To the Point for the Week of November 9, 2025
To the Point for the Week of November 9, 2025
The province announces a major milestone in securing the energy to power Ontario’s future, but is the government’s framing accurate? Why can’t we duplicate large-project successes across other policy areas? The Prime Minister released his latest list of projects for referral to the Major Projects Office. Is this what nation-building looks like?
ONTARIO
Large and in Charge
A little snow in Edwardsburgh-Cardinal (about 80 km south of Ottawa) couldn’t dull the electricity in the air generated by the anticipation of the groundbreaking for the largest battery energy storage system (BESS) project in North America. A joint venture between Potentia Renewables Inc. and the Pikwakanagan First Nation, the Skyview 2 BESS project is the result of a five-year process that began in 2020 when the Independent Electricity Systems Operator (IESO) started forecasting Ontario’s long-term energy needs. That work led to the IESO’s Long-Term 1 Request for Proposal (LT1 RFP), which sought at least 1,000 MW of long-term storage to address the shortfall expected by 2027.
The project’s capacity is enormous. The facility can store 411 MW or 1,858 MWh, meaning it can churn out 411 MW of power at any moment and run roughly 400,000 homes for about 4.5 hours. It comes with an estimated $750M price tag, translating to about $1.8M per MW, and will support roughly 300 construction jobs.
The IESO estimates that Ontario’s electricity demand will grow by 75% by 2050, from 151 TWh to 263 TWh, driven by EV manufacturing, AI data centres, population growth, and grid modernization toward electrification. Even with Skyview 2 online, Ontario still faces a 12–15 GW shortfall by 2035. And with Pickering closing and Darlington under refurbishment, this project helps manage peak demand without having to build new gas plants.
The Premier framed the project as another measure to blunt the impacts of the ongoing tariff dispute with the United States by advancing Ontario’s “energy independence.” As has been the Premier’s MO for nearly a year, almost every policy announcement is now fitted into the broader tariff narrative, whether it belongs there or not.
A BESS doesn’t generate electricity. It behaves like a giant power bank: excess power flows in when demand is low and flows out during peak periods. This ensures the grid is stabilized by matching the supply of electricity with demand, operating smoothly and without interruption. But it doesn’t eliminate Ontario’s need for imported electricity. The province still depends on cross-border trade during seasonal peaks and emergencies, mainly from Michigan and New York. Skyview 2 improves efficiency. It doesn’t make Ontario self-sufficient.
Although the impact is negligible on Skyview 2 since component prices were contractually locked in, the project uses e-Storage’s SolBank 3+ system. E-Storage sits under Canadian Solar, whose majority owner, CSI Solar Co. Ltd., manufactures out of Suzhou, China. Put simply: the tech is made in China, which shields Skyview 2 from U.S. tariffs. But future LT procurements won’t be as lucky. With e-Storage opening a manufacturing plant in Kentucky next year and Washington pushing to onshore advanced manufacturing, Ontario’s future grid projects will face higher costs under a Trump administration. Skyview 2 is protected by timing; the next wave won’t be.
Weak claims of energy independence and tariff protection aside, Skyview 2 is proof of what happens when government identifies a problem, sets the parameters, and lets a competitive procurement process do its job. The IESO used the LT1 process to procure 2,195 MW—far above the 1,000 MW target—across multiple projects. Ontario’s total BESS capacity now sits around 3,300 MW. But there’s far more to do. The IESO is preparing two LT2 streams that must deliver 7,500 MW to chip away at Ontario’s looming 12,000–15,000 MW shortfall and is launching a new “Long-Lead” RFP for hydroelectric and long-duration storage.
The success of the LT1 RFP raises an important question: Why can’t we get similar results in other areas where large-scale output is desperately needed, transit, housing, or the Ring of Fire?
The LT1 RFP delivered 2,195 MW of capacity in 18 months because it removed political discretion and relied on transparent, competitive bidding. Ontario’s housing, transit, and mining files tell the opposite story. Ontario’s 1.5-million-home target is now considered a “soft target” by the province thanks largely to municipal delays and rising development charges. The Eglinton LRT has blown out to $4.6 billion, and the Ontario Line is now a $27.2-billion build slated for 2031.
The Ring of Fire remains stalled as infrastructure gaps, fragmented permitting, and unresolved First Nations consultations continue to hold everything up. Road access is still the critical bottleneck. Ontario has only put $61.8 million into the Geraldton Main Street Rehabilitation Project that’s not the all-season road system the mines need. The province’s mining approvals system still splinters decisions across multiple ministries, with projects taking up to 15 years to clear. Ontario’s new “One Project, One Process” framework is supposed to cut that in half, but it’s far too early for any results. And after 30 years of talking about the Ring of Fire, most of the projects still don’t have First Nations support, which means Ottawa can’t fast-track anything even with the new Major Projects Office. The contrast reveals that when government sets clear rules and timelines—like the LT1 RFP—projects move. When infrastructure, permitting, and partnerships aren’t aligned, they don’t.
Skyview demonstrates Ontario knows how to deliver big, complicated projects on tight timelines. The problem isn’t capacity. It’s alignment. Unless the province brings that same clarity to housing, transit, and the Ring of Fire, the government will keep announcing ambitions it can’t land.
FEDERAL
Are We Really Building the Nation?
Two important economic stories emanated from Ottawa this week. One overshadowed the other. Call us cynical, but it’s hard not to believe one wasn’t politically timed in anticipation of the other.
Although not the sole focus of this week’s edition, the Bank of Canada quietly released its Market Participants Survey this week. Sourced from 30 financial market participants, the Survey found that the prevailing sentiment among participants is that Canada remains at risk of a recession in the next six months. Participants on average believed there was about a 35% chance Canada was already in or would enter a recession in that period. On the one hand, one might feel relieved in that sentiment. One third is better than three quarters. However — and this is critical to this week’s edition — 90% of participants believe the economy is operating below its potential.
The second story this week was the federal government’s announcement of the second tranche of projects being referred to the Major Projects Office (MPO) to streamline and speed up regulatory and permitting approvals and help coordinate financing. The newly designated nation-building projects are:
Ksi Lisims LNG Project (BC)
North Coast Transmission Line (BC)
Crawford Nickel (ON)
Sisson Tungsten Mine (NB)
Timmins Nickel (ON)
Nouveau Monde Graphite (QC)
The total number of projects currently referred to the MPO now sits at 18. Six of those are basically at an aspirational stage, meaning they aren’t seeking approvals or remain at early concept planning. Each is being coordinated by the MPO for development into viable projects.
This brings us back to the Market Participants Survey. When a significant majority of respondents say the economy is operating below its potential, we find ourselves asking whether the nation-building endeavour the federal government has launched is actually realizing that potential.
What’s missing from the federal government’s nation-building strategy is coherence and evidence of interconnectedness between the projects being branded as nation-building. While these projects have enormous economic value and should move forward even without the MPO based on merit alone, they lack the interconnecting tissue that would truly qualify them as nation-building.
The government could make the case that the North Coast Transmission Line and the Ksi Lisims LNG project are connected. The transmission line has been described as a project that will support mining and LNG development in northern B.C., and Ksi Lisims would have to source its power via hydroelectricity to maintain its “world’s lowest-carbon LNG” distinction. Still, it’s not an explicit connection that would qualify it as an energy corridor or enabling infrastructure. Even worse, it’s hard to frame the Ksi project as Canadian when Western LNG is based in Houston and the port will be built in Korea with Korean and Chinese steel. Is the government really going to finance an American project that’s foreign built?
You could also make the case that the latest critical minerals projects referred to the MPO play into a national security strategy whereby Canada becomes NATO’s go-to source for critical mineral supply. Except what’s missing is an executable domestic value chain strategy that connects the development of critical minerals to Canadian refining and processing operations and export opportunities. Many of these projects lack any downstream processing or manufacturing links. Even the finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, said “refining is the name of the game... Canada can do better than just shipping raw form.” The problem is that no refining or processing facilities have been identified by or referred to the MPO.
Another critical element undermining the nation-building narrative is the lack of progress identifying national pipeline projects. During a fireside chat with the Prime Minister at the Canadian Club last week, he was asked about progress on an oil pipeline from Alberta. In what may have been a Freudian slip, his initial response was a muttered “boring.” The moderator picked up on it, prompting an insistence from the Prime Minister that a pipeline is going to happen. But when?
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been patient and is playing ball by negotiating with the Prime Minister on a pipeline project. It’s the only resource that, from what we understand, requires negotiation with the federal government. It’s the country’s largest resource commodity, and yet the Prime Minister has elected to champion LNG projects over viable pipelines. Not only that, but he seems to be publicly pre-empting negotiations by insisting the pipeline has to be “low risk, low cost, and low carbon,” without defining what that means. It’s entirely possible those stipulations will be insurmountable and that an oil pipeline isn’t going to be built. Or that the project chosen will be so fraught with issues it will never be built.
The pipeline conundrum isn’t just an economic nation-building issue. It’s also about uniting the country through resource development. It doesn’t bode well for nation-building if projects are deemed viable in every region but not Alberta.
Ninety percent of market participants say the economy is running below potential. That’s the gap nation-building is supposed to close. But you can’t close it with scattered projects, soft connections, and a strategy that still can’t link our biggest resource producers to the infrastructure they need. The MPO can refer all the projects it wants, but until Ottawa shows how these pieces fit together, how they actually unlock the capacity the Survey says is sitting idle, we’re not building a nation. We’re announcing one.
ABOUT TO THE POINT
To the Point – ONpoint Strategy Group's weekly roundup – cuts through the noise to deliver insight and analysis of key federal, provincial, and municipal stories shaping Canada's policy and political landscape. Designed for decision-makers and thought leaders, this newsletter is your go-to resource for staying ahead. Share these trusted insights with your network to spark meaningful conversations. Simply hit forward or follow ONpoint Strategy Group on X and LinkedIn to spread these valuable perspectives."
About ONpoint Strategy Group:
ONpoint Strategy Group is all about helping clients make an impact where it counts. Specializing in government relations and strategic execution, our team—Nico Fidani-Diker, Mariana Di Rezze, Krystle Caputo, David Morgado, Christopher Mourtos, Ellen Gouchman, and Brandon Falcone—works closely with clients to navigate complex political landscapes and bring their goals to life. With a practical, results-driven approach, we build strong relationships, craft winning strategies, and make sure every step brings clients closer to meaningful outcomes. We’re passionate about making sure our clients are heard, supported, and positioned for success.
