Is this fight over clean electricity regulations really necessary?

One Tuesday afternoon last month — when nearly everyone was focused on the Middle East — Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson stood beside New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs and Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston at a news conference in Ottawa to announce the signing of a "joint policy statement on developing and transmitting clean, reliable and affordable power."

The 716-word statement commits all sides to the goal of "decarbonizing Canada's electricity system," phasing out coal-fired electricity by 2030 and getting to net-zero electricity by 2035. In the case of New Brunswick, there will be a focus on the development of small modular reactors. For Nova Scotia, special attention will be paid to offshore wind.

All parties agreed to be "mindful that this work will need to take into consideration the impact of the Clean Electricity Regulations" and to "collaborate on pathways to achieve an affordable, reliable and clean electricity system within this context."

That's easier said than done, of course. But the mere fact of the agreement's existence at least offers indisputable evidence that federal-provincial relationships — particularly on climate change and energy — don't have to be defined by hand-waving disagreement and predictions of doom.

"I often say that I truly believe that Canada works best when Canadians work together," Wilkinson said at the time. "What we are announcing today is, I think, a great example of how we can indeed accelerate and realize significant progress when we commit to working together."

Wilkinson didn't mention the Alberta government. He hardly had to.

On Monday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced her intention to challenge the federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations under the Alberta Sovereignty Act, the potentially unconstitutional law Smith made her top priority after becoming premier a year ago.

"These measures are not something that we want to do," Smith said in Edmonton while laying out a motion to be debated under the Sovereignty Act. "They are a plan to counteract the absurd, illogical, unscientific and unconstitutional interference in Alberta's electrical grid by a federal government that simply doesn't care what happens to our province so long as they have a good virtue-signalling story to tell their leftist friends and special interests."

The clean electricity regulations still only exist in draft form and are subject to revision; the federal government has invited feedback from provincial governments and other stakeholders. Strictly speaking, the proposed rules won't be enforced until 2035. 

But this latest move by Smith is not entirely surprising. The premier had mused already that she might try to wield the Sovereignty Act. Her government also went to extraordinary lengths to push back against the federal regulations by launching a semi-national advertising campaign.

That $8-million ad campaign, which includes television ads that have run in four provinces, warns of exorbitant bills and blackouts. Smith's government also paid for a truck that drove around downtown Ottawa displaying a billboard bearing the message, "No one wants to freeze in the dark."

To be clear, no one has yet come out in favour of anyone freezing in the dark. But Smith, buoyed by projections from Alberta's electricity regulator, has warned the federal regulations could have dire consequences — up to and including imagined prison sentences for power company executives who can't or won't comply.

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has objected, taking issue with Smith's incarceration theory in particular. But Sarah Hastings-Simon and Jason Dion, two climate policy researchers, have described the Alberta campaign as "fearmongering" and argue that three of Alberta's central claims "don't stand up to scrutiny." 

While also lamenting Smith's "grandstanding," Blake Shaffer and Andrew Leach, two Alberta-based academics, have acknowledged that Alberta has "credible concerns" about the "pace and prescriptive nature of the regulations" proposed by the federal government.