How Clean Energy Fits into the Carbon Emissions Equation
The new agreement to expand clean-energy development on the Churchill River is genuinely good news. The proposed development includes upgrades and expansion at Churchill Falls, a new 2,700-megawatt generating station at Gull Island, 2,000 megawatts of proposed wind power and more than 660 kilometres of transmission infrastructure. Gull Island alone is expected to produce approximately 12 terawatt-hours of electricity annually. The federal government describes the combined development as the largest clean-energy investment in North American history.
The climate value of this development depends on what its electricity replaces. If new hydroelectricity displaces coal, oil or natural-gas generation, it can eliminate millions of tonnes of carbon emissions. If it is used to electrify transportation, heating and industrial processes that currently consume fossil fuels, it can also make a substantial contribution to decarbonization. Reliable hydroelectricity can help integrate more wind and solar generation by balancing their variability.
If, however, the electricity simply supplies new mines, data centres and other forms of economic growth, total emissions may not decline. The new activity may be cleaner than it otherwise would have been, which is valuable, but that is different from reducing Canada’s absolute emissions. Calling the electricity ‘clean’ does not by itself establish the project’s climate benefit.
The relevant question is therefore not only how much electricity the project will generate, but what carbon-emitting activity it will eliminate or prevent. Which fossil-fuel generating stations can be retired or operated less frequently? How many proposed natural-gas plants can be avoided? How much oil and gas heating can be replaced by heat pumps? How many gasoline and diesel vehicles can be displaced? Which industrial processes can be electrified?
The federal government should answer these questions through a transparent fossil-fuel displacement plan. It should publish the project’s expected annual and lifetime emissions reductions, identify the assumptions behind those estimates and report regularly on the actual results. The accounting should include construction, transmission and reservoir emissions, as well as the emissions associated with any new industrial development enabled by the electricity.
This does not diminish the importance of the Churchill River development. It clarifies its greatest potential. Canada will need considerably more electricity as transportation, buildings and industry are electrified. The Churchill River could provide an extraordinary amount of reliable renewable power while supporting cooperation among Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal government and Indigenous Peoples.
Meaningful partnership with the Innu and strong environmental safeguards must remain fundamental. Hydroelectricity is low-carbon, but a project of this scale is not without ecological and human consequences. Its effects on the river, flooded lands, water quality, wildlife and Indigenous territories must be assessed honestly and managed carefully.
The Churchill River development could become a defining Canadian climate project. But its success should ultimately be measured not only by the electricity it produces or the economic activity it enables. It should be measured by the fossil fuels Canada no longer burns and the carbon emissions that never enter the atmosphere.
Last Updated on August 18, 2026 | Published: August 18, 2026