EDMONTON — In a press conference responding to a question from The Western Standard, Premier Danielle Smith addressed criticism over the province’s agreement to increase Alberta’s industrial carbon tax, arguing that the decision reflects constitutional limits imposed by the federal government and practical concerns from Alberta’s energy sector.
Smith rejected claims that the province’s move legitimizes federal involvement in the carbon pricing framework, saying the shift happened because of a Supreme Court ruling rather than provincial agreement.
“It was the Supreme Court that made this decision, not us,” Smith said. “We did fight it, but the court determined that the federal government does have the constitutional authority to set a carbon price.”
According to Smith, that ruling removed Alberta’s authority over the retail carbon tax. Her predecessor Jason Kenney eliminated the provincial version, but Ottawa reinstated it under federal jurisdiction.
Smith noted that while Alberta no longer controls consumer-facing carbon pricing, the province retained authority over the industrial carbon levy, something she says industry specifically requested.
“We’ve been administering the industrial carbon tax since 2007, and it has been very successful,” she said, adding that revenue from the program has supported emissions-reducing technologies.
Smith said the price increase was already set to occur based on negotiations made before she took office. Under the previous agreement, the industrial carbon tax was scheduled to rise to $170 per tonne by 2030.
She argued that global economic conditions and energy market shifts make that level unrealistic.
“With the world changing as much as it has in the last year, we believe $95 is the right price for right now,” she said. She added that Alberta may accept incremental increases up to $130 per tonne but will negotiate the timeline with the federal government.
Smith said the revised approach reduces financial pressure on the energy sector while still complying with federal requirements.
“At least it’s going to be 35% less than what it otherwise would have been by 2030,” she said.
