This editorial was written and published by the Toronto Star on August 22, 2023.

Canadians on the run in the face of a natural disaster — it’s been a distressing summer theme.

In this latest crisis, forest fires have displaced thousands of residents in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories in recent days.

Yellowknife, the territorial capital with some 20,000 residents, has been evacuated, an exercise challenged by its isolation.

In B.C., where some 386 fires are burning, there were apocalyptic nighttime scenes as the red glow of the blaze advanced relentlessly down the hillsides toward West Kelowna.

These communities are no stranger to the dangers of wildfires. Yellowknife was threatened by fire in 2014. In 2003, fire destroyed more than 200 homes in Kelowna.

Yet the level of devastation nationwide this fire season is difficult to comprehend. There have been 5,812 fires in all, burning some 15 million hectares. Other years have seen more fires — there were more than 10,000 fire starts in 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1998. The total area burned this year has far outpaces them all, more than double the previous high of seven million hectares in 1995.

“The number of fires is well above average for this time of year, and well above the average for area burned for this time of year,” according to the latest situation report.

The devastation continues. At the start of this week, there were 1,041 fires nationwide, 656 of those out of control.

Some may want to dismiss this year’s scale of wildfires as a statistical blip, a natural anomaly. Yet other extreme weather that has seen severe storms through Ontario, including tornadoes, flooding in Nova Scotia and the hottest July on record around the globe, point to a new reality we need to prepare for.

In the case of forest fires, that means assessing whether the available resources — firefighters, support crews, aircraft — are enough to battle record blazes.

The experiences so far point to a system under stress. The country has been at national preparedness Level 5 since early May. That means that national resources are fully committed, demand for interagency resources is “extreme” and the potential for new significant fires is “high to extreme.”

Canada has tapped the assistance of firefighters from abroad. We’re grateful for their help. Canadian Armed Forces personnel have also been deployed.

But the strains of this fire season underscores that continued efforts are needed to muster more resources to tackle the fires in the seasons ahead. That would build on initiatives announced in June by Ottawa that included training for community-based firefighters.

In its latest action plan, the Wildland Fire Management Working Group, a joint federal-provincial group, noted that climate change together with urban expansion into wildland areas were “rapidly accelerating” the risk of fires. It highlighted the “profound social, economic and environmental” impacts of frequent, serious fires, but also said such fires are essential for forest health. “As a country, we must be united in our approach to adapt to, and live with, wildland fire,” it stated.

It said that mitigation and prevention should be made a top priority. And it underscored that firefighting agencies will have to adapt. In the face of rapidly changing wildfires, “traditional response and suppression tactics are becoming less effective while agencies are being taxed beyond their collective capabilities.”

The disaster this month in the Hawaiian town of Lahaina and in 2016 in Fort McMurray stand as terrifying examples of how quickly a community can be scorched by a raging wildfire.

For those in the path of these relentless fires, there are feelings of hopelessness, uncertainty and despair. As we assess the risks of our changing world, it will require another sort of preparation for the next flood warning, storm alerts and fire evacuation that test us psychologically too.

Many Canadians have had their lives upended by natural disasters this year — some through temporary disruptions and others permanently, with homes and livelihoods lost.

Coping with all this will demand a collective generosity of spirit to help neighbours and strangers cope. We see that on display now in the assistance provided to those displaced by the wildfires. Albertans in particular have opened their doors to the evacuees from the Northwest Territories.

The weeks ahead hold more fires and likely more evacuations. This season has been more than a record-breaker for fires, a year when extreme weather became real for many Canadians. It may be a preview of the future.

Heatwaves sweeping large parts of the world offer yet another reminder that extreme weather events boosted by human-induced climate change have become “the new normal”, the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO) warned on Friday.

This article was written and published by the United Nations on August 18, 2023.

This article was written by Cloe Logan and was published in Canada’s National Observer on August 8, 2023.

The celebrated science broadcaster and environmental activist says we have to stop elevating the economy and politics over the state of our world

This article was written by Adam Morton and was published in The Guardian on August 5, 2023.

This article was written by Seth Borenstein and was published by AP News on August 2, 2023.

This editorial was written and published by the Globe & Mail on August 15, 2023.

Two years ago, Group of Seven countries set a goal to largely eliminate fossil fuels from power generation in the 2030s. Last year, at a meeting in Germany, the G7 sharpened that timeline: “we commit to achieving a fully or predominantly decarbonized power sector by 2035.” Among the top strategies was a plan to remove barriers that “currently hinder or slow down the expansion” of renewable power.

This is the broader political context behind Canada’s domestic goal to mostly squeeze fossil fuels out of power generation by 2035. Some provinces are already close to the goal, with a bounty of hydro power across the country, but three – Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia – depend on fossil fuels for the majority of their electricity.

Nova Scotia is working to change – from one-third renewable power currently, to 80 per cent by 2030. Alberta and Saskatchewan are resistant, rejecting Ottawa’s goal of 2035, promising clean power by 2050 – yet not taking immediate and clear steps towards that delayed target.

Last week, the federal government issued its long-awaited clean electricity regulations. They will apply to individual power facilities, rather than the provinces themselves. But because of the reality of electricity generation in Canada, the regulations will not be felt by many Canadians but will have a big impact in a few provinces.

Given this squeeze, Ottawa’s goal of (almost) clean power by 2035 – and the G7’s – offers reasonable flexibility. It’s not no fossil fuels in power by 2035; the regulations are about getting close to zero by 2035. Economists praised the flexibility and suggested more may be necessary.

The draft rules include a set number of hours a power plant running on fossil fuels can operate each year with a loose cap on climate heating emissions, to serve as a backup to the grid or as extra power when demand spikes. Ottawa set the maximum at 450 hours, or about 19 days. That number may have to be upped.

The resistance, led by Alberta, offers no flexibility at all. Worse, they do not offer any sort of alternative plan, save for a vague promise of clean power by 2050.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is moving in the opposite direction. Earlier this month, Alberta halted new solar and wind power until next winter. Among the worries is reclamation at the end of a project’s lifespan. It’s a good question – but experts in Alberta argue a halt isn’t needed to come up with an answer.

Ms. Smith also declared the proposed regulations to be unconstitutional, citing Section 92 of the Constitution, provincial oversight of electricity, but ignoring Ottawa’s role in environmental matters. The outcome of a court fight isn’t certain but Ottawa did win the carbon-pricing dispute. Also, recall the time when Ottawa regulated electricity to reduce the use of fossil fuels and lower emissions. This month, yes, but also in 2012 under Stephen Harper, who used federal regulations to limit coal power in the provinces.

As Alberta slows renewables, its own climate plan, published in April, advocates fossil fuels. Natural gas, the plan said, will be the main source of electrical power “for many years to come.” There are no specifics about how to clean up its grid, or rules to make it happen. Clean power by 2050, in Alberta’s rendering, is an empty slogan.

In the United States, far more reliant on fossil fuels for power than Canada, federal regulations were tabled in May to get to clean power by 2035. The rules come alongside massive federal subsidies through the Inflation Reduction Act, tallied in some estimates at more than US$1-trillion.

Ottawa wants to use its fiscal heft – and it must – to propel clean power but has been slow to act. One example is carbon capture. A tax credit was first proposed in the 2022 federal budget. It still hasn’t been finalized.

Alberta and Ottawa are set to start talks in a working group on issues including clean power. Such talks make sense. Ottawa has in the past been flexible on various issues with Quebec. Ottawa can be flexible today. Alberta’s Premier has to do more than claim a federal plan is unconstitutional.

The bottom line is factors such as grid reliability and affordable power costs should be paramount. Alberta and other provinces need to stop bickering with Ottawa and start figuring out how to move quickly to the goal of clean power. Ottawa can offer some more leeway, but provinces need to get serious about change.

This opinion was written by Jason Dion and Rachel Doran, and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 14, 20223.

Jason Dion is the senior research director at the Canadian Climate Institute. Rachel Doran is the director of policy and strategy at Clean Energy Canada, a think tank at Simon Fraser University.

New regulations will help provinces capitalize on the country’s hidden advantage, but only if they join in the team effort

The global transition away from fossil fuels is accelerating, and Canada’s newly announced Clean Electricity Regulations and Powering Canada Forward framework will help ensure the country successfully navigates that transition while protecting affordability and grid reliability.

Already, the U.S. and European Union are collectively investing trillions in cleaner industries to secure their place in this new trade order. Luckily, Canada has a clean industrial ace up its sleeve that many of our competitors do not: clean power. But as it stands, Canada is at risk of squandering its winning play – a risk that the federal government wants to mitigate.

The new Clean Electricity Regulations will be critical in helping Canada build a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, a goal shared by the entire Group of Seven. But the implications are broader than just electricity generation alone. This past June, for the first time, Canada’s Energy Regulator provided detailed net-zero scenarios for our economy, concluding that a bigger, cleaner and smarter electricity system will be the “backbone” of any net-zero future. The analysis also found that – contrary to the views of some – achieving (and even exceeding) the government’s goal of net-zero electricity by 2035 is possible.

The good news is that Canada is beginning with a significant head start. Our grid is already 84 per cent non-emitting, compared to only 40 per cent in the U.S. That means that the products we make here, from steel to batteries to aluminum, already have a lower carbon footprint. It’s one of the reasons General Motors and others opted to make their components for EV batteries in Canada. And it’s why the Canadian steel industry is vocal in its support of federal government measures to expand clean power.

What’s more, households will actually spend less on energy as they switch to clean electricity, thanks to efficient, bill-slashing technologies like electric vehicles and heat pumps, according to a number of studies. And powering your home and vehicle with clean electricity means avoiding the fossil fuel price volatility inflicted by Russia or Saudi Arabia.

But these new electricity regulations come at a time when Canada is at risk of losing its clean industrial advantage. The country is going to need a lot more electricity in the future (roughly double, in fact) as Canadians plug their cars, homes, and factories into the grid. Canada is at a critical juncture. Without a clean directive, our grid faces the prospect of becoming dirtier – in stark contrast to the direction our trade partners are heading.

Indeed, despite making some progress with a new energy plan, Ontario recently offered up six new contracts for natural gasfired power to manage its expanding energy needs, especially in light of major nuclear plants going offline. A few provinces have opted to fight the federal government’s clean power ambitions, Alberta most vocally. Premier Danielle Smith even went so far as to reference her opposition to the regulations in the closing words of her election victory speech.

But the opportunity is national, and the provinces resisting these regulations are often those with the most to gain in new investment. Alberta has already bagged almost $4-billion of private sector investment in renewable power. Meanwhile, Atlantic Canada is attracting clean hydrogen proposals left, right and centre, mostly off the back of its abundant offshore wind prospects.

Clean power is cheap. Wind can now produce electricity at lower costs than natural gas-fired power in Alberta and Ontario. Solar power is already cheaper than electricity from gas in Alberta and is on track to be 16 per cent less expensive by the end of the decade. And contrary to popular belief, there are lots of ways to balance renewables’ variability.

While clean electricity is often the cheapest kind around, shifting our grids away from fossil fuels requires investment. To complement the new regulations, the federal government is offering help to provinces and utilities, including new investment tax credits that cover between 15 and 30 per cent of investment costs for clean electricity projects. They’re also offering up new financing sources like the Canada Infrastructure Bank and help with clean electricity generation, transmission, and storage projects – including the Atlantic Loop.

Now the provinces need to step up. They need to decide if they will row together toward a more competitive Canada, making the investments and modernizations required, or if they will row against the international tide and risk squandering our advantage.

Building a clean electricity infrastructure that will power our prosperity in the 21st century will take work. The question is not, can Canada afford to take these steps? But instead, can it afford not to?

This article was written by Keith Stewart and was published in the Toronto Star on August 12, 2023.

KEITH STEWART IS THE SENIOR ENERGY STRATEGIST AT GREENPEACE CANADA

Alongside the literal fires currently consuming Canada’s boreal forest, climate change has put a metaphorical torch to the long-standing alliance between Big Oil and Big Auto. I say, let them fight.

When I started working on climate change in the 1990s, there was an unbroken wall of resistance from oil, coal and car companies to any measure to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. They came together in the Global Climate Coalition, which ran a sophisticated (and utterly unscrupulous) advertising and public relations campaign to cast doubt on the science of climate change. The companies’ own scientists had told them that the science was solid, but the campaign promoted doubt in order to blunt public concern and thereby delay political action.

The Global Climate Coalition was formally disbanded in 2002, but climate denial campaigns continued under a variety of different names and sponsors. As it became increasingly difficult for them to undermine the science, the fossil fuel lobby leaned into the argument that there was no viable alternative to what they were selling.

Like a bad relationship, we were being asked to believe that while we might not love fossil fuels, we needed them. As technology improved and public concern over climate impacts grew, that claim was on increasingly shaky ground. This led to cracks in the united front.

First, Big Oil threw King Coal under the bus to steal market share. As pressure grew to phase out coalfired electricity on climate grounds, oil and gas companies jumped in to offer “natural” gas as a cheap and easy replacement for coal. Here in Canada, for example, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers wholeheartedly supported the Alberta NDP’s 2015 coal phaseout plan.

Now car companies are launching what could be a very messy divorce, and oil giants are lashing out.

After steadfastly championing the internal combustion engine over the last century, the major car companies are rolling out electric vehicles in response to consumer demand and (more importantly) government mandates. They are, however, hedging their bet by continuing to massively advertise their gasoline-powered SUVs and pickup trucks.

Behind the scenes, oil companies lobbied to tip the scales in their direction. A 2018 New York Times investigation found that an oil company (Marathon Petroleum) was working with powerful oil-industry groups and a conservative policy network financed by the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch to run a stealth campaign designed to roll back car emissions standards.

This resonated with then-president Donald Trump, but the Biden administration is big on electrification. Even Ontario’s Conservative Premier Doug Ford, who killed electric vehicle incentives and even ripped out EV charging stations when he first came to power, has reversed course and is now “all in” on electric vehicles.

Perhaps sensing that the ground is shifting beneath their feet, Big Oil is now taking the fight out of the back rooms and onto the airwaves. Investigative journalist Amy Westervelt recently spotted “the first modern-day anti-EV ad from an oil company,” wherein ExxonMobil urges consumers to “break free” from the electric cords that bind “for the love of driving.”

This is a good sign — it tells me that they are afraid.

Afraid of how a transition to electric vehicles — not just cars, but also e-bikes and vastly expanded, electrified public transit — will affect the demand for gasoline and diesel. Afraid of how cheap wind and solar power is undercutting gas-fired generating stations the same way gas shouldered out coal-fired power. Afraid of how public concern over the increasingly obvious devastation from climate chaos could drive away their remaining political allies.

Nevertheless, the oil industry still wields immense wealth and power.

Rather than handing public dollars to these companies for more executive bonuses and share buybacks, we should invest in supporting the workers and communities currently dependent on fossil fuel extraction through the transition to clean energy.

It is also important to put in place safeguards so we avoid replicating the human rights and environmental harms of the fossil fuel industry as we build a new one grounded in renewable energy and batteries.

After decades of fighting a losing battle on climate action, it may seem odd for an old activist to see an oil company ad as a beacon of hope. But it reminds me that there is a better world still there to be won.

Ottawa to allow facilities to stay open beyond 2035, despite pollution

This article was written by Alex Ballingall and Rob Ferguson, and was published in the Toronto Star on August 11, 2023.

The federal government’s new proposed rules to remove greenhouse gas emissions from Canada’s power grids will allow natural gas-powered plants to stay open — and keep emitting planet-warming pollution — beyond 2035.

That’s the year the governing Liberals promised to stop new emissions from the country’s electricity sector.

But the signal that Ottawa intends to give some wiggle room to gas plants under its new “clean electricity regulations” didn’t fly with at least three provinces that generate electricity by burning fossil fuels.

At Queen’s Park, Premier Doug Ford’s government pushed back at the proposed measures, saying those aimed at natural gas-fired power plants are too stringent.

“The current draft regulation has provisions that would impede an orderly energy transition, and could slow the electrification of our economy by compromising the reliability of the grid and increasing electricity costs this decade,” said Palmer Lockridge, a spokesperson for Energy Minister Todd Smith.

Prairie leaders went further, claiming Ottawa was trampling into an area of provincial jurisdiction. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called the regulations “unconstitutional” and “irresponsible.” Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe wrote on social media that the rules were “unaffordable, unrealistic and unconstitutional.”

In an interview with the Star, federal Environment Minister Stephen Guilbeault brushed off such criticism and defended the regulations. He said they were designed to minimize increases to electricity bills, with considerations for regions with higher amounts of gasfired power feeding their electricity grids.

He said Ottawa could have proposed stronger rules to reduce emissions even further, but that the government didn’t want to force power plants to shut down or to drive up electricity bills.

As it stands, the government expects the regulations will only increase the average residential electricity bill by about two per cent by 2040 — an increase Guilbeault called “minimal.”

“Could we have been more aggressive with the end-of-life for existing gas plants? Yes — but it would have come at a cost,” Guilbeault told the Star on Thursday.

“So we recognize that there will be residual emissions in 2035.”

Electricity generation was responsible for almost eight per cent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, representing a total of 52 megatonnes of air pollution, according to federal figures. Guilbeault said the draft regulations, as written, would reduce that to “less than 10 megatonnes” by 2035.

A variety of factors and policies, from the increasingly stringent minimum carbon price to actions by provincial governments and technological advancements, could reduce that even further, Guilbeault said.

The idea behind the regulations is to ensure the electricity Canadians use to power their lives — in everything from switching on the lights to charging an electric car — doesn’t make the climate crisis even worse. The government also wants the country’s power grids to be considered clean, as it expects more industries will want to stop burning fossil fuels and plug into emissions free power grids for their energy needs in the coming years.

In releasing the draft electricity regulations Thursday, government officials said the new rules could create $29 billion in economic benefits by 2050, through the creation of jobs retrofitting existing power plants and from savings that result in ditching more volatile fossil fuels for cheaper electricity.

Ottawa is also proposing rules it says are “technology neutral,” meaning fossil fuels can keep feeding power grids even after the regulations kick in.

Under the draft regulations, any facility built before 2025 would avoid the new rules until 20 years after it was commissioned. That means a gas plant that came online next year would get to continue as normal until 2044, although it would have to pay the required carbon price on its emissions in the meantime. Gas plants will also be able to keep providing electricity in emergencies and during periods of peak demand, while the new rules won’t apply for remote communities in the north and rural areas.

Otherwise, a new “emissions standard” would apply to power plants starting in 2035. Officials said the standard would ensure emitting power plants use emerging technology to capture 95 per cent of their emissions, something the government sees as “achievable.” Electricity facilities that don’t meet the new rules could face financial penalties, the officials said.

Clean energy policy experts welcomed the draft rules on Thursday, including Evan Pivnick from the British Columbia-based think tank Clean Energy Canada, who spoke alongside Guilbeault in Toronto and hailed the rules as “historic.”

Jason Dion, senior research director for the Canadian Climate Institute, said the new rules will help the economy and fight climate change at the same time.

Yet some environmentalists expressed concern that the rules allow natural-gas fired power to keep supplying electricity. Stephen Thomas, clean energy manager with the David Suzuki Foundation, said the regulations as written “will allow more (fossil fuel-powered plants) to be built and continue to supply electricity on the grid.”

The group Environmental Defence said Thursday that no natural gas-fired power plants should be allowed to operate after 2035 except for during “real emergencies,” and called on Ottawa to remove “loopholes” in the regulations that would allow for carbon capture of gas plant emissions.

The regulations are the result of a promise the Liberals made during the 2021 to ensure Canada’s electricity grids, which are already 84 per cent emissions-free, are responsible for no new greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.

The Canadian Climate Institute predicts the country’s electricity needs could more than triple by 2050, as industries, drivers and households shift from burning fossil fuels to using power grids for their energy needs. The federal government expects the required buildup of electricity systems will cost a total of $400 billion by 2050.

To help provinces get there, the federal government is creating a new tax credit that officials expect will cost $6.3 billion over the next five years, and then another $19.4 billion by 2035. Described as the “backbone” of the government’s plan to spur a faster shift to a green economy, the credit will see federal dollars refund up to 15 per cent of the money a private company — or provincial power utility — spends on “non-emitting” electricity generation systems, like hydro dams, nuclear power stations, and wind and solar energy projects.

In Ontario, the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which co-ordinates the daily operations of the electricity system, said it’s hard to beat gasfired power plants for reliability and flexibility.

They are needed as a “bridge” to newer carbon-free sources of electricity such as small modular nuclear reactors now under development, pumped storage of hydroelectric power and the possibility of more larger nuclear plants, said Chuck Farmer, a IESO vice-president.

Could we have been more aggressive with the end-of-life for existing gas plants? Yes — but it would have come at a cost. So we recognize that there will be residual emissions in 2035.

STEPHEN GUILBEAULT FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT MINISTER

This article was written by Adam Radwanski and Emma Graney, and was published in the Globe & Mail on August 11, 2023.

Guilbeault says flexible rules will allow natural gas to remain in the mix for power generation

Ottawa is playing down the demands that its new rules to restrict the use of fossil fuels in electricity generation will place on power utilities, as it attempts to quell mounting backlash from western provinces that produce and rely on natural gas.

The proposed new Clean Electricity Regulations, long-awaited details of which were announced on Thursday, represent an unprecedented intervention into electricity policy that is traditionally in provincial jurisdiction. Coupled with promised federal tax credits for renewables, the new rules are aimed at ensuring that non-emitting power serves as the backbone of Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy amid widespread electrification of transportation, buildings and industry.

But in outlining Ottawa’ s plans, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault emphasized that the government has prioritized flexibility – including allowing continued use of fossil fuels at times when demand is highest, and grandfathering existing gas fuelled power plants. He also pushed back against complaints that the rules will make electricity significantly more expensive and increase the risk of shortages.

“They probably won’t say it publicly, but I think privately, many will be pleased with what we’ve introduced,” Mr. Guilbeault said in an interview, referring to the Prairie governments that have expressed the most opposition. “I suspect many will feel that they’ve been listened to.”

That was indeed not the public reaction on Thursday. In a statement, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called the proposed rules – which are to be implemented under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act – “unconstitutional” and “irresponsible,” vowing they would not be implemented in her province.

The crux of the draft regulations is a cap, starting in 2035, on greenhouse-gas emissions from each large generating facility. It’s being proposed at a level (30 tonnes per gigawatt hour) that would allow gas plants with carbon capture technology to keep operating, but require those lacking it to curb output.

However, Mr. Guilbeault specified on Thursday that power plants which are already operational by 2025, when the regulation is to come into effect, would be exempt from that cap for 20 years from the date when they were commissioned. That means that some gas plants without carbon capture could keep operating well into the 2040s.

Regardless of when gas plants are built, the rules would allow them to keep operating for up to 450 hours per year – a response to concerns about power shortages when demand is at its highest, as well as around the variability of wind and solar power on which grids will be increasingly expected to rely.

The government also emphasized that the regulations will be “technology neutral,” meaning that they will not reward or punish certain types of non-emitting power – including nuclear and hydro, in addition to newer forms of renewables – compared to others.

Not all of the policy’s potential implications are yet clear. While Ottawa offered technical briefings and released background documents on Thursday morning, it did not immediately provide the actual draft regulations. And energy-sector representatives and experts indicated that they expect to spend days wrapping their heads around some complexities that could have major impacts.

An example of those complexities is how the rules will treat co-generation, in which oil and gas companies use methane to simultaneously produce steam for their bitumen extraction and to generate electricity. Mr. Guilbeault has indicated that Ottawa intends to apply the regulations to electricity that is produced that way and then sold back into the grid, which commonly happens in Alberta.

But industry is waiting to see whether the wording of the regulations could also lead to penalties being applied to the production of energy that is used on the oil and gas sites, which is not the government’s stated aim.

Regardless of those nuances, the rules stand to have a much greater impact on provinces where fossil fuels are currently a major part of the electricity supply mix – especially Saskatchewan, Alberta and Nova Scotia – than others where they play a lesser or non-existent role, mostly because of comparatively abundant hydroelectricity.

However, the policy has also been motivated by federal concern about provinces such as Ontario upping their reliance on fossil fuels in response to power demand that is projected to at least double in the coming decades, during widespread electrification of transportation, buildings and industry.

Leading up to the announcement, as it was developing the regulations, Ottawa signalled that the primary objective was to discourage investments in new unabated gas power plants, which would be uneconomical given the short span to earn back capital investments before the restrictions take effect. And it repeatedly indicated that it was not aiming to force abrupt shutdowns of existing facilities.

Nevertheless, the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan already railed against the regulations before seeing them, insisting that aiming for a net-zero emissions grid starting in 2035 was impossible, and slamming Ottawa for rules they said would quash use of their abundant natural gas reserves.

Ms. Smith’s government also last week announced a seven-month moratorium on development of wind and solar projects, which she framed partly as a response to federal heavy-handedness.

While Ottawa aims to disprove those complaints, it is already coming under criticism from some environmental groups for the draft regulations being too lax.

Stephen Thomas, the clean energy manager at the David Suzuki Foundation, said on Thursday that the proposed rules underscore the oil and gas industry’s efforts to dilute climate action.

“These regulations as written will allow more fossil fuels to be built and continue to supply electricity on the grid,” Mr. Thomas said in a statement.

“This area of the policy will need much improvement before the regulations are finalized.”

Such debates will now play out during a consultation period that Ottawa has set aside until early November.

In keeping with the flexibility theme, Mr. Guilbeault indicated that the feedback could yet lead to significant changes to the regulations before they’re finalized.

“We think we’ve struck the right balance,” he said in the interview. “We worked really hard to try to ensure that the draft regs would be as close as possible to final. But we’ll be listening to what people have to say and adjusting accordingly if need be.”