THE END OF ENERGY EAST

Few in Quebec are mourning TransCanada Corp.’s decision to abandon Energy East. It seemed clear the $15.7-billion pipeline project had little social acceptability in this province; an array of politicians — not least Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre — environmentalists and Indigenous people were vehemently opposed. While some in the local business community had welcomed the expected economic benefits (which, for Quebec, would have been modest and mostly temporary), the damage caused in the unlikely event of a spill could have been enduring.

Had an Energy East pipeline made sense nationally, Quebec should have been prepared to set aside NIMBY attitudes. If oil had to be moved through Quebec to market, better a pipeline than rail, as Lac-Mégantic reminds us.

While various politicians in this province are now claiming credit, it seems clear that the opposition to the project in Quebec was only one of many factors, and probably a minor one. Rather, the company made a business decision on the basis of what it called “changed circumstances.” Indeed, much has changed since TransCanada proposed, in 2013, to convert an existing natural gas pipeline in the Prairies and Ontario to carry oil and extend it eastward through Quebec. Some of the oil was to be refined for use in eastern Canada, however the bulk of it was meant for export.

First, the price of oil has plummeted. Second, the election of Donald Trump in the United States has reversed the fortunes of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline project in that country, making Energy East appear to be less important to the company. Third, more broadly, investors increasingly are taking climate issues into account in making their calculations; oilsands oil is particularly carbon-heavy. As the world moves in the direction of decarbonization, oilsands oil faces an uncertain long-term future.

Some are blaming federal regulatory hurdles. Certainly, the National Energy Board’s recent announcement that its review of Energy East would include consideration of the effects the project would have on greenhouse-gas emissions placed a greater burden on TransCanada. But there is nothing wrong with that. The role of public authorities is to look at the big picture and at the public interest. Similarly, while carbon pricing is not popular with those who think government should butt out, it is also in the public interest.

Now that TransCanada has made its decision, what is needed is neither Quebecers crowing about victory nor Albertans going on about equalization payments, but a renewed effort by all Canadians to look to a future that is environmentally and economically sustainable for all concerned.