SASKATOON, Sask. — Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES) officials are warning that taxpayers and SaskPower customers could face billions of dollars in costs if the province extends the life of its coal-fired power plants, as the group prepares to take its legal challenge to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.
SES will appear before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Saskatoon on Tuesday, Sept. 15, to argue that the joint legal challenge it filed with co-appellants Kiké Dueck, Sherry Olson, Matthew Wiens and the organization Citizens for Public Justice should proceed to a full hearing.
The SES is challenging the province’s decision to extend the operation of its coal-fired power plants beyond the federal phase-out deadline of Dec. 31, 2029, adding that the decision could impose a financial burden on Saskatchewan households and businesses and deserves a full judicial review. The provincial government argued an elected government should decide public policy rather than the courts.
The government initially estimated that refurbishing SaskPower’s coal-fired power stations would cost $900 million. However, SaskPower later disclosed in rate-review materials that refurbishment costs had increased to approximately $2.6 billion. Internal SaskPower documents subsequently made public suggest that the total cost of refurbishing and operating the coal fleet could be much higher.
The documents indicate approximately $11.4 billion in refurbishment and operating costs, including additional maintenance and fuel expenses through 2050, bringing the projected total to $25.8 billion. SES argued these costs would ultimately be passed on to SaskPower consumers through higher electricity rates, with SaskPower already seeking consecutive 3.9 per cent rate increases for 2026 and 2027.
The Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel, however, warned that the 2027 increase could be between 5.4 and 6.4 per cent because of the utility’s financial and operational pressures. Internal SaskPower projections cited by SES also suggest that continuing to generate electricity from coal could double electricity rates by 2040.
In a media conference on Monday, Sept. 14, SES vice-president Margaret Asmuss and board directors Bob Halliday, Elaine Wheaton and Peter Prebble criticized the Saskatchewan government’s decision, citing the economic, environmental and legal implications of continuing to operate the province’s coal-fired power stations.
Asmuss said the province has alternatives to extending coal-fired power and should consider approaches used in other jurisdictions to maintain reliable and affordable electricity, citing Germany and Spain as examples of countries that have expanded renewable energy and encouraging Saskatchewan to learn from international experience.
“Across the world, jurisdictions are proving that it is possible to provide electricity reliably and affordably by investing in technologies such as renewable energy and electricity conservation and management,” said Asmuss, who added that independent experts have identified alternative energy sources such as solar and wind.
She said that the SES and even SaskPower have identified these alternative energy sources, including demand-side management, energy storage, stronger interprovincial transmission ties and modern grid planning, and also raised concerns about the lack of publicly available information supporting the government’s decision.
“We haven’t seen any economics. We haven’t seen an environmental impact assessment. The costs seem to be escalating,” said Asmuss, who called for greater accountability and transparency, adding that the province has not provided sufficient economic or environmental assessments to explain why coal refurbishment is the preferred option.
Increased costs
Halliday also discussed the economics of SaskPower’s coal refurbishment plans, saying the project's estimated cost has increased substantially since the government announced its decision in 2025, and added that at least two independent economic analyses have estimated the cost at about $30 billion.
“When the Saskatchewan government announced in June of 2025 that it was directing SaskPower to continue operating coal-fired power stations, they estimated the refurbishment cost at $900 million,” said Halliday, who added that the proposed refurbishment is the most expensive option available to SaskPower, according to his assessment.
“Of all the future power decision options available to SaskPower, this is by far the most expensive,” Halliday said, warning that the project could double SaskPower’s debt load and threaten its financial stability, with consumers facing significant electricity rate increases. He said renewables and stronger interprovincial connections could provide reliable power at a lower cost and with less technical risk.
Wheaton, a climate scientist who previously worked at the Saskatchewan Research Council, said the government’s decision to continue using coal has environmental and financial consequences, warning that Saskatchewan’s emissions contribute to climate heating and intensify the risks posed by extreme weather.
“Burning of fossil fuels is heating the climate,” Wheaton said, adding that Saskatchewan’s per-capita emissions are among the highest in Canada and the world. She said the province has a responsibility to reduce pollution and move toward cleaner energy sources.
Wheaton said Saskatchewan’s droughts, wildfires, flooding and intense rainfall have already caused costly damage to agriculture, health and other sectors. She said Prairie droughts alone can cost billions of dollars, while continued coal use could worsen climate-related risks.
Battle not yet over
Prebble said their fight to stop the Saskatchewan government’s planned extension of its coal-fired power plants is not yet over, arguing that a judicial review could provide an important tool to scrutinize the government’s decision and its projected costs.
He said the proposed refurbishments have not yet taken place, which allows them to challenge the plan before billions of dollars in public money are invested in facilities he believes will eventually be prohibited under federal regulations.
“It’s not a losing battle yet. The key consideration for the courts is whether or not, in this case, the coal decision was a reasonable decision or an unreasonable decision,” Prebble said, noting that the government has not yet broken the law because the refurbishments have not occurred.
He pointed out the federal regulation requiring conventional coal-fired power stations to close by Jan. 1, 2030. However, this does not apply to the clean coal unit at Estevan but does apply to the province’s other conventional coal-fired power units.
Prebble argued that extending their operating lives by at least another 20 years is against federal law, and a judicial review is a mechanism through which courts can determine whether a government or regulatory decision is lawful and reasonable.
He said the SES is challenging the coal decision partly because it was made without a published economic analysis or environmental assessment, and that a judicial review could compel the government to disclose documents related to the cost of extending the coal plants.
“Clearly there’s a need to see the real numbers, and the court can require that,” said Prebble, who added that the projections rose from an initial estimate of $900 million, provided by Crown Investments Corporation Minister Jeremy Harrison about a year ago, to more than $11 billion in leaked material attributed to SaskPower staff.
