February 20, 2026
Version published in the Globe and Mail, February 24, 2026
One of the central unanswered questions about the Ford government’s nuclear expansion plans for Ontario has been how they will be paid for? The program includes new nuclear power plants at Darlington, Bruce and Wesleyville, and the refurbishments of existing reactors at the Bruce, Pickering and Darlington sites. Estimates of the capital costs of the government’s plans, based on past projects and recent experiences in the US and Europe, exceed $400 billion dollars.
The government’s plans envision an electricity system that is 75 per cent nuclear in terms of output, up from approximately 50 per cent today. If the costs of these plans are to be paid for through the rates charged for the electricity produced, electricity bills will rise dramatically. Estimates of the costs of electricity from new nuclear plants in Ontario range from the mid-20 cents per Kwh to over 40 cents per Kwh – double or even triple current consumer electricity costs. Such increases would undermine energy affordability, Ontario’s economic competitiveness and any plans for decarbonization through electrification.
Another alternative could be to hide the capital costs as debt, while keeping hydro rates low. That was the strategy followed by previous governments with the province’s original nuclear construction program between the1966 and 1993. In the end, the accumulation of debt flowing from that approach reached $38 billion (~$72 billion in current dollars), leaving the provincial utility, Ontario Hydro, economically inviable and effectively bankrupt.
A series of revelations over the past few months have made it clear that the province seems to have another, potentially equally problematic plan, in mind. It has become apparent that the 29 per cent increase in electricity rates on November 1st was directly related to the financing arrangements for the $25 billion Ontario Power Generation's Darlington new build reactor project, and the $26 billion refurbishment of the Pickering B nuclear station.
The impact on residential hydro bills of the November increase was mitigated through a near doubling of the province's electricity rebate program, at a cost of approximately $2 billion/yr, paid out of general revenues. That meant that, in effect, the province had begun paying for the capital costs of the Darlington and Pickering projects out of general provincial revenues. Moreover, recent changes to Ontario Energy Board rules have created an unprecedented situation where ratepayers and taxpayers are now being asked to pay for nuclear projects that may never be completed or function.
The November increase in the rebate program brought the total costs of the province's electricity rate subsidy programs to approximately $8.5 billion/yr. These expenditures now amount to the equivalent of nearly two-thirds of the province's deficit, exceed total expenditures in the Justice sector, and are approximately double the annual capital investments in both schools and health care.
The Pickering B and Darlington new build projects are only the beginnings of the province's nuclear expansion plans. Additional projects proposed for Wesleyville and the Bruce nuclear site could involve capital expenditures in excess of $300 billion. If financed in the same way, the portion of the provincial budget consumed by electricity subsidies could reach $20 billion/yr - nearly 10 per cent of the province's total budget - forcing either dramatic increases in the provincial deficit - to over $30 billion/yr, substantial tax increases or major reductions in spending in other - already in the view of many - chronically underfunded areas like health care, education, municipal and social services, and non-electricity public infrastructures.
There is, however, another, and better option. None of the province's plans have been subject to any external review in terms of the economic, technological or environmental rationality. Moreover, the province's plans seem premised on assumptions of absolute technological, economic, social, environmental, and political certainty reaching decades into the future. These are things about which, in a ruptured and destabilized world, there can only be absolute certainty of uncertainty. The situation adds to the risks of the province locking into a deeply inflexible energy pathway centred on large, high-cost, and high-risk, generating assets.
Ontario has been the subject of more efforts to develop and model alternative pathways for its electricity system, and the broader decarbonization of its energy system, than any other province in Canada. But there is no process to assess whether the directions set by the provincial government represent the best options for the province in economic and environmental terms relative to the alternative pathways that have been identified.
That situation needs to change rapidly. The province needs to engage in a serious, objective and independent assessment of its energy options for meeting future energy needs, while controlling costs, decarbonizing the province’s electricity system and advancing sustainability, before its too late.