The Ontario government wants Canada’s most populous province to become an “energy superpower.” That’s the promise behind Bill 40 — the Protect Ontario by Securing Affordable Energy for Generations Act — which became law late last December. While the branding sounds reassuring, the actual legislation tells a very different story.

Bill 40 isn’t just another energy bill. It’s one of the most consequential shifts in Ontario’s electricity planning in decades. It rewrites the rules in ways that should worry anyone who pays a hydro bill or cares about climate action.

What Changed

Here’s the core shift: electricity in Ontario is no longer treated primarily as a public service that must be affordable, reliable, and increasingly clean. Instead, Bill 40 positions electricity as a tool for economic development.

For the first time, both the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) and the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) are legally required to support economic growth as a core objective. That means government economic priorities now formally guide how our grid is planned and regulated. In other words, the grid just got politicized.

The Affordability Problem

Bill 40 quietly removes some of the basic cost protections that were meant to keep your electricity bills in check. Regulators no longer have to clearly show that new projects are the lowest-cost way to meet demand. The law also allows costs to be shifted outside normal rate structures, which blurs accountability. 

The result? Expensive projects can be approved for political or economic reasons — and you’re left holding the bill. Think costly nuclear builds or gas plant expansions justified by “economic growth” rather than what actually makes financial sense for ratepayers.

The Climate Gap

Here’s what Bill 40 doesn’t require: that electricity decisions align with Canada’s clean electricity standards. Or any climate goals at all, for that matter.

Climate outcomes fade into the background while economic growth gets elevated as a priority. The bill doesn’t ban renewables outright — but it removes the clear signal that decarbonization should guide future decisions about the electricity system.

In practice, this framework quietly tilts the grid toward more fossil gas use and dependency. Gas is routinely framed by the provincial government as fast and reliable — especially for power-hungry users like data centres — even though cleaner options can be deployed just as quickly, and often more cheaply. Yet, while Bill 40 sets up rules for how large new electricity loads connect to the grid, there’s no requirement that they use clean power. So gas becomes the likely default choice for growth in Ontario’s economy.

Nuclear Gets a Green Light

The same logic applies to nuclear megaprojects and Small Modular Reactors. Bill 40 doesn’t explicitly approve new nuclear builds, but by redefining the “public interest” around economic growth and government priorities — and by weakening independent regulatory scrutiny — it creates a more permissive environment for large, slow, and expensive nuclear projects to move forward. Even when cheaper and faster clean energy alternatives are available.

The Real Impacts Are Still Coming

The most important thing to understand about Bill 40 is that its biggest impacts may still be ahead. The legislation sets the framework, yet the real consequences will come later — through regulations, funding decisions, and ministerial direction — often with limited public visibility.

That’s why Bill 40 should set off alarm bells, as it marks a clear fork in the road for Ontario’s electricity system. One path prioritizes short-term political and economic wins, risking higher costs and deeper climate lock-in. The other treats clean, affordable electricity as the foundation of long-term prosperity.

Ironically, a law that promises affordable energy for generations risks leaving future Ontarians with higher bills, higher emissions, and fewer ways to change course. Instead of energy affordability for generations, we’re setting up future generations for climate instability and energy poverty. That’s not an energy superpower. That’s a policy failure dressed up in good marketing.