Is Alberta about to go nuclear?  

The GOA releases the Alberta Nuclear Energy Engagement Panel Report 

There is growing interest in the development of nuclear power in Alberta and throughout Canada. In 2022, Alberta entered into A Strategic Plan for the Deployment of Small Modular Reactors with Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan (and last month, the governments of Ontario and Yukon entered into a similar partnership agreement). The Alberta-Canada Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2025 includes commitments to “collaborate to develop a nuclear generation strategy to build and operate competitive nuclear power generation that can serve the Alberta and inter-connected markets by 2050” and to “design policy supports that enable deployment of nuclear technology… to enable decarbonization of the electricity system”.  Most recently, the federal government announced its commitment to develop  a new strategy for nuclear energy by the end of 2026.   

In the interest of nurturing the industry in Alberta, the Government of Alberta (GOA) undertook stakeholder engagement around nuclear energy development in 2025 and early 2026.  In April 2026, the GOA released the Alberta Nuclear Energy Engagement Panel Report (the Report) which was delivered to the Minister of Affordability and Utilities.  The information in the Report is to be used to inform a roadmap and regulatory framework to support a nuclear energy industry in Alberta. 

What is the current status of nuclear power in Alberta? 

Currently, there are no operational nuclear power plants or small modular reactors in Alberta.  However, there is a proposed power plant consisting of up to four nuclear reactors covering 1,424 hectares, approximately 30km north of Peace River, known as the Peace River Nuclear Project.  This is still in the early stages of the regulatory process. 

There is also interest in developing the use of small modular reactors in Alberta (and elsewhere through Canada) as evidenced by the 2022 A Strategic Plan for the Deployment of Small Modular Reactors.  There is also a website called the Alberta SMR Study which provides information specific to Alberta. 

What does the Alberta Nuclear Energy Engagement Panel Report say? 

The Report was prepared by a six-person Panel (whose biographies are available in Appendix 2 of the Report). The Report provides background information on stakeholder engagement activities, sets out the terms of reference for the Panel’s work, and summarizes feedback from stakeholders.  The feedback is organized into several themes: 

• public awareness and education; 

• economic and community impacts; 

• safety, radiation and emergency response; 

• nuclear waste management; 

• environment and water; 

• participation and influence in decision-making; and  

• market readiness and financial considerations. 

According to the Report, the Panel found that stakeholders were overall supportive of adding nuclear power to Alberta’s energy mix.  The Panel concluded its report with the following broad recommendations: 

• enhance public understanding of nuclear energy; 

• determine and communicate Alberta’s role in decision-making; 

• strengthen coordination with federal assessment, licensing and regulatory processes; 

• support meaningful participation by municipalities and Indigenous communities in proposed project review processes; 

• continue long-term relationship-building and policy dialogue with Indigenous communities; and 

• strengthen Alberta’s readiness through emergency planning, and further analysis of economic, workforce and market implications. 

In addition, within the discussion of each theme, the Panel made specific recommendations (only a few of which are highlighted in this blog). On the matter of safety, the Panel recommends that the GOA work with municipalities, Indigenous communities, and federal and provincial authorities to establish a provincial nuclear emergency response plan. On the issue of nuclear waste management, the Panel recommends that the GOA continue to work with the federal nuclear regulator and nuclear waste management organization to ensure long-term planning, preparation, and management of waste material. Finally, with respect to environmental and water protection, the Panel recommended that the GOA work with communities to enable their participation in assessing and monitoring environmental impacts of nuclear projects, and that the GOA engage in discussions with the federal regulator to ensure understanding of Alberta’s water context.  As well, the Panel recommended the GOA consider the potential for nuclear energy development when reviewing its broader environmental and water policies. 

It is noted that there were no specific recommendations made by the Panel to set limits or conditions for nuclear energy development in the province.  Rather, the Report served more to highlight potential concerns and issues around nuclear energy development raised by stakeholders.  Many of the Panel’s recommendations were aimed at increasing communication and educating the public on nuclear energy development and existing regulatory processes. 

What is the Current Nuclear Regulatory Framework? 

Nuclear power regulation falls under federal jurisdiction as established by the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Ontario Hydro v Ontario (Labour Relations Board). This jurisdiction arises from federal authority to declare certain works and undertakings as being for the general advantage of Canada (as is done in section 71 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act) and its authority to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada (Ontario Hydro at 339). 

The primary piece of legislation regulating nuclear facilities is the federal Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NCSA) which is administered by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).   The NCSA governs nuclear substances, facilities, equipment and information throughout Canada.  This includes the licensing of nuclear power plants and regulating the use of small modular reactors. Section 3 sets out one purpose of the NCSA as being to limit, to a reasonable level and in a manner consistent with international obligations, the risks to national security and to the health and safety of persons and the environment associated with nuclear energy and substances. 

The NCSA and its regulations adopt a staged approach to licensing facilities with separate applications and licences being required to prepare sites, construct, operate, decommission and abandon nuclear facilities.  This includes uranium mines and mills, power reactors, research reactors, waste management facilities and the use of nuclear substances in medicine and industry (note that different facilities and uses may have different license staging and requirements). 

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) – a non-profit organization established pursuant to the federal Nuclear Fuel Waste Act – is tasked with developing an approach for long-term care of used nuclear fuel. It recently submitted a proposal for an underground deep geological repository system to the CNSC’s regulatory approval process (a joint process with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) impact assessment process). 

It Is important to note that a federal discussion paper issued on May 8^th – Getting Major Projects Built in Canada, Discussion Paper on Proposed Legislative, Regulatory, and Policy Reforms – indicates an intention to assign reviews for nuclear and uranium projects to the CNSC alone.  This means impact assessment processes under the Impact Assessment Act would be handled by only the CNSC and not as joint processes with the IAAC which is the current practice.  Presumably, if a provincial environmental impact assessment was deemed necessary, that would proceed jointly with the CNSC and the province. 

If nuclear regulation is federal, what role does the province play?  

Even though nuclear power plants and small modular reactors are primarily regulated as federal undertakings, there is a role for provincial legislation.  Water use and impacts associated with nuclear power plants should be subject to the requirements of the provincial Water Act. The requirement for a provincial environmental assessment (likely around water use and diversion issues: see Astrid Kalkbrenner, Environmental Assessment of Nuclear Power Plants in Alberta) and regulation of substance releases under the Environmental Enhancement and Protection Act may still apply.  As well, land use planning considerations under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act or the Public Lands Act may be applicable to siting decisions.  Finally, there is a role for the Alberta Utilities Commission, which regulates power plants and transmission lines in the province, particularly on matters of emergency preparedness and electric grid readiness.  

This means work will be required to align federal and provincial regulatory processes for nuclear power plants and small modular reactors. In particular, provincial authority to regulate aspects of nuclear facilities needs to be clearly delineated.  The province will play a role in decision-making although they will not be able to impair a vital aspect or frustrate the purpose of the federal undertaking.  The specific content of provincial requirements will need to respect the nuclear facility decision made by the CNSC.  For instance, the province may set requirements related to grid connection or water use, but those conditions cannot contradict or frustrate the CNSC decision respecting the nuclear facility.  Ultimately, there will need to be close coordination and cooperation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments to ensure provincial objectives are achieved without impairing the federal undertaking. 

The approach to determining the appropriate interaction between federal and provincial legislation on a federal undertaking was set out by the SCC in Canadian Western Bank v Alberta as a two-step process. Firstly, the true nature of the federal and provincial laws (the “pith and substance”) must be discerned to determine if it falls into the government’s legislative jurisdiction. The SCC noted that legislation within the government’s jurisdiction can be valid even if it incidentally impacts on matters within the jurisdiction of another level of government. Furthermore, the SCC noted that some matters cannot be categorized by a single head of power and have both federal and provincial aspects (the “double aspect doctrine”).  

Secondly, if there is valid federal and provincial legislation, then the applicability of the principle of federal paramountcy must be decided.  If there is an operational conflict such that valid federal and provincial legislation cannot simultaneously apply or that application of the provincial legislation would frustrate the purpose of the federal legislation, then the principle of federal paramountcy applies with the result that the provincial legislation is inoperative to the extent of the incompatibility.    

To further illuminate the boundaries of provincial regulation on federal undertakings, it is helpful to look to the legal challenges arising from approval of the federally regulated Trans Mountain pipeline (see Alistair Lucas, Can Provincial Governments Stop Interprovincial Pipelines? for more discussion).  In this case, both the Province of BC and the Municipality of Burnaby attempted to use their legislative authority to disallow a federally regulated and permitted pipeline.  The provincial legislative attempts included denial of a provincial environmental assessment approval and denial of a provincial environmental approval for bitumen transport. The Municipality of Burnaby denied entry to a municipal park and delayed the issuance of necessary street traffic authorizations, as well as seeking an injunction to prevent violation of municipal bylaws.  Ultimately, these attempts failed to achieve the goal of stopping the interprovincial pipeline – the approval of a federal undertaking could not be undermined by assertion of provincial or municipal jurisdiction. 

As summarized in Alistair Lucas, Can Provincial Governments Stop Interprovincial Pipelines? (pages 29 and 30): 

1. Can Provinces stop interprovincial pipelines? Provinces have no constitutional power to stop interprovincial pipelines. They cannot deny project approvals under environmental regulatory or environmental assessment legislation. Nor can they legislate indirectly, including creating licensing requirements for specific hydrocarbon products transported by interprovincial pipelines. Provincial requirements that target interprovincial pipeline operations, maintenance, or abandonment would also be ultra vires. All of these subjects would be within federal jurisdiction under section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1867.  

2. At the same time, provincial application of environmental legislation, including attaching conditions to interprovincial pipelines, is valid so long as this does not impair the integrity of the pipeline undertaking. This includes unreasonable delay in environmental review and decision making. The latter applies to provincial environmental assessment processes, and operations review and permitting under municipal bylaws. 

Much like transboundary pipelines, nuclear facilities are primarily regulated by the federal government.  Unlike transboundary pipelines however, federal jurisdiction over nuclear facilities arises from an exercise of its declaratory power under the Constitution.  That is, the federal government has decided, as a matter of policy, to withdraw nuclear facilities from otherwise provincial jurisdiction for the general advantage of Canada.  In Ontario Hydro v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), the SCC stated that (page 363): 

This means a province cannot enact legislation or regulations that affects a vital aspect of federal regulation of nuclear facilities.  A province or municipality cannot attempt to directly regulate the construction, operations or dismantling of a nuclear facility. Nor is a province or municipality able to withhold necessary statutory authorizations, or impose requirements that are contrary to or undermine the license issued by the CNSC.   

However, the SCC has also clearly stated– in Hydro-Quebec,  Spraytech v Hudson and other decisions –  that the environment per se is not a discrete subject matter of regulation delegated to either the federal government or the provinces.  Rather, it is a diffuse subject matter that cuts across different areas of federal and provincial constitutional jurisdiction. A nuclear facility may trigger provincial environmental regulation of general application (which arises from provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights, and local matters). These could include requirements around water use and impacts, release of substances (including emergency planning), and other matters relating to power plant operations.  As well, it is possible that decision-making by the CNSC could be subject to judicial review applications brought by the province, municipalities or other parties (although even a successful judicial review application would most likely result in the matter being remitted to the CNSC). 

Let’s not forget renewables… 

In the rush to develop nuclear power options, renewable power generation should not be forgotten.  Rather than encouraging and expanding opportunities for renewable power in the province, there have actually been policy decisions that have curtailed renewable energy development (for more, see our blog post). The ELC encourages adoption of a legal and policy framework that encourages increased use of low-carbon footprint electric generation options such as solar and wind power rather than a single-minded rush to adopt nuclear power generation.