SHOT ACROSS THE BOW: Alberta ‘reluctantly’ invokes Sovereignty Act' against net-zero power grid

Insisting she had ‘no choice’, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith followed through with what she termed a “last resort” option to invoke the so-called Sovereignty Act in response to what she called Ottawa’s continued constitutional intrusion into energy matters.

Smith tabled the contentious and long-promised legislation in the legislature Monday afternoon after reaching an impasse on what she called Ottawa’s blatant “overreach” and disregard for Alberta’s constitutional rights over power generation.

Speaking to reporters before the measures were announced, Smith said Alberta’s hand was forced by the Liberal government’s — and specifically Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault’s — constant threats of prosecution and even imprisonment for keeping the heat and lights on in sub-Arctic January.

“Alberta’s government will not put Albertans and their businesses at risk of freezing in the dark at -30C due to the federal government’s proposed unaffordable, unreliable and unconstitutional Clean Electricity Regulations (CERs),” she said.

“The federal government has been clear it is unwilling to align its electricity regulations with Alberta’s Emissions Reduction and Energy Development Plan as the province works to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. Instead, the federal government has continued to indicate it will move ahead with its plan to implement unrealistic requirements for a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, regardless of the costs and risks to Albertans.”

In a news release, Smith called the CERs “destructive”, “unreasonable” and more important, “unconstitutional” — or just plain illegal.

“We are left with no choice but to create a shield to protect Albertans from Ottawa’s dangerous and unconstitutional electricity regulations. They may be willing to expose Albertans to high costs, blackouts and brownouts, but we are not and we will continue to ensure Albertans are protected from these destructive and unconstitutional federal policies,” she said.

The CERs propose what Smith called “unrealistic rules” with Criminal Code violations to achieve net-zero electricity by 2035. 

She said her cabinet had become more uniformly confident of the need for such drastic measures after federal officials said they would appeal a pair of federal court decisions — including the Supreme Court of Canada — that clearly defined Ottawa’s intrusion into areas of Alberta’s jurisdiction.

Instead of accepting the outcome, Guilbeault shrugged them both off and vowed to appeal.

“The courts are on our side, science and logic are on our side, the Constitution is on our side, electricity generation is the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government. It is our responsibility to provide safe, reliable and affordable electricity to all Albertans without interference from Ottawa. This is what we are doing and will continue to do,” said Affordability and Utilities  Minister Nathan Neudorf. 

The resolution asks Alberta’s cabinet to order all provincial entities “not to recognize the constitutional validity of, enforce, nor cooperate in the implementation of the CERs in any manner, to the extent legally permissible.”

This order would not apply to private companies or individuals. The resolution also asks Alberta’s government to work with the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) and others to implement various reforms to Alberta’s electrical system to “ensure grid affordability and reliability.”

Speaking to reporters, Smith was unapologetic for taking such a drastic and admittedly emotionally-charged step. She agreed the prime motivation was to make a dramatic impact statement to impress on federal officials the error of their ways. 

Failing that?

‘See you in court.’

“I (have) always said, this is what I'm asking the federal government to do: I'm asking the federal government to follow the law,” she said.

“The federal government is acting in a way that is disregarding court decisions that came down and we are asserting, if you read the Sovereignty Act, you will see that the Sovereignty Act always asserted that we would stand up for our constitutional jurisdiction… and that's what this is doing.”