After Canada’s Election: An Energy Abundance Strategy for North America

Commentary by Ryan C. Berg

Published May 1, 2025

Canada's recent election completes a trifecta for North America. Within the past nine months, the three countries have all elected new leaders with fresh mandates. In their own way, each election featured debates about inflation, the cost of living, economic growth, and the importance of energy and other natural resources. In elections that were otherwise very distinct, the latter was an important throughline stemming from the fact that North America is endowed with some of the greatest natural resources in the world. These resource endowments present a comparative advantage in marketing the region as an ideal home for all types of businesses and high-tech manufacturing. Indeed, one outcome from North America's three recent elections is clear-a citizenry that is more "energy literate" when it comes to the importance of policymakers getting this critical issue right. Simply put, energy is the lifeblood of the North American economy.

While the North American relationship is certainly replete with challenges, there is an opportunity in the coming year to thread the needle and move towards an abundance strategy for the region's energy sources. Notably, this could represent a rare moment of North American alignment on a critical issue for the region's future.

Natural Bounties

At this point, it probably sounds trite. Every U.S. president has promised to pursue an "all of the above" strategy on energy policy. In practice, however, each has chosen to prioritize certain types of energy over others. President Obama was taken by wind and solar, while President Trump has emphasized oil and natural gas. The energy policies of the leaders of Canada and Mexico have also tended to emphasize certain energy sources while sidelining others. Yet, a North American abundance strategy would recognize not only the complementarity of our resource endowments, but also that energy demand is going up-in most cases, way up-and thus "all of the above" should not be considered a hackneyed phrase any longer. The region really does need more of everything-oil and natural gas, wind, solar, hydrogen, and of course, nuclear. This can be translated into more transmission lines, more pipelines, more solar farms, and yes, more reactors.

Energy use will boom because of both population growth and economic growth. Over the next five years, studies predict that U.S. electricity demand will grow byalmost 16 percent. This is notable in an industry that saw power consumption increase less than 1 percent annually over the past 20 years. Of course, the single biggest factor in skyrocketing energy demand will be the drive for dominance in artificial intelligence. Data centers are expected to represent nearly half of all electricity demand by 2030. Research by CSIS demonstrates that the unprecedented scale of future power demands for data centers capable of training large language models is equivalent to adding another state the size of Texas to the United States' overall power grid. Simply put, there is no way to meet this demand without an energy buildup that is truly open to all types of energy.

The Potential for Alignment-Wittingly or Unwittingly

President Trump, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, and newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney all previewed energy policies during their respective campaigns.

Donald Trump: In President Trump's case, he was crystal clear on the campaign trail-he wants to pursue a policy of U.S. energy dominance. To do so, he has established the National Energy Dominance Council, a domestic body housed within the executive office of the president. Apart from wind, President Trump has shown an openness to all forms of energy in an effort to build out U.S. energy potential. Criticizing the Biden administration for hobbling oil and natural gas production, Trump has pledged to incentivize increased domestic production. He has also advocated for the United States to become a dominant supplier of liquefied natural gas to the globe. Notably, he has also shown a special interest in building back the United States' nuclear capacity through the building of small modular reactors. In general, his administration's push to deregulate many industries and remove permitting restrictions and other red tape is welcome news for many in the energy industry.

Claudia Sheinbaum: In Claudia Sheinbaum's case, the Mexican president inherits a difficult domestic energy situation. Her predecessor, former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), extolled oil and gas as essential to Mexican identity and sought to further the position of the state-owned behemoth Petróleos de México (Pemex). Beyond his support for Pemex, the world's most indebted oil company, AMLO shunned foreign investment in the energy sector, reversing a 2013 constitutional amendment that opened Mexico's energy sector to private and foreign investment for the first time. Following the reform, Mexico reaped a whirlwind of foreign direct investment from Western firms, totaling around $15 billion between 2013 and 2021 in the electricity sector alone. AMLO shuttered these avenues, with Mexico's grid returning to an overreliance on Pemex. Mounting and unsustainable debt at Pemex, combined with a scientific background as a climate scientist, Sheinbaum has signaled a course correction. On the campaign trail, she previewed an openness to foreign investment in Mexico's energy landscape-not least because of the litigiousness of this issue and its expected prominence in the renegotiation process for the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)-and stated clearly that Mexico needs to amplify and diversify its energy matrix for the coming increase in demand. Since taking office, she has directed members of her administration to explore private sector partnerships to potentially expand the practice of fracking in Mexico.

Mark Carney: In Mark Carney's case, the Liberal Party leader appeared to pivot away from former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's energy policies, widely accused of stymying Canada's energy development with excessive regulations, onerous caps on emissions, and burdensome taxes. In contrast, Carney pledged to make Canada the "world's leading energy superpower." The campaign witnessed an emerging consensus on energy policy: Both candidates in Canada's recent election promised to fast-track energy projects and speed federal approvals for major infrastructure projects in acknowledgment that Canada needs more energy sovereignty. Tensions with the United States contributed to mounting support for greater nationwide pipeline development, surmounting traditional opposition from provinces such as Quebec. One observer of the English language debate between leadership candidates noted that the word "pipeline" was uttered 20 times in the openers; when the debate shifted to a segment specifically dedicated to discussion of energy, the word pipeline appeared even more frequently. Greater consensus also emerged on the need for a more robust cross-country rail network as well, which could complement energy-related infrastructure development. Admittedly, while the motivation for this change might be driven by the desire to build infrastructure that diversifies Canada's energy export markets away from the United States, the country will still send refined oil and gas to the United States over the short to medium term.

Carney would be wise to realize that part of his victory derives from voters keen to see Canada move beyond a discussion of whether it should develop all its natural resources and toward an affirmative plan for doing so-and in an expedited fashion to boot. Furthermore, Carney would do well to achieve several quick victories to allay justifiable cynicism of the Liberal Party on energy issues, given the decade-long policies of the party under Justin Trudeau's leadership. Scoring quick wins could pay dividends for both Canada and the North America region in a sector that contributed more than 10 percent of the country's GDP in 2023. It would also parry the fears of Western provinces that under a Liberal government, Ottawa will once again hobble Alberta and Saskatchewan's development of natural resources, exacerbating already extant separatist tensions.

Toward an Abundance Strategy

Although North American alignment on an abundance strategy would be preferable to a lack of alignment, there is a possibility that each country working on its own toward greater energy security and energy sovereignty, maximizing the use of its considerable resources, and collaborating where necessary, would greatly benefit the region. Even countries that have advocated energy sovereignty and dominance, such as the United States, are providing opportunities to produce abundance. After all, energy dominance can be interpreted as freedom from the bonds of dependence, especially dependence upon adversaries. Even if North American energy cooperation is not deepened, there should be, at the very least, minimal cooperation on questions of phasing and sequencing. For instance, the region's natural gas is likely to be the best and most readily available answer in the short and medium term for increased demand until other resources can be fully tapped.

The economy is quickly moving to a permanent setting-"always on"-with important implications for energy reliability and demand. Therefore, in addition to capacity, North America must build enhanced energy reliability. Data centers, for instance, need constant energy, as do many advanced industrial processes that the region seeks to relocate to its shores. Permitting reform will be critical once the region brings more energy sources online, as it is key to getting energy to where it is consumed with a high level of certainty. Even if North America's leaders are able to cut through the thicket of regulations impeding the abundance strategy, there are very real political costs that will have to be surmounted, clumsy government rollouts, policies, and imprecise messaging campaigns can shutter progress, and "Not In My Backyard-ism" is alive and well, replete with special interest and lobby groups that know how to fight back effectively. After all, there is a reason the United States built a bevy of nuclear reactors in the twentieth century, but in the twenty-first century, the country has built just four. According to TC Energy's CEO François Poirier, in 1956, it took just two years to build the TransCanada Mainline, a 2,300-kilometer pipeline; the 670-kilometer Coastal GasLink pipeline, by contrast, took more than a decade to build and just came online last year.

All three governments should lead with the private sector, which means providing a stable set of rules governing the energy space. The 2026 review of the USMCA will be an important moment overall, and the agreement's energy chapter will occupy a considerable portion of negotiators' time.

The United States' emergence as the world's largest natural gas exporter, harnessing the advent of new fracking technology to access previously inaccessible resources, demonstrates not only North America's resource endowments, but also how quickly the region's panorama can change with the right mix of incentives, technological advance, and regulatory policies. If North America moves to the abundance mindset previewed during the three respective campaigns, either in a highly coordinated or less coordinated fashion, the region may well be on the verge of a new era of global energy leadership.

Ryan C. Berg is director of the Americas Program and head of the Future of Venezuela Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Programs & Projects