Natasha Bulowski
Local Journalism Initiative Reporter
Canada’s National Observer
Saskatchewan is hitching its future to continued coal-fired power generation while it transitions to nuclear energy — and wants the federal government to help pay for a huge, but unspecified, chunk of it.
The province’s new strategy, published Oct. 20, formalized Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s intention to extend coal-fired power generation and use it as “a secure bridge” to nuclear power. The plan flies in the face of federal regulations that require all coal-fired power plants (except those outfitted with carbon capture technology) to be shut down by 2030 to clean up Canada’s electricity grid.
“Coal is secure in that it’s there, and it’s operating, but the bridge to nuclear is the open question: How far is the bridge? How expensive? And what are the environmental consequences of maintaining that bridge?” M.V. Ramana, a professor and nuclear expert based at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, said in an interview with Canada’s National Observer.
Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and produces more planet-warming carbon dioxide when burned than oil or gas.
A group of citizens are challenging the province’s decision to extend coal-fired generation, arguing the province’s decision is “unreasonable” and should be reviewed by the courts due to a lack of public consultation, disregard for Canadian and international law and potential Charter rights implications. On Nov. 10, the applicants were in Court of King’s Bench in Saskatoon to argue that the case should be allowed to proceed, while the province said it should be struck down.
Canada and Saskatchewan signed an equivalency agreement last winter that exempts Saskatchewan from the federal rules until the end of 2026, reads a statement from Gregory Frame, a spokesperson for Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Tim Hodgson, in an email to Canada’s National Observer. The agreement recognizes “Saskatchewan has its own measures to achieve the same outcomes as federal coal regulations,” Frame wrote.
Saskatchewan’s energy security and supply plan does not include cost estimates for bringing small modular reactors and large-scale reactors online but still asked the federal government to pay for 75 per cent of the province’s first nuclear reactor.
The federal government did not give a clear response to the province’s request for it to cover three quarters of a reactor. The federal government is committed “to advancing clean, reliable baseload power in Saskatchewan and across Canada, including next-generation nuclear,” according to Frame’s statement. In it, Frame pointed to $74 million the federal government committed in 2023 to support the pre-development work for Saskatchewan’s first small modular reactor project with SaskPower and GE Hitachi.
The province’s plan was light on details, but if Saskatchewan wants its first reactor to be a reproduction of Ontario’s Darlington SMR project, which includes four reactors, the current cost would be $20.9 billion — meaning the province would expect Ottawa to contribute $15.7 billion, Ramana said.
“I don’t see the federal government paying that kind of money,” said Ramana. For Darlington, the federal government is spending $2 billion through the Canada Growth Fund and several years ago provided nearly $1 billion through the Canada Infrastructure Bank for pre-development work.
“The rest of the costs, I presume, are going to be falling upon the heads of the residents,” Ramana said.
“Now, in the case of Saskatchewan … regardless of whether this is realistic or not, the question is, even after that, what is the cost increase that is going to be passed on to the customers, as opposed to if the province had chosen to go with an expansion of wind and solar,” he said.
Although the federal government and Saskatchewan are both supportive of nuclear energy, Ottawa wants to replace fossil fuels — and fast, Ramana said.
“If Saskatchewan were really serious about nuclear, they should have started planning for these, for these reactors, decades ago,” Ramana said. “Saskatchewan is so late to the game that it can only be seen as a delaying tactic.”
“Even provinces that have been planning for close to a decade have not actually come anywhere close to having SMRs start operating,” he said, pointing to New Brunswick as a “cautionary tale.” Since 2018, the Atlantic province and federal government have given more than $80 million to companies, ARC and Moltex, but neither will have a reactor ready by 2030.
Saskatchewan’s energy security plan partially justifies its decision to stick with coal-fired generation because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, citing SaskPower’s forecast that electricity demand will increase by 40 to 100 per cent by 2050.
“Countries around the world have been adopting renewables, and they’ve been growing very fast, despite the fact that everywhere wind and solar have fairly low efficiencies, but it’s more than compensated for by the fact that their costs are far less,” Ramana said. Once you set up wind turbines or solar panels, you generate electricity for free because you aren’t paying for fuel like with nuclear, he said.
Over the last decade, ways to deal with the variability of renewables “have increased tremendously,” including through expansion of storage, battery storage and demand-side measures, making it a more logical path, particularly when compared to the long timelines and high costs of nuclear, Ramana said.
Saskatchewan would continue burning coal until it gets SMRs online and contributing to the electricity grid, which Ramana said could be 2035 in a very optimistic scenario, but likely closer to 2040.
The province should be investing in and researching how to integrate more renewables onto Saskatchewan’s grid while maintaining grid stability, he said. But by doubling down on coal, the province is signalling disinterest in solving those challenges, said Ramana.
Federal regulations require all coal-fired power plants (except those with carbon capture technology) be shut down by 2030 to clean up Canada’s electricity grid but Saskatchewan’s plan doesn’t emphasize carbon capture for coal plants.
Jesse Knisley, media relations officer for Saskatchewan’s executive council, said in an email to Canada’s National Observer that SaskEnergy is not currently pursuing a carbon capture project. The Crown utility is open to explore a role in transporting and storing carbon dioxide if such a project is developed in Saskatchewan, Knisley said.
Ontario was the first province to phase out coal-fired electricity under Premier Kathleen Wynne in 2014. Last summer, Alberta transitioned its last coal plant to natural gas to complete the coal phase-out. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan still use coal-fired electricity.
Saskatchewan is the world’s second-largest producer of uranium and Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp and Brookfield Asset Management recently struck up an $80 billion strategic partnership with the U.S. government to accelerate nuclear deployment south of the border.
