A new macroeconomic study puts a number on the upside of doubling the national grid — and spells out the four conditions that have to be met before any of it materialises.
Electrifying Canada on a national scale could add a cumulative $3 trillion to the country’s economy by 2050, according to new macroeconomic modelling released on October 1, 2026. The study finds that doubling Canada’s electricity supply and putting that power to work across industry, buildings and transport would also support 1.6 million additional jobs in 2050 and return roughly $5 in economic benefits for every $1 invested in the power sector, measured against a business-as-usual path.
The figures appear in Powering Canada’s Growth: the economic case for an electrified economy, a joint report from New Economy Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. The underlying modelling was carried out by the Open Insights initiative, a research consortium led by University of Victoria researchers.
What the $3-Trillion Figure Is Actually Comparing
The headline numbers are not a forecast of what Canada will earn from electricity. They are the gap between two modelled futures. One scenario assumes Canada builds out generation and transmission at scale and shifts energy demand toward clean power across the economy. The other assumes the country stays on its current trajectory, with only existing policies and measures in place.
The $3 trillion is the cumulative difference in economic activity between those two paths through 2050. The 1.6 million jobs figure is a point-in-time measure for the year 2050 rather than a running total of positions created along the way. And the $5-for-$1 return is a benefit-cost ratio on power sector investment, not a guaranteed rate of return for any individual project or utility.
That distinction matters for how the findings should be read. Scenario modelling of this kind is sensitive to assumptions about construction timelines, electricity prices, labour availability and global demand — all of which can move substantially over a 24-year horizon.
Why the Report Lands as a Rebuttal on Cost
Much of the Canadian debate over grid expansion has focused on the price tag: what new transmission, generation and storage will cost ratepayers and taxpayers. The report is explicitly framed as the other half of that ledger.
“Amid discussions of what an electrified economy will cost, we now have a clearer picture of what it could return,” said Ian Bruce, president of New Economy Canada, pointing to trillions in additional economic activity and more than a million jobs. He argued the study shows what becomes possible when Canada builds more electricity and then uses it productively across the wider economy, and said it now falls to all levels of government to build on the country’s electricity advantage to attract investment and jobs.
The involvement of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is notable on its own terms. It places a mainstream business organisation alongside a clean-growth advocacy group in making the case that grid expansion is an industrial competitiveness question rather than solely an environmental one.
How the Modelling Backs Powering Canada Strong
The report positions itself as validating the economic direction of Powering Canada Strong, the proposed federal electricity strategy aimed at doubling the country’s electricity supply and accelerating electrification. The modelling attempts to quantify the investment, employment and GDP gains a coordinated national build-out could deliver.
Crucially, the analysis argues that the benefits of electricity investment extend well past the power sector itself — into manufacturing, construction, resource processing and services that draw on cheaper, cleaner energy. But the report attaches a condition to that spillover: the wider gains only materialise if Canada expands its overall economic capacity to absorb them. Without more workers, more supply chain depth and more investment capital, a grid build-out risks bidding up costs rather than unlocking growth.
The Four Priorities the Report Sets for Governments
Rather than leaving the findings as a projection, the authors set out four areas where action would determine whether the modelled upside is achievable:
- Sustain political commitment and public investment: Keep electricity and electrification on the First Ministers’ economic agenda and put in place a durable framework for long-term public investment, rather than funding that shifts with each budget cycle.
- Mobilize capital at scale: Align investment tax credits, public-finance institutions and broader business-investment policy so that private capital flows in and financing costs — and by extension electricity rates — stay affordable.
- Build the workforce alongside the grid: Expand training, improve labour mobility between provinces and raise productivity, so Canada has the trades and technical workers needed both to build the system and to staff the growth it enables.
- Secure the supply chain: Modernise existing supply chains, develop domestic capacity in critical electricity and clean technologies, and strengthen trade partnerships for the components Canada cannot produce competitively at home.
The financing point is the one most exposed to short-term conditions. Capital costs for long-lived infrastructure move with the interest rate environment, and the direction of monetary policy — including the debate over whether the Bank of Canada will raise rates at its October decision — feeds directly into what a multi-decade transmission build costs to finance.
Where the Canada Investment Summit and First Ministers Fit In
The report does not treat its priorities as entirely unmet. It describes the new investments announced following this month’s Canada Investment Summit as a strong start on mobilising the capital the country needs.
It also points back to the First Ministers’ meeting in June, where premiers and the federal government reinforced the importance of doubling Canada’s electricity grid and coordinating on interprovincial transmission to support future economic development. Interprovincial transmission has long been one of the harder problems in Canadian energy policy, because electricity systems are provincially owned and operated, and east-west links have historically been weaker than the north-south ties into U.S. markets.
What Electrifying Canada Would Mean for Business and Workers
For Canadian businesses, the practical read is about energy cost and energy access. Firms in energy-intensive sectors — data centres, critical minerals processing, steel, chemicals, advanced manufacturing — increasingly select sites based on whether a jurisdiction can supply large volumes of reliable, low-emissions power on a predictable timeline. The report’s argument is that a doubled grid turns that constraint into a competitive advantage.
For workers, the 1.6 million figure spans more than utility jobs. A build-out of that scale draws heavily on electricians, line workers, heavy civil construction, engineering and project management, with further employment arising in the industries that use the new supply. The report’s own workforce priority is an acknowledgement that those workers do not currently exist in sufficient numbers.
For households, the transmission mechanism is less direct. Benefits would show up through employment, investment and industrial activity — but the report’s emphasis on keeping financing costs and electricity rates affordable signals awareness that ratepayers ultimately carry a share of the capital bill. Investors watching broader signals of economic resilience in Canadian markets will likely treat grid policy as one more variable in the medium-term outlook.
The Caveat the Authors Attach to Their Own Numbers
The report is clear that none of the modelled gains are automatic. They depend on sustained political alignment across federal and provincial governments, on capital arriving at the pace assumed, and on the labour force and supply chains scaling in step with construction.
Readers should treat the $3 trillion, 1.6 million jobs and 5-to-1 return as scenario outputs from economic modelling, not as confirmed or budgeted outcomes. They describe a potential upside under a specific set of assumptions, and the authors themselves make the gains conditional on policy choices that have not yet been made.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who produced the research behind the $3-trillion figure?
The report was published by New Economy Canada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, using macroeconomic modelling from the Open Insights initiative, a consortium led by University of Victoria researchers.
Is the $3 trillion an annual or cumulative figure?
It is cumulative — the total additional economic activity projected between now and 2050 compared with a business-as-usual scenario based on current policies and measures.
What is Powering Canada Strong?
It is the proposed federal electricity strategy that aims to double Canada’s electricity supply and accelerate electrification. The report describes its modelling as validating that strategy’s economic direction.
Does the report say how much the build-out would cost?
A total cost figure is not specified in the published findings. The report expresses the economics as a ratio — roughly $5 in economic benefits for every $1 invested in the power sector relative to business as usual.
The Brand Magazine Newsroom covers Canadian business, markets and policy news for brand builders and entrepreneurs. Newsroom reports are produced from published public sources such as company releases and government and regulator publications, and follow our Editorial Standards.
