Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams

From the Fraser Institute

By Elmira Aliakbari and Jock Finlayson

The federal government’s plan to make all electricity generation in Canada carbon-free by 2035 is impractical and highly unlikely, given physical, infrastructure, financial, and regulatory realities. So says a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Canada’s federal government has set an ambitious, and, frankly, unrealistic target of achieving complete carbon-free electricity in ten years,” said Jock Finlayson, Fraser Institute senior fellow and co-author of Implications of Decarbonizing Canada’s Electricity Grid.

The study finds that in 2023, nearly 81 per cent of Canada’s electricity came from carbon-free energy sources, including hydro, nuclear, wind and solar. But to replace the remaining 19 per cent which uses fossil fuels, in the next 10 years, would require constructing the equivalent of:

• Approximately 23 large hydroelectric dams, similar in size to BC’s Site C, or 24 comparable to Newfoundland and Labrador’s Muskrat Falls, or;

• More than four nuclear power plants similar in size to Ontario’s Darlington power station, or 2.3 large scale nuclear power plants equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Power, or;

• Around 11,000 large wind turbines, which would not only require substantial investments in back-up power systems (since wind is intermittent) but would also require clearing 7,302 square kilometers of land—larger than the size of Prince Edward Island—excluding the additional land required for transmission infrastructure.

Currently, the process of planning and constructing major electricity generation facilities in Canada is complicated and time-consuming, often marked by delays, regulatory challenges, and significant cost overruns.

For example, BC’s Site C project took approximately 43 years from the initial planning studies in 1971 to receive environmental certification in 2014, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.

What’s more, the significant energy infrastructure listed above would only meet Canada’s current electricity needs. As Canada’s population grows, the demand for electricity will increase significantly.

“It is not at all realistic that this scale of energy infrastructure can be planned, approved, financed and built in just 10 years, which is what would be required merely to decarbonize Canada’s existing electricity needs,” said Elmira Aliakbari, director natural resource studies at the Fraser Institute and study co-author.

“This doesn’t even account for the additional infrastructure needed to meet future electricity demand. Decarbonizing Canada’s electricity generation by 2035 is another case where the government has set completely unrealistic timelines without any meaningful plan to achieve it.”

This essay examines the implications of decarbonizing Canada’s electricity grid by replacing existing fossil fuel-based generation with clean energy sources.
In 2023, clean energy sources—including hydro, nuclear, and wind—produced 497.6 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, accounting for nearly 81% of Canada’s total supply, while fossil fuels contributed 117.7 TWh (19.1%). To replace this fossil fuel generation with hydro power alone would require about 23 large projects similar to BC’s Site C or 24 like Newfoundland & Labrador’s Muskrat Falls. Using nuclear power would necessitate building 2.3 facilities equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Power or 4.3 similar to Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
The process of planning and constructing electricity generation facilities in Canada is complex and time-consuming, often marked by delays, regulatory hurdles, and significant cost overruns. For example, the BC Site C project took approximately 43 years from the initial feasibility and planning studies in 1971 to receive environmental certification in 2014, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.
Land requirements for new electricity generation facilities are also significant; replacing 117.7 TWh of fossil fuel-based electricity with hydro power, for instance, would need approximately 26,345 square kilometers, nearly half the size of Nova Scotia.
The slow pace of regulatory approvals, high and rising costs of major energy projects, substantial land requirements, and public opposition to project siting all cast doubt on the feasibility of achieving the necessary clean electricity infrastructure in the coming decade to fully replace fossil fuels in Canada.

Authors:

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Jock Finlayson

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

More from this study

Read the Full Report

Up Next

Taxpayers Federation urging Ontario to join Alberta’s carbon tax court fight

Don't Miss

“Axe the Tax” is just the beginning

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Addictions / 13 hours ago

Coffee, Nicotine, and the Politics of Acceptable Addiction

Business / 15 hours ago

Federal funds FROZEN after massive fraud uncovered: Trump cuts off Minnesota child care money

Alberta

The Canadian Energy Centre’s biggest stories of 2025

Published on December 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Canada’s energy landscape changed significantly in 2025, with mounting U.S. economic pressures reinforcing the central role oil and gas can play in safeguarding the country’s independence.

Here are the Canadian Energy Centre’s top five most-viewed stories of the year.

5. Alberta’s massive oil and gas reserves keep growing – here’s why

The Northern Lights, aurora borealis, make an appearance over pumpjacks near Cremona, Alta., Thursday, Oct. 10, 2024. CP Images photo

Analysis commissioned this spring by the Alberta Energy Regulator increased the province’s natural gas reserves by more than 400 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.

Even with record production, Alberta’s oil reserves – already fourth in the world – also increased by seven billion barrels.

According to McDaniel & Associates, which conducted the report, these reserves are likely to become increasingly important as global demand continues to rise and there is limited production growth from other sources, including the United States.

4. Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

Photo courtesy Coastal GasLink

Canada could be on the cusp of a “golden age” for building major energy projects, said Kevin O’Donnell, executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada.

That eagerness is shared by the Edmonton-based Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which launched a “Let’s Get Building” advocacy campaign urging all Canadian politicians to focus on getting major projects built.

“The sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy,” said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong.

3. New Canadian oil and gas pipelines a $38 billion missed opportunity, says Montreal Economic Institute

Steel pipe in storage for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2022. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

In March, a report by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) underscored the economic opportunity of Canada building new pipeline export capacity.

MEI found that if the proposed Energy East and Gazoduq/GNL Quebec projects had been built, Canada would have been able to export $38 billion worth of oil and gas to non-U.S. destinations in 2024.

“We would be able to have more prosperity for Canada, more revenue for governments because they collect royalties that go to government programs,” said MEI senior policy analyst Gabriel Giguère.

“I believe everybody’s winning with these kinds of infrastructure projects.”

2. Keyera ‘Canadianizes’ natural gas liquids with $5.15 billion acquisition

Keyera Corp.’s natural gas liquids facilities in Fort Saskatchewan, Alta. Photo courtesy Keyera Corp.

In June, Keyera Corp. announced a $5.15 billion deal to acquire the majority of Plains American Pipelines LLP’s Canadian natural gas liquids (NGL) business, creating a cross-Canada NGL corridor that includes a storage hub in Sarnia, Ontario.

The acquisition will connect NGLs from the growing Montney and Duvernay plays in Alberta and B.C. to markets in central Canada and the eastern U.S. seaboard.

“Having a Canadian source for natural gas would be our preference,” said Sarnia mayor Mike Bradley.

“We see Keyera’s acquisition as strengthening our region as an energy hub.”

1. Explained: Why Canadian oil is so important to the United States

Enbridge’s Cheecham Terminal near Fort McMurray, Alberta is a key oil storage hub that moves light and heavy crude along the Enbridge network. Photo courtesy Enbridge

The United States has become the world’s largest oil producer, but its reliance on oil imports from Canada has never been higher.

Many refineries in the United States are specifically designed to process heavy oil, primarily in the U.S. Midwest and U.S. Gulf Coast.

According to the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the top five U.S. refineries running the most Alberta crude are:

Marathon Petroleum, Robinson, Illinois (100% Alberta crude)
Exxon Mobil, Joliet, Illinois (96% Alberta crude)
CHS Inc., Laurel, Montana (95% Alberta crude)
Phillips 66, Billings, Montana (92% Alberta crude)
Citgo, Lemont, Illinois (78% Alberta crude)

Energy

Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026

Published on December 29, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Andrew Rice

Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.

Several cases have been dismissed while others advanced through court systems, with some being considered before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2026. Critics of the litigation call it “woke lawfare” and an attempt to force progressive political policies via the judicial system.

Critics also argue the lawsuits threaten U.S. energy independence and, depending on outcomes, will have sweeping impacts on every American.

Here are some of those cases.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

On Jan. 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, vs. Chevron USA Inc. The case questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil.

The litigation challenges activities of the oil companies dating back to World War II in some cases. Chevron argued the lawsuit was flawed, claiming that the activities in question were permitted, legal, and often conducted under federal direction – particularly those tied to national security during World War II.

A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands. Environmental activists celebrated the verdict. It was the first of 42 lawsuits filed since 2013 by parishes across coastal Louisiana to go to trial.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department stepped in on Chevron’s side, urging the Supreme Court to move the case from state court to federal court.

Business groups and energy advocates warned the verdict will drive jobs and investment out of Louisiana. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry called the decision “shortsighted,” saying it would “brand Louisiana as a state that will extort the most recognizable companies on earth for billions of dollars, decades later.”

O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square the case seeks to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.

“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder

The nation’s highest court is still deciding whether it will hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder; a case to decide whether state and local governments can use nuisance laws to sue energy companies for activities that may cause climate change.

The case, originating in Colorado, centers around a City of Boulder and Boulder County lawsuit in state court against Suncor Energy claiming it misled the public in its activities that the local governments claim led to climate change effects.

Lawyers for Suncor Energy argue that allowing a case like this one to play out goes against protections in the Clean Air Act that prevent lawsuits from occurring against emitters from across state lines.

“Public nuisance can’t be used for global problems. It can be used for local problems,” Skinner told The Center Square. “That’s what it’s supposed to be used for.”

However, Skinner said many organizations that are pursuing climate change litigation are seeking to bankrupt energy companies with large monetary settlements. He said litigants will likely attempt to drain energy companies of their resources and use the funds to advocate certain ideological causes.

“These are highly ideological dark-money-funded, multi-faceted legal campaigns to bankrupt an entire industry and confiscate it for ideological reasons,” Skinner said.

City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco

Similarly, in 2020, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco was one of the first examples of public nuisance lawsuits pursued in a state court. The city and county of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in 2020 accusing oil and gas companies, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by burning fossil fuels.

The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, but the court, without ruling on the merits, declined to do so in January.

While the case is based in Hawaii, Skinner said litigants there hope it will have far-reaching effects across the country.

“They’re not trying to stop behavior just in those states,” Skinner said. ”The thing that really freaks me out is how people in regular, everyday, real America are going to potentially be affected.”

The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Going a step further than Boulder and Honolulu, California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint against ExxonMobil in 2024 for what he says are its contributions to “the deluge of plastic pollution” affecting the state.

Exxon countersued, alleging “Bonta and the US Proxies – the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests – have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.,” American Tort Reform Foundation reported.

One of the foreign interests is IEJF, an Australian nonprofit that’s connected to an Australian mining conmpany “that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets, ATRF reported.

Skinner said the litigants in this case are attempting to significantly reduce plastic use throughout the state of California and potentially beyond.

“That’ll make your average person’s life dramatically harder, and it’ll make a lot of things a lot more expensive, and it’ll make having kids, like, brutal,” Skinner said.

Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Aside from monetary settlements, petitioners in this case also are seeking wrongful death claims against energy companies for their contributions to climate change. The case stems from a woman in Washington state who said her mother died from heat-related illness due to the exacerbated effects of climate change.

She is suing energy companies for their alleged creation of conditions over a period of decades that led to increased temperatures on the day her mother died.

Skinner told The Center Square this case is one of the more blatant examples of ideology affecting the way a litigant pursues cases.

“I think they care because a death is worth a lot of money,” Skinner said. “The climate homicide cases are one of the more far-fetched legal theories I’ve ever seen, because you’re leveling this incredibly staggering charge.”

Climate cases will continue to move through the court system, with one to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2026.

Skinner is urging the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to rule in favor of energy companies across the country.

“We want the energy companies to win, not because they are perfect actors, but because the alternative is that our lives are governed day in and day out by woke trial lawyers, woke [nongovernmental organizations] and local governments,” Skinner said.