The True Cost of Coal in Canada: Why Coal Phase Out Matters for Climate, Air Quality, and Public Health

The True Cost of Coal in Canada: Why Coal Phase Out Matters for Climate, Air Quality, and Public Health

Dr. Adefarati Oloruntoba

Coal pile in a mining area. Photo credit: Environmental defence

Canada’s transition away from coal is usually seen as a policy commitment whose benefits will arrive sometime in the future but based on the present reality, that framing is now outdated. Ontario stopped burning coal for electricity in 2014. Alberta followed in June 2024, six years before its original 2030 deadline. Enough time has passed to ask a more important question: did these decisions make a measurable difference in the electricity Canadians use, the emissions entering the atmosphere, the quality of the air people breathe, and the risks borne by communities?

The answer is yes, but with an important qualification. Coal phase out has been one of Canada’s largest and most visible emissions reduction successes. From 2005 to 2023, electricity sector emissions fell by about 58 % nationally. Ontario and Alberta accounted for most of that decline, largely by removing coal from their grids. Yet the two provinces reached the same milestone through very different replacement pathways. Ontario moved from coal toward a system dominated by nuclear power, hydroelectricity, conservation, natural gas, wind and solar. Alberta replaced most coal generation with natural gas, while wind and solar expanded rapidly.

The result is a revealing Canadian experiment. Ontario shows how coal phase out can support a very low emissions grid when firm non emitting generation is already available. Alberta shows how quickly emissions can fall when coal is replaced by a combination of gas and renewable energy, but also why coal phase out is not the same as complete grid decarbonization. This distinction matters because Canada’s remaining coal generation is now concentrated in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. Their choices will determine whether coal phase out becomes the foundation of a genuinely clean electricity system or merely the first stage of another fossil fuel transition.

Canada’s coal transition is not one national story

Canada already produces most of its electricity from non-emitting sources, particularly hydroelectricity and nuclear power. This national average, however, conceals wide provincial differences. British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador have long relied heavily on hydroelectricity. Ontario combines nuclear and hydroelectric generation with wind, solar, natural gas and imports. Alberta and Saskatchewan historically built their systems around locally available coal and natural gas. Nova Scotia has depended on coal, petroleum and natural gas, while New Brunswick operates a more diverse system that includes nuclear, hydroelectricity, wind, natural gas, petroleum and coal.

It is therefore misleading to divide provinces simply into those that have phased out coal and those that have not. Some provinces never relied substantially on coal. Ontario and Alberta are different because both removed large operating coal fleets from their electricity systems.

Ontario had five coal generating stations containing 19 units and roughly 8,800 megawatts of capacity in 2001. Coal supplied about one quarter of provincial electricity in 2003. By April 2014, the final coal unit had stopped operating. Alberta’s challenge was even greater in proportional terms. Coal supplied close to two thirds of provincial generation when its phase out policy was announced in 2015. The province initially planned to eliminate coal emissions by 2030, but plant retirements, coal to gas conversions, carbon pricing, changing economics and renewable growth moved the final date forward to June 16, 2024. As of December 2024, Canada still had 17 coal fired electricity units operating, all located in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. Coal generated only 3.9 % of Canada’s utility electricity in 2023, down from 16.9 % in 2005. Yet that small share still produced 36.7 % of the electricity sector’s greenhouse gas emissions. That contrast captures the central problem. Coal can become a small part of electricity supply while remaining a disproportionately large source of climate pollution.

The first measurable result: electricity emissions fell sharply

Canada emitted about 694 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2023, 65 million tonnes less than in 2005. During the same period, electricity sector emissions fell by approximately 67 million tonnes.

This means the reduction from electricity alone was slightly larger than the net reduction recorded across the entire Canadian economy. Emissions rose in some sectors while they fell in electricity, so the progress made by power generation offset increases elsewhere.

Ontario and Alberta were responsible for a remarkable share of this change. Ontario’s electricity sector emissions fell by approximately 26 million tonnes between 2005 and 2023. Alberta’s fell by roughly 27 million tonnes. Together, the two reductions totalled about 53 million tonnes, equivalent to more than 80 % of Canada’s net national emissions decline over the same period. This does not mean that every tonne was eliminated exclusively by a single coal regulation. Electricity demand, plant retirements, fuel prices, nuclear availability, renewable additions, conservation policies, carbon pricing and economic conditions all influenced generation. It does mean that coal phase out was the defining structural change behind the decline. No other Canadian electricity policy of the period produced reductions on the same scale.

Ontario: from one quarter coal to a largely non emitting grid

Ontario’s experience began with a political commitment in 2003 and ended with the closure of the Thunder Bay Generating Station in April 2014. The transformation was substantial. In 2003, Ontario’s generation mix was predominantly coal and nuclear, 25% and 42% respectively as shown in the figure below.

Ontario electricity mix in one decade

By 2014, coal had fallen to zero. Nuclear had risen to about 60 %, hydroelectricity supplied about 24 %, natural gas about 9 %, and non hydro renewables about 7 %. Ontario did not replace coal with one technology. It used a portfolio, two refurbished Bruce nuclear units returned to service, contributing about 1,500 megawatts. About 5,500 megawatts of natural gas capacity and 5,500 megawatts of non hydro renewable capacity were added. Conservation reduced the amount of new supply required. The closures were staged so replacement resources could demonstrate reliable operation before coal units were withdrawn.

This is why Ontario’s experience cannot be reduced to the claim that renewables replaced coal, or to the opposite claim that nuclear alone replaced coal. Nuclear provided a large volume of firm low emissions generation. Hydroelectricity remained essential. Natural gas provided flexible capacity. Wind and solar expanded. Demand management lowered pressure on the system. The practical achievement was not merely closing plants. It was removing roughly 7,600 megawatts of coal capacity while maintaining electricity reliability.

Ontario’s grid became dramatically less carbon intensive

Ontario’s electricity sector emitted about 33 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2005. By 2015, emissions had fallen to approximately 4 million tonnes. That is a reduction of nearly 90 % in a decade. The province’s electricity supply is now generally more than 90 % non emitting. In 2022, more than half of its generation came from nuclear power, approximately 38 % from hydro, wind, solar and other sources, and around 8 % from natural gas and other fuels.

The difference between Ontario and Alberta is visible in grid intensity, the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted per kilowatt hour of electricity generated. Ontario’s grid is usually measured in tens of grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour. Alberta’s grid, even after major improvement, remained above 400 grams per kilowatt hour in 2023. A kilowatt hour consumed in Alberta therefore carried several times the average operational emissions of one consumed in Ontario. That difference affects far more than electricity statistics. It changes the climate value of electric vehicles, heat pumps, hydrogen production, data centres, battery manufacturing and industrial electrification. Electrification produces the greatest emissions reductions when the electricity itself is low carbon.

Ontario’s success is now under pressure from natural gas

Coal disappeared, but fossil generation did not. Natural gas has become Ontario’s principal source of dispatchable fossil electricity. It is used when demand rises, when wind and solar output are low, and when nuclear units are unavailable during refurbishment or maintenance. This has begun to erode part of the earlier gain. Ontario’s electricity emissions fell to about 4 million tonnes in the middle of the last decade, but increased to approximately 8 million tonnes by 2023. Provincial forecasts indicate that electricity emissions could rise further during the late 2020s as demand grows and nuclear refurbishments temporarily reduce available capacity. The Independent Electricity System Operator has modelled a pathway in which Ontario’s electricity emissions rise to approximately 20 million tonnes in 2029 before declining toward near zero by 2050 as new nuclear, renewable energy and storage displace gas.

The lesson is not that coal phase out failed. Without it, Ontario’s emissions would be far higher. The lesson is that a successful phase out can be partially reversed when replacement planning allows fossil generation to grow. Ontario won the first electricity transition. It must now avoid losing part of that gain during the second.

Alberta: a faster transition from a much dirtier starting point

Genesee Power Plant. Photo credit: Genesee

Alberta announced its coal phase out in November 2015. At the time, coal supplied close to 65 % of provincial electricity. Its coal plants were generally newer than Ontario’s, privately owned, and embedded in communities that depended on both power generation and nearby mines. This created a different policy problem.

Ontario could direct a publicly owned generator to close coal assets. Alberta had to negotiate with private companies, preserve investor confidence, address stranded assets, support affected workers and municipalities, and attract enough replacement generation for a rapidly growing economy. The provincial government signed agreements that committed major generators to stop producing electricity from coal by 2030. Compensation to the companies totalled approximately $1.36 billion over 14 years, funded through industrial carbon pricing revenue. Alberta also established transition programs for workers and communities.

Market forces then accelerated the policy. Coal became less competitive as carbon costs increased, natural gas remained abundant, renewable electricity costs declined and companies converted several coal units to gas. By 2023, coal had fallen to about 15 % of Alberta’s generation. The final dedicated coal operation ended in June 2024. A transition originally scheduled to take 15 years was completed in less than nine.

What replaced Alberta’s coal?

Unlike Ontario, Alberta had no large nuclear fleet and relatively limited hydroelectric generation. Most of the replacement came from natural gas.

From 2005 to 2023, natural gas accounted for roughly 70 % of the generation that replaced coal. Wind and solar supplied much of the remainder. This produced a major reduction because efficient combined cycle gas generation emits far less carbon dioxide per unit of electricity than conventional coal. Wind and solar have no direct combustion emissions. Yet the resulting Alberta grid remains fossil intensive because gas now performs the role coal once played. Alberta therefore achieved a large relative reduction without reaching a low absolute emissions level.

Alberta cut grid intensity by more than half

Alberta’s grid emissions intensity declined by more than 50 % between 2005 and 2023. By 2023, it had reached approximately 424 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour. That is an important achievement. A province that once operated one of Canada’s most carbon intensive electricity systems cut the emissions associated with each unit of electricity by more than half while demand and the economy continued to evolve. But 424 grams per kilowatt hour remains high compared with Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia. It is also close to the direct emissions intensity of a modern efficient natural gas plant. That means much of the easy reduction from switching coal to gas has already been captured. Further progress cannot rely mainly on replacing old gas plants with slightly more efficient gas plants. The next reductions must come from generating more electricity without routine combustion emissions.

This could include wind, solar, storage, demand response, additional transmission, imports, geothermal energy, carbon capture where technically and economically credible, and potentially nuclear generation. Natural gas may continue to provide reliability services, but annual gas generation must eventually fall if grid intensity is to approach the levels required for deep economy wide decarbonization.

Did coal phase out improve air quality?

The climate result is crystal clear because fuel consumption and power plant emissions are measured directly. The air quality question is more complex. Coal combustion releases sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, primary particulate matter and compounds that form secondary fine particles and ground level ozone in the atmosphere. These pollutants are associated with respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, neurological harm, ecosystem acidification and premature mortality.

When a coal plant stops burning coal, its coal related emissions stop. But the change measured at a city monitoring station depends on many other factors:

• Vehicle emissions
• Industrial activity
• Residential wood combustion
• Construction and road dust
• Wildfire smoke
• Weather
• Pollution transported from other provinces or the United States
• The emissions of whatever generation replaces coal

It is therefore possible for coal plant emissions to decline dramatically without the same percentage decline appearing in total urban particulate matter. That distinction has been central to the debate over Ontario.

Ontario’s pollutant emissions changed dramatically

In 2005, Ontario’s electricity sector emitted approximately:

By 2014, sulphur oxide emissions had fallen to about 439 tonnes, a reduction of more than 99 %. Nitrogen oxide emissions had fallen to approximately 7,685 tonnes, a reduction of about 84 %. These are not marginal changes. They represent the near elimination of electricity related sulphur pollution and a major reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions.

Ambient air concentrations also improved. Between 2003 and 2012, annual sulphur dioxide levels measured across Ontario fell by approximately half, while annual fine particulate matter levels fell by about one quarter. Coal closure was not the only cause. Cleaner vehicles, industrial controls, falling emissions in the United States and changing economic activity also contributed. The most defensible conclusion is therefore not that coal phase out single handedly cleaned Ontario’s air. It is that closing some of the province’s largest stationary sources of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury made an important contribution to a wider improvement produced by multiple policies.

What about Ontario’s smog days?

Downtown Hamilton worst air pollution in Ontario – Credit: The Spec

The most repeated comparison is that Ontario experienced 53 smog advisory days in 2005 and none in 2014. The contrast is powerful, but it requires situation. Smog advisories depend on pollutant concentrations, weather and the threshold and communication system used by authorities. Ontario also moved from its former smog advisory framework to the Air Quality Health Index. Transboundary pollution from the United States declined, vehicle standards improved and industrial emissions controls strengthened during the same period.

It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute the entire change from 53 to zero to coal plants alone. It would be equally inaccurate to argue that coal closures made no difference. Coal plants were responsible for very large shares of provincial electricity related sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions. Removing them eliminated those emissions at source.

Coal phase out may not be the core driver of positive change

A 2017 Fraser Institute analysis examined monthly pollution data for Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa from 2002 to 2014. It concluded that coal phase out had relatively small or statistically insignificant effects on average particulate matter and nitrogen oxide concentrations in some cities. It found a statistically significant reduction in peak ozone associated with lower coal generation but also found that increased gas generation offset part of that benefit. This analysis is useful because it cautions against confusing a decline in plant emissions with a perfectly proportional decline in urban ambient pollution. Ontario’s air is influenced by many sources, including emissions transported across the United States border.

But the analysis does not establish that coal closure had no environmental or health value. It focuses on selected urban monitoring stations and pollutants. It does not negate the measured collapse in power sector sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and greenhouse gas emissions. Nor does it account for the full regional distribution of exposure, ecosystem deposition or long-term climate benefits. A balanced understanding is imperative, coal phase out produced very large reductions in emissions at power plants. Ontario’s overall air quality improved substantially during the same period. Coal closure contributed to that improvement but cannot be credited with every observed change. The precise share of the health improvement attributable solely to coal remains uncertain. That is a stronger conclusion than either advocacy slogan: that coal phase out solved smog, or that it achieved nothing.

Alberta’s air quality benefit should now become measurable

Before Alberta’s transition, coal generation was a major source of provincial sulphur and nitrogen pollution. In 2013, six Alberta coal generating facilities emitted approximately 106,978 tonnes of sulphur dioxide and 66,931 tonnes of nitrogen oxides. Electricity generation accounted for about one quarter of Alberta’s sulphur dioxide emissions and approximately 13 % of its nitrogen dioxide emissions.

Several large coal facilities were located in the North Saskatchewan airshed west of Edmonton. Their proximity to a major population centre made the health implications particularly important. The complete end of coal combustion should sharply reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, mercury, ash and several toxic substances. Gas combustion, however, still emits nitrogen oxides and greenhouse gases. Coal to gas conversions therefore remove some pollutants almost completely while reducing, but not eliminating, others. Because Alberta’s final transition occurred only in June 2024, claims about realized population health outcomes should remain cautious. Hospital admission trends and mortality rates are influenced by many factors, and wildfire smoke has become an increasingly important source of particulate exposure in Western Canada.

The strongest immediate indicators will be facility emissions, regional sulphur dioxide concentrations, nitrogen dioxide, ozone chemistry, mercury deposition and fine particulate composition in communities near former coal operations. Alberta should publish a transparent post coal air quality and health evaluation rather than allowing the benefits to remain projections. The province has completed the physical transition. It now needs to measure the public health result.

What did coal pollution cost public health?

Health impact estimates convert changes in pollution exposure into expected outcomes using epidemiological evidence and population data. They do not represent a count of named individuals whose illness can be traced to one smokestack. They estimate the difference in risk across a population. This distinction is important because health estimates are sometimes misrepresented as either exact body counts or speculative numbers with no scientific basis. Neither interpretation is correct.

Ontario’s 2005 cost benefit analysis estimated that pollution from coal generation was associated annually with more than 600 premature deaths, approximately 900 hospital admissions and about 1,000 emergency room visits. The total health and environmental burden was valued at approximately $3 billion per year. The monetary estimate included the economic value assigned to premature mortality, illness and lost productivity. It was not simply a forecast of provincial hospital spending. Later assessments found lower annual estimates as coal use declined. One analysis estimated that coal generation in 2010 was associated with more than 300 premature deaths, 440 hospital admissions, 522 emergency room visits and about 158,000 minor illnesses.

For Alberta, a 2016 assessment estimated that coal pollution in 2015 was associated with approximately 92 premature deaths, 12,500 asthma episodes and $416 million in health damages. An accelerated transition was projected to prevent 618 premature deaths, 545 hospitalizations, more than 80,000 asthma episodes and nearly two million days of breathing difficulty between the mid 2010s and 2035, with benefits exceeding $3 billion. At the national level, federal analysis projected that regulations accelerating the phase out of conventional coal would prevent approximately:

• 260 premature deaths
• 40,000 asthma episodes
• 190,000 days of breathing difficulty and reduced activity

The regulations were projected to generate approximately $4.7 billion in total benefits through 2055, including avoided climate damages, health benefits and environmental improvements. These are modelled benefits rather than retrospective clinical counts. But they describe a basic reality that electricity prices do not capture: coal power transfers part of its cost to lungs, hearts, families, health systems and ecosystems. Electricity from coal may appear inexpensive at the plant gate while being costly to society.

Coal phase out through a planetary health lens

Planetary health asks how human wellbeing depends on stable natural systems. Coal connects these systems unusually plainly. At the climate level, carbon dioxide from coal combustion accumulates in the atmosphere and contributes to warming, extreme heat, wildfire risk, flooding, food system disruption and the changing distribution of infectious diseases.

At the air quality level, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides contribute to secondary particulate matter and ozone. Fine particles penetrate deep into the lungs and can enter the bloodstream, increasing risks of heart disease, stroke, respiratory illness and premature death. At the ecosystem level, sulphur and nitrogen deposition contribute to acidification and nutrient imbalance. Mercury can travel long distances, enter lakes and rivers, and accumulate through aquatic food chains. Human exposure then occurs largely through contaminated fish.

At the community level, coal phase out can create economic stress. Workers may lose specialized employment. Municipalities may lose property tax revenue. Local businesses may lose customers. Families can face uncertainty, relocation and declining property values. A planetary health assessment must therefore count both sides of the transition. It must recognize avoided pollution and climate damage while also confronting concentrated social and economic losses. The policy goal should not be to preserve harmful production because transition is difficult. It should be to prevent the workers and communities that supplied Canada’s electricity from carrying a disproportionate share of the cost.

Ontario and Alberta compared

The comparison shows why the replacement mix matters as much as the closure date. Ontario removed coal and retained a system anchored by nuclear and hydroelectricity. Alberta removed coal but retained a system anchored by natural gas. Both achieved large reductions, but Ontario’s electricity now carries a much smaller carbon footprint.

What about provinces that still burn coal?

Nova Scotia

Nova Scotia remains Canada’s most coal dependent provincial electricity system by generation share. In 2023, approximately 40 % of its electricity came from coal, 21 % from natural gas, 15 % from wind, 11 % from hydroelectricity and 8 % from petroleum. Electricity was responsible for about 36 % of the province’s greenhouse gas emissions, equal to transportation as its largest emitting sector.

Nova Scotia has legislated a coal phase out by 2030 and a target for 80 % renewable electricity. Reaching those goals will require rapid renewable construction, transmission expansion, storage, imports through the Maritime Link, demand management and enough firm capacity to maintain reliability. The scale of the opportunity is large. Ontario and Alberta had already reduced coal substantially by the time Canada reached its most recent national inventory year. Nova Scotia now contains one of the country’s largest remaining opportunities for electricity sector emissions reduction.

New Brunswick

New Brunswick generated approximately 9 % of its electricity from coal in 2023. Its system is more diverse than Nova Scotia’s, with nuclear providing about 34 %, natural gas about 15 %, petroleum about 7 % and hydroelectricity, wind and biomass supplying additional generation.

The province plans to stop conventional coal generation by 2030. Options have included retirement, conversion of the Belledune station to another fuel, more renewable generation, imports, storage and continued nuclear operation. New Brunswick’s challenge is not only eliminating coal. It is doing so without increasing dependence on petroleum or natural gas.

Saskatchewan

Saskatchewan presents the most difficult policy conflict. The province remains heavily dependent on coal and natural gas, has less hydroelectric flexibility than several other provinces, and operates carbon capture and storage at Boundary Dam Unit 3.

Federal regulations require conventional coal units to meet an emissions performance standard by 2030, which generally means retirement, conversion or effective carbon capture. Saskatchewan’s 2025 energy strategy, however, indicates that coal will continue as a bridge while the province pursues a carbon neutral electricity sector by 2050.

This sets up the next major test of Canada’s coal policy. Saskatchewan can point to reliability, local resources, employment and the experience of carbon capture. It must also confront the emissions intensity, health burden and economic risks of extending coal assets while other power systems move toward cleaner generation. The question is not whether Saskatchewan should copy Ontario or Alberta exactly. Neither model can be transplanted wholesale. The question is whether Saskatchewan can develop a credible pathway that delivers comparable emissions reductions without locking consumers into expensive, high emitting infrastructure.

What comes next for Ontario?

Ontario’s next challenge is growth. The Independent Electricity System Operator forecasts that annual electricity demand could rise from approximately 151 terawatt hours in 2025 to 262 terawatt hours in 2050, an increase of 75 %. Electric vehicles, heating, battery manufacturing, data centres and wider industrial electrification will drive much of this increase. Meeting that demand mainly with natural gas would raise electricity emissions and weaken the climate value of electrification.

• Ontario’s priorities should be:
• Maintain and refurbish existing nuclear capacity safely and economically.
• Complete planned nuclear projects where they meet cost, safety and delivery requirements.
• Expand energy efficiency and demand response before building unnecessary generation.
• Accelerate competitive procurement of wind, solar and storage.
• Strengthen interconnections with Quebec and neighbouring systems.
• Use natural gas increasingly as a reliability resource rather than a growing source of annual energy.
• Publish annual grid intensity data that allow consumers and industries to track whether electrification is becoming cleaner.

Ontario has already shown that a province can eliminate coal without sacrificing reliability. The next test is whether it can double the useful role of electricity without doubling fossil generation.

What comes next for Alberta?

Alberta has completed one of the fastest coal exits undertaken by a major fossil fuel producing jurisdiction. That achievement should be recognized. But its 2023 grid intensity of 424 grams per kilowatt hour reveals how much work remains.

Alberta’s electricity demand reached about 88.8 terawatt hours in 2024 and continued to grow in 2025. Industrial expansion, population growth, electrification and potential data centre development could increase demand further. If most new generation comes from unabated natural gas, total electricity emissions could remain high or increase even if the average efficiency of gas plants improves.

Alberta’s next phase should focus on:

• Building renewable generation at a pace that exceeds demand growth.
• Expanding transmission within Alberta and strengthening interprovincial connections.
• Developing storage, demand response and other flexible resources.
• Rewarding dependable capacity without creating long term incentives for unnecessary fossil generation.
• Reducing methane emissions across the natural gas supply chain.
• Evaluating carbon capture against transparent cost and performance benchmarks.
• Supporting Indigenous equity participation in generation and transmission projects.
• Completing mine reclamation and monitoring former coal sites.
• Publishing post coal air quality and public health results.

Alberta has already demonstrated that forecasts of an unavoidable 2030 coal deadline were too conservative. The same ambition should now be applied to reducing gas dependence.

Did coal phase out actually make a difference?

Looking back from today, five conclusions can be drawn from the available evidence.

• First, coal phase out produced a national scale climate benefit. Electricity emissions fell by approximately 67 million tonnes between 2005 and 2023, while Ontario and Alberta together delivered about 53 million tonnes of reductions.
• Second, the replacement mix determined the depth of decarbonization. Ontario emerged with a grid dominated by non emitting generation. Alberta emerged with a much cleaner but still gas intensive grid.
• Third, air pollutant emissions from electricity fell sharply. Ontario’s electricity related sulphur oxide emissions declined by more than 99 % between 2005 and 2014, while nitrogen oxide emissions fell by about 84 %. Alberta’s final coal closure should produce similarly clear reductions in coal specific pollutants, although current health outcome data are not yet sufficient for a full retrospective assessment.
• Fourth, public health benefits are real but should be communicated carefully. Coal phase out reduces exposure risks, but changes in total urban air quality cannot be attributed to one policy alone. Vehicles, industry, wildfire smoke, weather and transboundary pollution also matter.
• Fifth, coal phase out is a beginning rather than an endpoint. Ontario must prevent renewed gas growth from reversing its gains. Alberta must move beyond coal to gas substitution. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick must meet their 2030 commitments. Saskatchewan must reconcile its longer coal strategy with federal standards, climate goals and public health.
• Canada’s coal transition has already changed today’s reality. The electricity sector now emits far less than it did two decades ago, millions of tonnes of sulphur and carbon pollution have been avoided over time, and two of the country’s largest provincial grids no longer burn coal.
• The next question is no longer whether Canada can phase out coal. Ontario and Alberta have answered that. The question is whether Canada will use that achievement to build electricity systems clean enough to power transportation, buildings and industry without transferring the climate and health burden from coal to another fossil fuel. That is where the true cost of coal phase out will ultimately be decided.

© Econatant 2026