Ontario is preparing to make one of the largest—and potentially most expensive—electricity decisions in the province’s history. This choice will shape hydro bills, industrial competitiveness and climate progress for decades.

Ontarians deserve a serious public debate about the costs and risks of the government’s proposed nuclear expansion—not to be subjected to misleading talking points.

After Environmental Defence released a new report on Ontario’s nuclear plans, Energy Minister Stephen Lecce appeared on CBC’s Power & Politics and rejected its findings. But several of his claims misrepresented the analysis in the report.

What the analysis actually shows

We commissioned Power Advisory LLC, an independent electricity consulting firm, to compare Ontario’s proposed nuclear expansion with a lower-cost alternative based on wind, solar and battery storage. Both scenarios maintain Ontario’s existing nuclear fleet and include the Pickering refurbishment, the Long-Term 2 procurement and all four first-of-a-kind Darlington Small Modular Reactors.

Outside of those investments, Power Advisory estimated that new nuclear plants at Bruce C and Wesleyville could require between $221 billion and $294 billion in capital investment. A renewable energy focused alternative, on the other hand, was estimated to cost between $104 billion and $126 billion.

For an average Ontario household, the nuclear-heavy pathway would translate to approximately $240 to $456 more each year in electricity generation costs.

Yet the Ontario government has failed to explain why it rejects this independent analysis while not releasing its own cost estimates. As The Globe and Mail reported, neither Bruce Power nor Ontario Power Generation has published a cost estimate for Bruce C or Wesleyville. How can the government credibly dismiss independent modelling without making its own numbers available for public scrutiny?

What the Minister’s claims leave out

The Minister raised three main objections: transmission and land costs, reliability and reactor lifespan.

On transmission and land: Power Advisory included additional transmission costs for wind and disclosed that it did not model all system-wide transmission or land impacts. Those are important considerations, but pale in comparison to the extremely high capital costs of nuclear buildouts. The intentional scope mismatch by Minister Lecce needs to be called out: nuclear facilities are capital intensive due to their structural scale and complexity, demanding safety requirements, specialized equipment, cooling-water systems, extensive site preparation and long construction timelines.

On reliability: The Minister pointed to nuclear’s higher “capacity factor”—how much electricity a facility produces compared with its maximum potential. But Ontario is not choosing between one reactor and one wind turbine. Power Advisory modelled complete electricity portfolios, including wind, solar, storage, demand response and dispatchable resources needed to maintain reliability through 2050.

On lifespan: The analysis already assumed nuclear facilities would operate longer: 60 years for new nuclear, compared with 30 years for wind and solar and 20 years for batteries. It also accounted for replacement cycles and costly mid-life nuclear refurbishments. Even with those assumptions, the renewable energy focused pathway remained substantially cheaper.

Other analyses point to similar risks. Canada’s National Observer cited an Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimate that Wesleyville alone could cost about $230 billion if its cost per gigawatt matched Georgia’s Vogtle project.

Ontario needs an honest debate

Ontario will need more electricity as homes, vehicles and industries electrify. But affordability matters. High electricity costs could delay household electrification and discourage businesses from investing in cleaner equipment.

We are not proposing that Ontario shut down its nuclear fleet. Refurbished reactors and all four Darlington SMRs remain in the renewable-focused scenario. The concern is committing to two enormous new nuclear developments when lower-cost alternatives are available.

Before billions are committed, the province should publish its cost assumptions, compare the options transparently and explain why its nuclear-heavy pathway is worth potentially well over $100 billion more.

Ontarians deserve an electricity build-out based on evidence, affordability and accountability—not political talking points.

Read Environmental Defence’s full report: The Real Costs of Ontario’s Nuclear Gamble.