental and community impacts of oil sands tailings on Indigenous waters and lands in Alberta,” Harvard Media reports. “The conference, titled Tarsands Tailings Crisis: Protecting Our Water, is scheduled for March 25 and 26, 2026, at the River Cree Resort & Casino. It is being organized in partnership with Keepers of the Water… “Planned discussions include proposed approaches to treating and releasing oil sands tailings, provincial water legislation, interbasin water transfers, water shortages and conservation, and the ongoing effects of industrial development on downstream Indigenous communities. Mikisew Cree First Nation, located in northeastern Alberta, has long raised concerns about water quality and cumulative environmental impacts affecting communities downstream of oil sands operations.”

OPINION

Financial Post: Trudeau’s departure hasn’t made pipeline projects risk-free
Robert Lyman is a retired energy economist, 1/9/26

“A recurring theme in FP Comment concerns the risks governments take when they invest public funds in projects traditionally undertaken by private investors. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s efforts to make Canada an “energy superpower” by endorsing and in some cases funding major new energy infrastructure are a case in point,” Robert Lyman writes for the Financial Post. “…This new gung-ho approach may be as unwise as the Trudeau government’s investment aversion. Energy markets are inherently risky. Investors must deal with the uncertainties of markets, policies, geopolitics, technologies and more… “On top of all this market uncertainty, Canada’s climate policies add further risk… “Probably the largest uncertainties in energy involve the effects of rapid technological change: which existing technologies will be made obsolete by new discoveries? Many innovations are in play: hydrogen, carbon capture, various battery technologies, including the lithium-ion ones so favoured by governments, but also solid-state, sodium-ion and lithium-sulfur batteries that either have lower-cost components or much higher energy density. In his efforts to prove how different he is from Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney seems desperate to show that, whatever the risks, his government favours economic development, including precisely the types of projects Trudeau long blocked. But feeling you must act no matter what is not a good frame of mind for making reasoned judgments. A private investor, faced with all the uncertainties to which energy investment is currently subject, would probably be cautious when deciding whether and when to undertake multibillion-dollar investments in pipelines, transmission lines or other remote infrastructure. Government subsidies don’t eliminate project risk, they merely pass it on to taxpayers. Those taxpayers should insist their governments weigh risks carefully before burdening them this way.”