12/08/2025
Read to understand why this $3Billion fossil plant is a bad idea -
From Laura Cameron & James Wilt - Wpg Free Press
The announcement in last week’s throne speech of a new $3-billion fossil gas-fired power plant to meet growing peak electricity demand is a major disappointment that undercuts the government’s recent commitments to emissions reductions, affordability and economic development.
Rather than take advantage of the tremendous technological advances and cost reductions in renewables and energy storage that have unfolded in recent years, this new power plant further entrenches the province’s dependence on expensive and high-polluting fossil fuel infrastructure. It fundamentally contradicts the government’s emissions reductions pledges, including the recent re-commitment to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035, with allusions to eventual conversion to burn hydrogen or biomethane an unsubstantiated fantasy.
Supporters of gas-fired power plants claim they are the most reliable and cost-effective generation source on the table. This is no longer the case. The reported upfront cost of $3 billion for the 750 megawatt (MW) power plant doubles estimates from Manitoba Hydro’s original proposal for a 500 MW plant. Given that a “peaker” plant like this one is only expected to operate for a few days or weeks per year, this represents by far the most expensive form of electricity generation, even above nuclear power.
A spike in global demand for gas turbines to power data centres has also significantly increased costs and wait times for the equipment. And when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, even small methane leaks from gas wells and pipelines can render the fuel as bad for the climate as burning coal.
On the other hand, energy storage technologies have experienced huge advancements in recent years and, paired with wind or solar, provide a viable, affordable, and quickly deployable alternative to gas power. The upfront costs of lithium-ion batteries have plummeted by more than 80 per cent in the past decade, especially in the last few years due to global overcapacity, surging economies of scale, and advances in battery chemistry. Global battery storage capacity almost doubled in 2024 alone, with 69 gigawatts (GW) added in a single year. As with almost all things related to the energy transition, China is the unambiguous leader in this area, achieving its target of building 100 GW of non-hydro energy storage by 2030 in mid-2025, a full five years early.
There are also major rollouts happening in North America, with huge battery storage projects increasingly eroding gas-fired generation in both California and Texas; in the former, the combined cost of renewables with battery storage remains cheaper than a gas-fired peaker plant. And just next door, Ontario is surging ahead with an enormous energy storage procurement process aiming to hit three GW of storage by 2028. The 250 MW Oneida Energy Storage Project that started operations in May exemplified its technological readiness, coming in both under budget and ahead of schedule — and with significant Indigenous ownership, as well.
Batteries, and energy storage more broadly, maximize the generating capacity of wind and solar by charging during periods of high production — typically cold winter nights for wind power, and hot summer days for solar power — to discharge at later times. They can also serve many other important functions, including providing near-instantaneous energy to the grid (unlike thermal plants, which typically require several hours to ramp-up), contributing to grid stability, and postponing the need for new costly transmission infrastructure. Advances in battery technology have solidified their reliability during extreme cold and heat, as well.
Given the government’s increasing support for extremely energy-intensive industries like artificial intelligence, data centres, direct air capture, and liquefied natural gas exports, there is a real risk that this “peaker” plant becomes more regularly relied upon and further undermines the province’s climate commitments; this exact pivot has happened in Toronto, with gas-fired power plants supposedly built only to serve peak demand requirements running for an annual average of 12 hours per day.
Increasing reliance on gas power would greatly expose Manitoba to the extreme price volatility of Alberta-produced fossil gas, which would in no way help advance “power sovereignty” as some have suggested it would. This past summer gave Manitoba a taste of the staggering social and economic costs of inaction on climate change, which will only get worse the more fossil fuels we burn. Wind and solar power combined with a diverse mix of energy storage — which $3 billion could build an enormous quantity of, with massive job creation and economic development spinoffs — is the best path forward for Manitoba.
James Wilt is policy development manager at Climate Action Team Manitoba, and Laura Cameron, is the director of program and strategy at Climate Action Team Manitoba.
