Saskatchewan Experts Question Premier’s Coal Plant Extension Plan
Two Saskatchewan experts are challenging Premier Scott Moe’s assertion that extending the lifespan of coal plants is the most cost-effective investment for the province, rather than transitioning to gas and renewable energy sources. This debate comes as Ottawa has unveiled a new National Electricity Strategy aiming to double Canada’s grid capacity by 2050. The extension of coal plants was a significant topic during the final day of Saskatchewan’s spring legislature sitting on Thursday.
The national electricity plan highlights the strategic role of natural gas, particularly in Western Canada, due to its operational flexibility that complements wind and solar energy. However, the strategy remains silent on Saskatchewan’s efforts to prolong coal power.
In October 2025, Moe’s government announced plans to extend the life of coal power plants until 2050, presenting coal as an affordable bridge to nuclear energy. Recently, Sask. Party members and SaskPower CEO Rupen Pandya stated that the capital costs for refurbishing the province’s coal plants amount to $2.6 billion.
However, on May 6, the provincial NDP leaked a SaskPower slideshow deck that projected a total cost of $26 billion for the extension. This figure includes a $393 million initial capital sustainment investment, $11.4 billion for the 25-year extension, $1.4 billion for transmission costs, and $13 billion for fuel costs.
Brett Dolter, an economics professor at the University of Regina specializing in Saskatchewan’s electricity policy, points out that potential carbon pricing costs, which were not included in the leaked projections, are significant.
“Coal-fired electricity is the dirtiest form of electricity we can produce, which means it has a lot of CO2 emissions, and if you put a price on those, it’s very expensive,” he said.
“A coal plant might be 1080 tons of CO2 per gigawatt hour of electricity. A gas plant is going to be about a third of that, and then if you take a gas plant and only run it in tandem with wind and solar… then your emissions are even lower.”
The federal government and Alberta recently agreed on a path to approve a new oil pipeline by September 2027. The deal involves an effective industrial carbon tax rate of $130 per tonne, which was confirmed to take effect by 2040.
When asked how coal remains the most affordable power option, Moe insisted it is “without a doubt” the cheapest.
Dolter used the leaked $26 billion total to compare the cost of extending coal’s lifespan with other natural gas plant development scenarios. Based on these figures, he argues that alternatives are consistently cheaper, even when accounting for fluctuations in natural gas prices.
Dolter also noted that the federal government’s shift toward natural gas indicates that regulations will allow gas plants to remain on the grid beyond 2050.
SaskPower has distanced itself from the leaked $26 billion projection.
“As with any large organization, various scenarios, analyses, and options may be reviewed internally before decisions are made. Those discussions should not be confused with finalized government direction or policy,” Pandya said in an email statement.
“Public confidence is not served when confidential internal deliberations are taken out of context.”
Environmental economist Joel Bruneau, who has taught courses on natural resource economics at the University of Saskatchewan, is not convinced that the province’s cited $2.6 billion investment in retrofitting coal is money well spent.
“We know from other research (on) the full cost of providing electricity, (that) coal is not the cheapest, and certainly nuclear is one of the most expensive. The renewables have come down in price tremendously over time, and the forecast is that (they) will continue to come down over time,” he said.
“Coal is past its prime.”
Dolter acknowledged the hundreds of jobs that would be lost in the Estevan and Coronach areas if coal plants were decommissioned but suggested that nuclear power, which requires a similar labor force, could replace them.
“From a labour supplies perspective, you’d actually want to be retiring these coal plants in order to free up your labour if you’re going to be building an SMR (nuclear power plant) in Estevan,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment