That's a very good question, and I will seek to unpack it.
I'm certainly happy to provide further context on the studies that are currently ongoing. I didn't cover it in my presentation, because I wanted to cleave to our 10-minute time limit, but on slide 14 of the deck we have provided a bit of a snapshot on the regional dialogues and on the specific questions that they are each addressing and that we are addressing in partnership with the provinces and territories and their utilities.
To turn to the west first, the main challenge in the west relates to the need to phase out coal in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That will require a combination of new wind and solar generation as well as dispatchable resources such as hydro, natural gas, or imports from neighbouring provinces. Natural gas is currently the lowest cost dispatchable option, but it is likely to become more costly as carbon pricing is phased in.
The main options under consideration for that western dialogue include transmission between Saskatchewan and Manitoba, as well as between B.C. and Alberta. The second is new hydroelectric developments in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories. Third is the electrification of natural gas processing and the potential for future LNG terminals. All these things are on the table in that western dialogue, and that's to address some of these gaps you spoke to.
In the Atlantic region, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick face a supply gap due to the coal phase-out, and they are constrained in that area by the limited current existing natural gas infrastructure for distribution. There is not the similar network we have elsewhere in Canada. Renewable resources such as wind and solar will be able to contribute in that space, but dispatchable capacities—so, again, firm capacity like hydro and nuclear—will be required to back up those variable resources. The main options being considered there are new hydro, be it Gull Island or some other smaller hydro opportunities; potentially new nuclear in New Brunswick, which is on the table as well in terms of this modelling study; and long-term electricity supply contracts with Quebec. Again, we're trying to take as broad a base as we can in order to work through that.
In terms of the history, I think Canada has traditionally developed most of its resources and connections north-south primarily—as I spoke to—because that's where the load centres and markets were for that electricity. I think the acceleration of the coal phase-out has created an incentive for co-operation. We see a great
open-mindedness
in the conversations among the provinces and utilities around exploring that. However, there is not a tradition of doing it, so a bit of it is information gaps around what that form of co-operation could be and also resolving very real market differentiation challenges. For instance, in Alberta you have a fully privatized electricity market, whereas in neighbouring provinces you may have vertically integrated, crown-owned utilities. The ability to co-operate across those borders, then, requires some pretty precise negotiations, ones that the federal government is happy to facilitate but ones that, clearly, we wouldn't be determinative in.
Then, in terms of the four reviews you mentioned, clearly those are a critical priority of the government currently. Our hope would be that they, once completed, would only strengthen the basis on which these projects, once identified, would move through. Clearly, each project that would be undertaken would need to undergo a thorough environmental assessment, thorough consultation, and engagement with indigenous peoples. That process, once the architecture following from those four reviews is established, should help greatly in moving those projects forward.