What If Ontario Implemented Different Energy Policies?

The Actual History

Ontario's energy policy underwent significant transformations over the past three decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, Ontario Hydro embarked on an ambitious nuclear power program, building the Pickering, Bruce, and Darlington nuclear generating stations. This massive infrastructure project established Ontario as one of North America's largest nuclear power jurisdictions, with nuclear contributing approximately 60% of Ontario's electricity by the early 1990s.

However, cost overruns, construction delays, and operational problems at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (completed in 1993 at nearly triple its original budget) triggered a reassessment of Ontario's energy strategy. The Progressive Conservative government under Mike Harris (1995-2002) began restructuring Ontario's electricity sector, breaking up Ontario Hydro into separate entities including Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Hydro One. This period saw a halt to new nuclear development and a shift toward market-based approaches to electricity.

A pivotal moment came in 2003 when a massive blackout affected much of northeastern North America, exposing vulnerabilities in Ontario's aging electricity system. The newly elected Liberal government under Dalton McGuinty (2003-2013) committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants, which then supplied about 25% of Ontario's electricity and contributed significantly to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2009, the McGuinty government introduced the Green Energy Act, which established feed-in tariff programs for renewable energy sources like wind and solar, guaranteeing above-market rates to encourage investment. The province also refurbished some existing nuclear reactors while canceling plans for new ones at Darlington. The coal phase-out was completed in 2014, making Ontario the first North American jurisdiction of its size to eliminate coal-fired electricity generation.

The Liberal government under Kathleen Wynne (2013-2018) continued these policies but faced growing criticism over rising electricity costs. The Green Energy Act's generous subsidies for renewable projects contributed to electricity price increases, creating political backlash. Additionally, the government partially privatized Hydro One in 2015, selling 60% of the provincial transmission utility to raise funds for infrastructure and debt reduction.

In 2018, the Progressive Conservative government under Doug Ford canceled more than 750 renewable energy contracts and repealed the Green Energy Act, arguing it had driven up electricity costs. The Ford government also endorsed refurbishment of existing nuclear plants but continued to rely on natural gas generation for peak demand and grid reliability.

By 2023, Ontario's electricity supply mix consisted of approximately 60% nuclear, 24% hydroelectric, 7% wind and solar, 7% natural gas, and 2% biofuels and other sources. The province had successfully eliminated coal while maintaining relatively low carbon emissions in its electricity sector compared to other North American jurisdictions. However, Ontario faced ongoing challenges with electricity costs, aging infrastructure, and growing demand from electrification and population growth.

Looking forward, Ontario Power Generation began refurbishing the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in 2016 (expected completion in 2026) and Bruce Power commenced refurbishment of six reactors at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in 2020 (expected completion in 2033), extending these facilities' operational lives by 30+ years. In 2022, OPG also announced plans to build a small modular reactor (SMR) at the Darlington site, potentially operational by 2028, marking a cautious return to new nuclear development after decades of stagnation.

The Point of Divergence

What if Ontario had doubled down on nuclear power in the 2000s instead of pivoting to renewables and natural gas? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Ontario pursued a different energy strategy following the 2003 blackout, prioritizing nuclear expansion over the Green Energy Act's renewable focus.

This divergence could have occurred in several plausible ways:

First, the McGuinty government might have been influenced by different economic analyses suggesting that nuclear expansion would provide more stable long-term electricity pricing than renewables. With the memory of the 2003 blackout fresh in mind, policymakers might have prioritized baseload generation capacity over intermittent renewable sources.

Alternatively, Ontario's nuclear industry might have successfully lobbied for a "Nuclear Renaissance" program, perhaps bolstered by climate change concerns and the desire to phase out coal without increasing reliance on natural gas. The nuclear industry could have presented more compelling cost projections, learning from past overruns at Darlington to promise more efficient construction.

A third possibility involves international influences. France's successful nuclear model, which provided the country with some of Europe's lowest-carbon and most affordable electricity, might have served as a more persuasive example for Ontario policymakers seeking to reduce both emissions and costs.

In this alternate timeline, the pivotal moment comes in 2005 when, instead of developing what would become the Green Energy Act, the Ontario government announces the "Ontario Nuclear Expansion Program" (ONEP) with plans to build four new CANDU reactors at Darlington and four at Bruce, while also proceeding with comprehensive refurbishment of existing units. The government frames this decision as a climate-friendly solution to replace coal power with reliable, emissions-free baseload generation, positioning Ontario as a global leader in nuclear technology and clean energy.

Immediate Aftermath

Regulatory and Planning Acceleration (2005-2008)

Following the announcement of the Ontario Nuclear Expansion Program, the provincial government immediately began streamlining the regulatory approval process for nuclear projects. In this alternate timeline, the Ontario Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission coordinated to create an expedited review process for new nuclear builds while maintaining safety standards.

By early 2006, detailed environmental assessments were underway for the expansion at both Darlington and Bruce sites. The provincial government allocated significant resources to these assessments, completing them by mid-2007 – approximately two years faster than typical nuclear project reviews. This acceleration reflected the government's commitment to nuclear as the centerpiece of Ontario's energy transition.

Concurrently, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Bruce Power secured agreements with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) for an updated CANDU reactor design that incorporated lessons from previous builds. These agreements included fixed-price contracts with significant penalties for delays and cost overruns – reflecting a determination to avoid the problems that plagued the original Darlington construction.

Economic Impact and Job Creation (2007-2010)

As preliminary site work began at Darlington in late 2007, the economic impacts became immediately apparent. The nuclear expansion created thousands of high-paying construction jobs, with particular benefits to Durham Region east of Toronto. Engineering firms across Ontario saw significant growth as they geared up for the decade-long building program.

The government established the Nuclear Energy Skills Training Institute in 2008, a specialized education center in partnership with Ontario universities and colleges to develop the workforce needed for both construction and operation of the expanded nuclear fleet. This initiative helped address potential skilled labor shortages while creating educational opportunities for young Ontarians.

By 2009, when the global financial crisis hit, Ontario's nuclear program provided counter-cyclical investment that helped the province weather the economic downturn better than expected. While other sectors contracted, the nuclear supply chain – from specialized steel manufacturing to precision components – continued to grow, providing economic stability in several manufacturing regions.

Impact on Renewable Energy (2008-2010)

The focus on nuclear expansion meant that Ontario developed a much more modest renewable energy program than in our timeline. Rather than the comprehensive Green Energy Act of 2009, the province implemented a limited "Renewable Energy Supplement" program in 2008, which offered more modest incentives for wind and solar development primarily as supplementary power sources.

This approach resulted in significantly less renewable capacity being built. By 2010, Ontario had approximately 1,200 MW of wind capacity (compared to over 2,000 MW in our timeline) and only about 250 MW of solar (compared to the rapid growth that would follow the Green Energy Act in our timeline).

The renewable energy industry voiced strong criticism of this approach, arguing that Ontario was missing the opportunity to develop leadership in emerging clean energy technologies. Environmental groups were divided – some supporting nuclear as a climate solution, others opposing it on grounds of waste management concerns and preferences for decentralized power generation.

Political Developments (2008-2011)

The nuclear-focused energy strategy became a significant political issue during McGuinty's second term. The Progressive Conservatives generally supported the nuclear expansion but criticized specific implementation details, while the NDP opposed the scale of the program, favoring greater investment in conservation and renewables.

When the 2011 provincial election arrived, McGuinty's Liberals campaigned heavily on the jobs created by the nuclear program and the progress toward coal elimination without the electricity price increases that renewables would have caused. In this alternate timeline, the Liberals secured a stronger majority than in our timeline, interpreted as a mandate to continue the nuclear expansion.

Coal Phase-Out Timeline

The nuclear expansion altered the timeline for coal phase-out. Rather than the gradual closure of coal plants culminating in 2014 as in our timeline, the government maintained coal generation slightly longer while awaiting the first new nuclear units. The revised schedule called for:

Lakeview Generating Station closure in 2005 (same as actual timeline)
Partial reduction at Nanticoke and Lambton by 2010
Complete phase-out by 2017, contingent on the first new nuclear units entering service

This adjusted timeline created tension with environmental groups who pushed for faster coal elimination, but the government maintained that the comprehensive plan would result in lower overall emissions in the medium term.

Long-term Impact

Nuclear Fleet Expansion (2012-2025)

The first of the new nuclear reactors at Darlington began construction in 2010, with site preparation and foundation work. Unlike previous nuclear projects in Ontario, which suffered significant delays, this alternate timeline's streamlined regulatory process and improved project management resulted in more predictable timelines, though still not without challenges.

The first new CANDU unit at Darlington connected to the grid in late 2017 – approximately 7 years after breaking ground. While this was longer than the initial 6-year projection, it represented an improvement over historical nuclear construction timeframes in North America. The remaining units followed at roughly 9-12 month intervals:

Darlington Unit 5: Commercial operation in early 2018
Darlington Unit 6: Commercial operation in late 2018
Darlington Unit 7: Commercial operation in mid-2019
Darlington Unit 8: Commercial operation in early 2020

The Bruce expansion followed a similar pattern, with the first new unit there entering service in 2019 and the remainder by 2023. Concurrently, the refurbishment of existing reactors proceeded on schedules similar to our timeline.

By 2025, Ontario's nuclear fleet capacity had nearly doubled from its 2005 levels, providing approximately 80% of the province's electricity needs – a figure comparable to France's nuclear share and among the highest in the world.

Electricity System Characteristics

Ontario's electricity system in this alternate timeline evolved quite differently from our own. Key differences by 2025 included:

Generation Mix

Nuclear: 80% (vs. 60% in our timeline)
Hydroelectric: 16% (vs. 24% in our timeline)
Wind and Solar: 2% (vs. 7% in our timeline)
Natural Gas: 1% (vs. 7% in our timeline)
Biofuels/Other: 1% (vs. 2% in our timeline)

Grid Characteristics

The high nuclear proportion created both advantages and challenges. The system had abundant baseload generation with minimal carbon emissions, but less flexibility to respond to demand fluctuations. This led to:

Development of more pumped hydro storage facilities than in our timeline
Greater electricity exports to neighboring jurisdictions during off-peak periods
Implementation of aggressive demand response programs to shift consumption patterns
Development of hydrogen production facilities that utilized off-peak nuclear power

Economic Impacts

The economics of electricity in Ontario followed a different trajectory than our timeline:

Initial Costs: Electricity rates rose modestly between 2010-2020 as the costs of new nuclear construction were incorporated into the rate base.
Long-term Stability: By 2025, rates stabilized at levels approximately 15% lower than in our timeline, as the high fixed-cost but low variable-cost nature of nuclear generation began to show advantages over natural gas (which faced carbon pricing) and renewables (which required backup generation).
Industrial Benefits: Lower and more predictable electricity costs attracted energy-intensive industries to Ontario, particularly in manufacturing and data centers.

Nuclear Industry Development

Ontario's commitment to nuclear power transformed its position in the global nuclear industry. By pursuing both traditional CANDU technology and investing in small modular reactor (SMR) development, the province became a center for nuclear innovation.

In 2016, with construction of the full-size reactors well underway, OPG and Bruce Power collaborated with several Canadian technology companies to launch the Advanced Nuclear Innovation Consortium. This public-private partnership focused on developing SMR designs suitable for domestic use and export.

By 2023, the first SMR demonstration project began construction at the Chalk River Laboratories site, with commercial SMRs planned for deployment by 2026 – approximately two years ahead of our timeline's progress. This nuclear innovation ecosystem created a technology sector that employed over 30,000 people across Ontario by 2025, with significant export potential to countries seeking to decarbonize.

Environmental Outcomes

The environmental impact of Ontario's nuclear-focused strategy showed mixed results compared to our timeline:

Carbon Emissions

By 2025, Ontario's electricity sector emissions were approximately 90% lower than 2005 levels – slightly better than our timeline due to less reliance on natural gas. The province achieved one of North America's lowest-carbon electricity grids, with emissions intensity below 20g CO₂/kWh – comparable to France and Sweden.

Land Use and Ecological Impact

The concentrated nature of nuclear generation meant that Ontario's electricity system had a much smaller physical footprint than would have been required for equivalent renewable capacity. This reduced land use conflicts, particularly regarding wind farm siting in rural and coastal areas.

Nuclear Waste Management

The expanded nuclear program necessitated more comprehensive solutions for spent fuel management. In this timeline, Canada accelerated the development of a deep geological repository, selecting a site in Northern Ontario by 2020 and beginning construction by 2025 – approximately 5-7 years ahead of projections in our timeline.

Political and Social Implications

Ontario's nuclear-focused energy strategy had significant political ramifications. The province's identity became intertwined with nuclear technology, similar to how Quebec identifies with hydroelectricity. This created a more resilient political consensus around nuclear power than exists in our timeline.

However, this consensus wasn't without opposition. Anti-nuclear activism remained a feature of Ontario politics, though it never gained the mainstream traction needed to reverse the nuclear expansion. Instead, the debate shifted toward ensuring maximum safety standards and proper management of nuclear waste.

By 2025, Ontario's energy politics had largely moved beyond the nuclear-versus-renewables debate that characterizes our timeline. Instead, political discussions focused on:

How to leverage Ontario's low-carbon electricity for broader decarbonization (transportation, heating, industry)
Managing electricity exports as a provincial revenue source
Developing the next generation of nuclear technologies
Balancing centralized nuclear generation with growing interest in distributed energy resources

International Position

Ontario's nuclear path influenced Canada's international position on energy and climate issues. The federal government, seeing the success of Ontario's nuclear program, became a stronger advocate for nuclear power in international climate negotiations.

By 2025, Canada positioned itself as a leader in "Nuclear Climate Solutions," promoting Canadian nuclear technology as a decarbonization pathway for coal-dependent nations. This created occasional tension with European allies who favored renewable-centric approaches but aligned Canada more closely with nuclear advocates like France, the UK (which pursued a nuclear renaissance in this timeline), and emerging nuclear nations in Eastern Europe and Asia.

Canadian companies secured nuclear construction and operating contracts in multiple countries, creating a new export sector valued at over $10 billion annually by 2025.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Melissa Chen, Professor of Energy Economics at the University of Toronto, offers this perspective: "Ontario's nuclear-focused energy strategy represented a different but equally valid decarbonization pathway than the renewable-centric approach many jurisdictions chose. The higher upfront capital costs created political challenges, but the long-term outcome was a stable, low-carbon electricity system with competitive rates. The key innovation was not technological but financial and regulatory – developing mechanisms to manage the initial investment risk while ensuring long-term benefits. This approach wouldn't work everywhere, but for jurisdictions with strong governance, existing nuclear expertise, and access to capital, it demonstrates a viable alternative to the renewables-plus-storage paradigm that dominates climate discussions."

Thomas Rodriguez, Senior Fellow at the Global Energy Transition Institute, presents a more critical view: "Ontario's all-in nuclear strategy delivered on its carbon reduction promises but at the cost of technological diversity and adaptability. By concentrating resources so heavily in one technology, the province effectively sidelined potentially transformative innovations in distributed energy resources, storage, and grid management. While nuclear provided a reliable decarbonization pathway, it perpetuated a centralized electricity paradigm that may prove less resilient to emerging challenges than more diverse systems. The success metrics look good today, but the true test will come as the grid faces increasing demands from electrification and climate adaptation."

Dr. Aisha Nkrumah, Former Chair of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, notes: "What Ontario demonstrated in this alternate path was that nuclear expansion didn't have to repeat the cost overruns and delays that plagued previous generations of projects. By learning from past mistakes, implementing strict project management protocols, and maintaining regulatory certainty, the province showed that nuclear construction can be predictable and economically viable. The safety record remained exemplary throughout this expansion, challenging the notion that increased nuclear generation necessarily increases risk. Perhaps most importantly, this path created a technology ecosystem that positioned Canada at the forefront of next-generation nuclear development, with implications far beyond electricity generation alone."