Skip to main content

The tragedy of the commons is holding back Canada’s power grid

A big power station just outside of Montreal. Greater co-operation by provincial hydro authorities would help decarbonize our society, powering homes, cars and businesses, and improving air quality. Photo by Caribb/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The inability of Canadians to look beyond parochial interests is stymying the development of a national grid that would provide economic, environmental and social dividends for generations.

Reams of scientific, economic and technical data inform us that Canada needs to help build an improved continental power grid with our American neighbours to avert the worst impacts of climate change, and to collectively show real public policy and commercial leadership on the international stage.

This “supergrid” would be an economic force multiplier for Canada, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and ensuring our energy security in a troubled world. Of course, expanding the grid will also help decarbonize our society, powering our homes, cars and businesses and generating spinoff effects like improved local air quality and community health outcomes.

Yet, provincial authorities lack the mandate to even take the first elemental steps of technical planning in co-operation with our neighbours to the south. This is the heartbreaking “tragedy of the commons” playing out in slow motion in our national electricity sector.

A Harvard Business School blog defines the tragedy of the commons as follows:

Opinion: Canada needs to help build an improved continental power grid with our American neighbours to avert the worst impacts of climate change, writes @philipduguay. #EnergyTransition

“This theory explains individuals’ tendency to make the best decisions for their personal situation, regardless of the negative impact they may have on others. An individual’s belief that others won’t act in the best interest of the group can lead them to justify their selfish behaviour. When facing the use or potential overuse of a common or public good, individuals may act with their short-term best interest in mind, for instance, using an unsustainable product, and disregard the harm it could cause to the environment or general public.”

In the case of our balkanized national grid, the tragedy is more often not the overuse but the underuse of the grid. Most Canadians are unaware that we are electrically connected from St. John’s to Victoria. Yet these “intertie” or large transmission projects which interconnect different service areas, are relatively small and oftentimes underutilized. Most provinces are much better connected to their American neighbours than to neighbouring provinces. Moreover, we lack a true marketplace for the trade of our electrons, instead using a mercantilist system of inefficient tariffs.

Under our Constitution, provinces duly control most major levers of grid development. Politicians rightly see grid development as a major area for economic development, yet they often miss the forest for the trees, allowing narrow provincial utility interests to override the requirement to develop what technical planners call an “interregional” approach to infrastructure development. This approach would build transmission to allow a massive deployment of renewables, on a scale that no provincial utility can possibly marshal by itself, lowering costs and risks to ratepayers as we head into the energy transition.

Take, for example, Alberta. Local generators there believe greater transmission connections with neighbouring British Columbia will allow BC Hydro to trounce their local power market. In fact, both provinces need to “grow the electric pie” to serve all the new power demand that will come online in the ensuing decades.

BC Hydro simply doesn’t have enough generating capacity to greatly disrupt Alberta’s market. Deeper linkages between the provinces would lower power costs for all consumers across the region, allowing for a freer trade of electrons and lessening the footprint from new developments. A smart deal between the provinces would not only see Alberta generators get greater access to the B.C. market, but also the ability to transfer electrons through B.C. into the U.S.

B.C.’s electrons could conversely pass through Alberta to Saskatchewan when needed. This would be a win-win for the region and spark billions in new investment in wind, solar, storage, geothermal, hydropower and small modular reactor projects. Yet, such a step change requires real leadership, a growth mindset and the elimination of protectionist tendencies.

Following a generation of massive buildout after the Second World War, the grid has only been mildly tweaked in most provinces over the last 30 to 40 years. To move away from this incrementalism, we need to conduct technical planning, giving regulators, provincial officials, utilities and project developers the right mandates and incentives to bring investment and solutions to the table.

For interprovincial transmission where no single authority has full control, competitive processes involving the input of communities, industry, Indigenous groups, civil society, technical firms and project developers should play a role in ensuring a deliberative, transparent process that goes beyond the interests of any one provincial utility.

Oh, and by the way – to mark Earth Day, the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission launched a new interregional planning and development process for transmission that will see the U.S. vault ahead of Canada unless we unify on these matters and step up to the negotiating table as the collaborative, honest brokers we pride ourselves to be. A failure to do so will keep us reliving the tragedy of the commons on our power grid well into the future.

Philip Duguay is an infrastructure developer and public policy analyst with over a decade of experience working across Canada and the United States. Prior to originating a $2-billion transmission project in partnership with a Canadian institutional investor and an Indigenous government, Duguay held strategic advisory roles for the governments of Quebec and the Northwest Territories.

Comments