Ontario's nuclear plans includes a call to domestic institutional capital

Premier Doug Ford’s government is embarking on a major reconfiguration of Ontario’s energy mix, with a pronounced emphasis on nuclear power to support the province’s increasing energy needs and its ambition of net-zero emissions by 2050. The newly released Energy for Generations blueprint, promoted as the province’s inaugural integrated strategy for the sector, outlines significant expansion plans for nuclear—while also forecasting greater reliance on fossil fuels in the near term, and a temporary increase in emissions before decline post-2030.

At the launch, Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce stated, “As energy demand soars, our plan leverages ‘Made-In-Ontario’ to build affordable, clean, and always reliable power, built by and for Canadians.” He further remarked that the roadmap offers “a comprehensive roadmap to meet future energy needs, support new housing, and power the most competitive economy in the G7.” The plan targets delivering more than 99 percent emission-free electricity by mid-century.

Investment Potential: Canadian Pension Funds Invited

Of particular note to Canadian pension professionals, the government’s approach includes a call to domestic institutional capital. The plan intends to “attract investment from Canadian pension funds and institutional investors to ‘keep more Canadian energy dollars working here at home,’” reflecting a growing trend for pension assets being put to work in domestic infrastructure projects. The nuclear buildout requires as much as 17,800 MW of new capacity by 2050—which translates into building five stations equivalent in size to Darlington—and projects nuclear to provide over 70 percent of Ontario’s electricity, up from about half today.

To facilitate such large-scale projects, Ontario is assessing “new ownership models and equity partnerships to attract private capital and help finance the expansion.” Meanwhile, there is ongoing engagement with First Nations and local communities on potential new nuclear sites, and a technology advisory panel will steer project decisions in collaboration with major energy stakeholders.

Oversight, Risk—and the Renewables Question

Despite the vision, some experts remain concerned about governance and risk management. Mark Winfield of York University warns, “This isn’t a plan — it’s a policy statement,” and highlights a lack of “oversight or review process to assess whether this represents the least-cost or lowest-risk option for Ontario.” Winfield elaborated, “There is no process in place to evaluate whether the government’s chosen energy path is the most affordable or lowest-risk for the province.” On the technical front, he adds, “All of the proposed reactor technologies rely on enriched fuel that comes from the United States,” presenting possible energy security concerns.

Meanwhile, the energy plan’s muted focus on renewables has drawn criticism. Aliénor Rougeot of Environmental Defence argues that the path set out could mean higher energy costs, elevated emissions, and increasing dependency on imported gas: “I kept flipping through the document, asking: Where are the renewables?” Notably, the forecast in the provincial plan anticipates less wind and solar in operation by 2050 than in 2030. For Rougeot, the failure to centralize renewables “will come at a high cost — both economically and environmentally.”

Contrary perspectives remain: According to provincial materials, nuclear offers superior land efficiency, claiming that a single 10,000 MW nuclear complex in Wesleyville would require much less space than equivalent wind or solar installations—up to 500 times less land than wind and 100 times less than solar for the same output.

Yet, recent analysis pushes back, indicating that “more than half of Toronto’s electricity needs could be met through rooftop and parking lot solar alone.” The Ontario Clean Air Alliance contends wind and solar could “meet the same energy needs as the proposed Wesleyville nuclear station much faster and at far lower cost — potentially saving the province up to $19 billion annually.” An additional industry estimate finds nuclear-generated power could be up to 3.6 times more expensive than onshore wind and three times more than solar on a per-output basis.

Balancing Infrastructure Returns with ESG Commitments

Industry groups have generally applauded the province’s nuclear ambitions, with Enbridge Gas describing it as “a clear affirmation” of natural gas’s ongoing role for affordability and grid reliability, and the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries hailing it as “a bold step toward clean energy leadership.”

Lia Codrington at the Pembina Institute notes that Ontario’s strategic planning is a positive development, and she recognizes Ontario’s need to “follow that trend — and even potentially lead — by modernizing its electricity system.” She further emphasizes that “decisions about land use should reflect what Ontarians want in their communities when it comes to energy sources, not just technical comparisons in megawatts per square kilometre.”