Province locking families into decades of higher hydro, heating costs

Ford's energy strategy relies on expensive bets and reduced role for renewables that could be deployed faster

By now, many Ontario families have opened their energy bills and felt a jolt. Even when we turn down the thermostat or switch off lights, the total keeps climbing and more increases are on the way.

That isn’t just bad luck. It is the direct result of political choices about what kind of energy Ontario builds, who benefits, and who pays.

The Doug Ford government is pursuing an energy expansion plan built around three costly pillars: prolonging fossil fuel use, doubling down on expensive new nuclear projects, and sidelining lower-cost renewable options that could be deployed faster and more affordably. The result will be higher consumer bills for decades.

The hidden cost of sticking with gas

Natural gas still plays a major role in Ontario’s electricity and home heating. But gas is far from cheap.

On a typical gas bill, about one-third of the cost comes from pipeline delivery charges for storage, meters, and other infrastructure. These are fees households pay even if they reduce usage. Gas prices themselves are volatile because they are tied to North American markets. When prices spike, families feel it immediately.

When gas is used to generate electricity, costs add up quickly. Electricity from gas can cost six to nine cents per kilowatt-hour to produce. Add carbon costs and that rises to roughly 11 to 15 cents. Those costs flow straight into hydro bills.

Continuing to expand gas generation locks Ontario into decades of fuel purchases, delivery infrastructure, and rising carbon expenses, all tacked on to ratepayers’ energy bills. It also increases greenhouse gas emissions at a time when climate-related damages are already costing taxpayers billions.

The nuclear price tag families will carry

At the same time, Premier Doug Ford and Energy Minister Stephen Lecce have made nuclear power, including a new large reactor and unproven small modular reactors (SMRs), the centrepieces of Ontario’s long-term electricity plan.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of new electricity generation available to Ontario. It requires enormous up-front public financing, takes more than a decade to deliver new power, and carries a long history of cost overruns and delays. Ratepayers begin paying for these projects long before they produce electricity.

SMRs, heavily promoted by the Ford government, remain commercially unproven. Ontario families are effectively being asked to finance a high-risk experiment.

There are additional long-term liabilities. New nuclear facilities will depend on imported enriched uranium, largely from the United States, which ties Ontario’s energy security to foreign supply chains. And each reactor adds to the growing stockpile of high-level radioactive waste for which Canada still has no operating long-term disposal solution.

These production costs do not disappear. They are embedded in electricity rates and provincial debt. Nuclear refurbishments, new reactors, and gas contracts accumulate. Electricity rates are already projected to rise significantly, locking these expenses into long-term rate structures. Families will ultimately pay through higher hydro bills, increased public borrowing, or reduced public services for decisions whose costs will last for decades.

The options being deliberately sidelined

What makes this path especially costly is that Ontario has cheaper, faster alternatives. Wind power in Ontario now costs roughly four to six cents per kilowatt-hour. Solar costs about five to cents cents, already competitive with or cheaper than gas, and far below nuclear. By 2030, wind costs are expected to fall further, potentially into the three-to-four-cent range.

Unlike gas, renewables have no fuel costs and no exposure to volatile commodity markets. Unlike nuclear power, they can be built in a few years, not decades. Once constructed, their operating costs are low and predictable for many years to come.

Renewables also avoid carbon pricing, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and strengthen energy security by relying on resources Ontario has in abundance: wind, sunlight, water, and geothermal heat.

Beyond lower electricity prices, renewable expansion attracts private investment, creates local construction and maintenance jobs, and keeps more energy dollars circulating within Ontario communities rather than flowing out for imported fuel, foreign reactor technology, and enriched uranium.

Who pays for ‘pet projects?’

The government frames its nuclear expansion and gas buildout as necessary for reliability and growth. And as a consequence of the government having impeded investor interest in renewable projects for years, the Ford regime has made the need for all energy options almost inevitable. But it won’t change the fact a balanced system that includes renewables, storage, conservation, and grid modernization still offers lower cost with less risk.

Yet Ontario is still being steered toward capital-intensive mega projects that align with the government’s preferred technologies while pushing aside lower-cost, quicker-to-deploy renewable solutions. The financial burden of that choice will fall on monthly energy bills.

The real choice for Ontario families

Affordable energy is not about hoping gas prices stay low or betting billions on nuclear projects that won’t deliver power for 10 to 15 years. It is about choosing energy sources that are low-cost, fast to build, stable in price, and locally available.

Ontario has strong wind resources, ample solar potential, growing geothermal expertise, and skilled workers ready to build. What is lacking is political will.

Energy bills do not rise on their own. They rise because governments choose expensive pathways and ask consumers to carry the risk.

For Ontario families concerned about rising hydro and heating costs, the lesson is clear: Ford’s laser focus on fossil fuels and nuclear mega projects comes at a higher-than-needed price. And it is one consumers will be paying for generations.

Renewable energy offers a different path: lower long-term costs, faster relief, more local jobs, and greater energy independence. The question is not whether Ontario has options. It is whether the government will choose the ones that protect household budgets instead of doubling down on its most expensive bets.

Read this article on Newmarket Today.

Resiliency of swans inspires reminder of reasons for hope

The power of yes is also the power of resiliency and getting through the darker times

All you need is love’ — in this month of February with Valentines, Family Day and Inn From the Cold fundraisers, we aspire that everyone has someone or something to love. We can lose sight of this among the onslaught of contagious negativity that predominates daily media and when faced with money and health issues, whether we will have a roof over our heads and food on the table.

Just within climate advocacy, I found it challenging in 2025 to stay positive among all the upheaval in policies and the cancel culture decisions — on both sides of the border —  and I wondered if I had to move to acceptance of a new less hopeful norm for the future.

It was the trumpeter swans and playful loons on the Severn River a couple of weekends ago in -22C to -39C temperatures that reminded me that I had lost some focus —  there is still love in nature and this small corner of the planet.

I wondered, as I watched in fascination at the 12 swans as they swam elegantly around the unfrozen patch of river, how they could possibly survive just even that one night —  in the wide open space, on ice and with the windchill. I heard a couple calling in the middle of the night and was saddened to think that I would wake up to find some hadn’t made it.

At 5 a.m., I dared to look out and could barely see through the mist that rose off the river — the water was warmer than the air, yet the swans were not there. I looked up and down. Where could they have all gone to stay warm if not in the river? I was wrong, at least then, to worry. I zoomed in more closely and caught the hint of movement in a mound of snow.

Then I realized, it wasn’t snow at all but the swans all tucked up into themselves, clearly sheltering their heads and necks from the cold into their feathered bodies. Twelve mounds of ‘snow’. Then I spied the loons popping up out of the water on their early morning fish ‘n' feed. A couple hours later with a beautiful sunrise, the snow-like swans slowly but surely lifted themselves up, stretched their willowy necks, and took to the water.

It was resilience personified. That is what has to be transferred to our individual and collective efforts to fight climate change. To be as resilient as those swans. To find a way through and offer a helping hand to those around us who are struggling with resiliency. Keep looking to the positive —  it's out there, and in leaps and bounds for the start of 2026.

Quiet signs can be seen of that positive shift, even now. Around the world, renewable energy continues to grow faster than expected, if not here, and major emitters are seeing emissions level off as cleaner power replaces coal oil and gas.

New global agreements to protect the high seas have finally come into force, safeguarding vast stretches of ocean for future generations, and the first international meeting on a transition away from fossil fuels is on the horizon.

Here at home, municipalities are steadily investing in sustainability and clean energy. In places like Newmarket and Aurora, climate plans, tree planting, electrification, and community action continue —  not loudly, not perfectly, but persistently. None of it makes daily headlines the way conflict does. But, like the swans along the Severn River, it is happening —  steady, tucked in against the cold, enduring.

Look beyond our borders to the bigger global picture of change, and then look closer in, to how hope can be found in the actions of local individuals and communities. The power of yes is also the power of resiliency and getting through the darker times.

Read this article on Newmarket Today.

We need clarity on climate policy that sends mixed signals

'Canadians are being asked to trust the plan, so back that trust with science and clarity'

Smoke from wildfires turns our sky orange and floods make streets of mud. Neighbours check on each other, families reassure their kids, and everyone feels the smoke or overflow, no matter where it comes from.

Climate change doesn’t stop at borders, and neither does caring. Canadians already look out for one another, but we are also looking for a climate policy that helps our resiliency: clear, proven, and built for the future our youth will inherit.

In a recent CBC What on Earth interview, Julie Dabrusin, federal minister of the environment and climate change, framed Canada’s Climate Competitiveness Strategy (CCS) as proof that climate action and economic growth can reinforce one another. These choices risk pulling the country in opposite directions.

Dabrusin highlighted the CCS pillars: industrial carbon pricing, clean electricity investments, methane regulations, and clean-tech innovation. These proven tools drive cleaner air, stronger investment, and long-term competitiveness. Around the world, clean grids, efficient industry, and low-carbon innovation attract investment and create lasting jobs. The strategy can work.

In Canada, we’re not there yet. The CCS depends on co-operation across provinces, territories, First Nations, and the federal government, and on shared understanding that climate policy isn’t something to delay or trade away. All this is being tested by mixed signals.

At COP30, Canada received the Fossil of the Day award. The federal response was bold: “The world is moving toward clean energy and low-carbon industries, and Canada is determined to lead that transition.” But back home, Canada is expanding LNG exports, softening the zero-emissions vehicle standard, and delaying Alberta’s promised oil and gas emissions cap, with Prime Minister Mark Carney describing the federal-Alberta memorandum of understanding (MOU) as “pragmatic,” combining stronger carbon pricing with “responsible energy development that supports workers and communities.”

But the deal increases crude oil production, allows regulatory suspensions, and leans heavily on carbon capture technology that has not yet been delivered beyond attempts to make fossil fuel extraction easier. Canadians deserve to see the modelling, timelines, and safeguards that prove this understanding keeps the country on track.

The Alberta MOU also repeats a familiar claim: Alberta will produce “some of the lowest carbon-intensity oil in the world.” But “low carbon” refers only to extraction. Burning oil remains 10 to 100 times more polluting than renewable energy. Additionally, methane capture is the fastest, most cost-effective way for Canada to cut emissions this decade.

While federal methane regulations are now finalized and aligned with leading European Union standards, the MOU still leans heavily on voluntary reductions and commitments repeatedly unfulfilled for more than a decade.

The math question remains unavoidable: How does Canada meet climate targets if production rises while regulations pause and key guardrails don’t phase in until 2028? If the numbers work, show them. If the timeline works, explain it. Canadians are being asked to trust the plan, so back that trust with science and clarity.

Meanwhile, global oil demand is flattening, and prices are dropping. Countries like India, often cited as future fossil fuel buyers, are rapidly building renewables to secure energy independence. These shifts make it urgent that Canada accelerates future-ready energy systems. Clean energy isn’t hypothetical. Canada’s major projects list already includes offshore wind, grid integration, industrial electrification, energy-efficiency upgrades, and next-generation methane capture. These projects are ready to build now with careers that will last. Canadians overwhelmingly support job creation that lasts, and youth, who inherit the greatest risk, deserve careers in industries that protect the future, not pollute it.

Other questions of fairness remain: If carbon-capture projects fail, or if methane regulations don’t deliver by 2030, what safeguards will protect Canadians? During the MOU, was there discussion of lifting Alberta’s renewable energy moratorium to diversify its economy, instead of relying mainly on fossil fuels and decades-away nuclear expansion where profit goes south of the border like in Ontario? Ontario, with induced pollution from the proposed Highway 413 and gas-generated electricity, sees pollution rising while local renewable companies remain blocked and the moratorium on offshore wind is still in place.

What we also now see, after moves like removing the Greenbelt from the Ontario curriculum, is the proposal to repeal sections of the Cap and Trade Cancellation Act so Ontario no longer has a legal obligation to establish or update specific emissions targets or produce regular progress reports. While this provincial government might have us bury our heads in the sand, it isn’t fitting with public sentiment. A 2025 survey by the insurance industry noted more than 73 per cent households are worried about being affected by climate extreme weather and more than 74 per cent worry climate change is driving up their insurance.

As we wait for government clarity, Canadians are not waiting to say yes to a safer future. We are already acting: choosing efficient homes, heat pumps, reducing waste, supporting cleaner energy, and making low-carbon choices where we can. People are also raising their voices at town halls, in letters, and with companies, insisting climate action remains rooted in science and public interest.

Climate Action Newmarket-Aurora will continue to advocate for transparency, proven technologies, immediate methane reductions, and a strong national framework for clean exports and clean growth. A resilient, competitive, low-carbon future is within reach. Climate policy must be a clear plan that builds our children’s future, not a puzzle to decode or a promise that keeps shifting back to the oil sands. Join the Power of Yes.

Read this article on Newmarket Today.