The Paikin Podcast - James Scongack: What is the Future of Nuclear Power? (Sponsored Content)

Episode Date: July 8, 2026

James Scongack, COO and Executive Vice President at Bruce Power, joins Steve for a sponsored piece of content in partnership with Bruce Power to discuss the history of nuclear power, when the nuclear era began in this province, the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, what impact that had here in Canada, Germany’s response to Fukushima and the decision to entirely phase out nuclear power in the country. They then discuss “energy tribalism,” the role of natural gas, the need for a mix of different energy source, getting the grid to net-zero, the future of nuclear power, Bruce Power’s C project, small modular reactors, Ontario’s role in providing medical isotopes and how energy could factor in to the on-going CUSMA negotiations with Trump.     Support us: patreon.com/thepaikinpodcast Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: http://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastSPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/1OhwznCIUEA11lZGcNIM4h?si=b5d73bc7c3a041b7X: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social Email us at: [e-mail] 

Hi, everybody. Steve Paken here. I guess we're about a year into this Paken podcast venture. We started it in July of last year. And, you know, we've tried a whole bunch of different things just to see what you're interested in. We have our ex-parliamentarians for everything political. We have Janice Stein and a special guest for World on Edge. We do one-on-one interviews. We do redline debates. We're going to try something new this time. One of the things that podcasts do in order to realize some revenue is something called sponsored content. So we're going to try something new. this time, we have had a relationship over the last several months with Bruce Power, which is one of the organizations that keeps the lights on in the province of Ontario. They're a major player in the nuclear sector. And as a part of that partnership, we are going to have a one-on-one interview right now with a senior official from Bruce Power. This is, we should tell you, an unrehearsed and spontaneous conversations. We did not share the questions with our guest ahead of time. We wrote the questions. They did not provide any of the questions. They did not provide any of of the questions. So it is very much a spontaneous conversation and you'll let us know what to think.

So here comes our discussion about nuclear power in the province of Ontario, how it started, where we're at today and what big plans they've got, multi-billion dollar plans they've got coming up for the future. Delighted to welcome to the Paken podcast, James Scognac. He is the chief operating officer and executive vice president at Bruce Power. And James, where do we find you today? Great. Thanks. Great to join you, Steve. And I'm right here at the Bruce power site in beautiful Tiverton, Ontario. Which is right on the shores of Lake Huron? That's right.

Right on the shares of Lake Huron, about three hours northwest of Toronto. And I always say, Steve, this is the nicest place in Canada, nine months of the year. And we're in one of those nine months right now. Well, I want to take you on a bit of a, as we would say in French, a tour de raison of, I guess some of the history of nuclear power use in the province of Ontario and then bringing up to today and, of course, for the future. And let's start, I guess we should start with a full disclosure here. We have had a partnership on the Paken podcast with Bruce Power.

You've sponsored this show. We have told viewers and listeners about your plans for the Bruce C project on this podcast. So I guess we're sort of following up with this interview to all of the information that we've imparted so far to our viewers and listeners. But I think it's worth going back to the beginning because, you know, unlike so many other forms of electricity generation, nuclear power has not been here for 100 years. Why don't you tell us about when nukes started to be. part of our mix in Ontario. Yeah, absolutely, Steve. And, you know, we have over a half a century of experience here in Ontario and Canada when it comes to nuclear power production. The first commercial

size nuclear reactor in Canada was actually here on the Bruce site at Douglas Point. It was brought into service actually under the first Prime Minister Trudeau. And that was really the beginning of Canada's entry into nuclear power for commercial purposes. That led to the construction of the Pickering A and Bruce A and then Pickering B and Bruce B and eventual Darlington units over about a 25 to 30 year period. And that fleet has really provided over 50% of Ontario's electricity since that period of time, as it does today. So Canada has a long history of nuclear power, not only in Ontario, but for a period of time in the province of Quebec, there was an operating nuclear facility that provided essential load balancing. And also about 25% in New Brunswick's power

also comes from nuclear. So it all started right here at the Bruce Power site many decades ago. And it's really become a foundational piece and not only our electricity mix, but really our energy security here in Canada and Ontario. I think, though, if you look at 50 American states and 10 Canadian provinces and three territories beyond that, Ontario has sort of made the big bet on nuclear power far more than any other jurisdiction. And I wonder what prompted the province of Ontario. I guess at the time led by Premier John Robarts back in the 1960s to make such a big bet on nuclear. That's right, Steve. If you look at subnational jurisdictions in North America, the only other subnational jurisdictions that would be similar to Ontario in terms of a share of nuclear,

it would be the state of Illinois. And actually, if you look at the state of Illinois, similar to the province of Ontario, there's a lot of similarities in terms of access to energy resources. So nuclear really became an energy source for Ontario, really because of the options that were available to the province. Decades ago, Ontario had maximized hydroelectric capacity, which really served Ontario from the beginning of Ontario Hydro as very reliable base load electricity. And Ontario did not want to rely heavily on emitting fossil fuels for our electricity, both from a volatility of price that can come with that, but also from an emissions perspective. So Ontario went big on nuclear power. And so you see a lot of jurisdictions that have maximized,

hydroelectric facilities and have minimal fossil generation, that nuclear is really one of those critical, reliable sources that it uses to fill the supply mix. Well, okay, we should get to some of the heavy hitting stuff, which is to say, I do remember when I was a teenager, there was something called Three Mile Island, and that was a bit of a big deal. And then in my 20s, there was something called Chernobyl, which was a much bigger deal. Three Mile Island turned out to be not all that big a deal after all, but at the time it had quite an impact. And I wonder what kind of impact those two incidents had on the nuclear power industry here in Ontario, which obviously didn't see anything similar to those two things, but I wonder if it did

have an impact on the industry here. Yes, Steve, it absolutely did. And the third event that I would add to that is the Fukushima event in 2011 and in Japan. And it very much did. When you look at these events, what it really did was it caused the nuclear industry, in particular after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to really look at the industry as a global industry. And one of the things we often say in nuclear power operations is that an event in one plant is an event in all plants. And while we may have 400 nuclear plants that operate safely and reliably around the world, coming out of those events, we created an organization called the World Association of Nuclear Operators. And what it is, it's a industry organization that really acts as an additional regulator in a way where we all participate,

we all engage, we're very transparent, and share all of our learnings from our nuclear power plants. So, for example, today, every single day at the Bruce Power site, we will be getting operational experience from plants all over the world. So what it did, Steve, was it really created a dynamic where we recognized that we all had to be successful together. And even though there were clearly extraordinary circumstances with Chernobyl, you referred to the event at Three Mile Island, we recognize it as an industry that we needed to learn from those events, that we're operating the most powerful energy source on Earth. And with that comes a unique responsibility. And that's really, I think the industry is stronger as a result of those events and the important follow-up actions

that occurred. But interestingly enough, I mean, Three Mile Island, I think was 1979. And yet a few years later, Ontario continued to make its big bet with Darlington. They put billions into building the Darlington electricity generation plants, about an hour, hour and a half east of Toronto. If there was nervousness, we got over it pretty quickly, I guess. Is that fair to say? I also think that what's important is when you look at the events, and I think the calculation Ontario made at the time was, what was it in Ontario and Canada that gave us confidence that we could operate these units safely, whether that was regulatory certainty, whether it was design capabilities, whether it was the approach that we were taking to the units. Clearly at the time, people had to convince themselves that that we

had the appropriate safety measures in place. And that's what allowed the nuclear program to continue. You know, what I often say, Steve, is a lot of people will ask, what is it that makes a nuclear plant effective from a safety perspective and a commercial perspective? And we're one of the few industries in the world that if you do all of the right things from a safety perspective, maintain your equipment, have high standards. Those are also the commercially, the most successful plants. And I think that's what we've learned in Ontario. If we focus on safety first, and we maintain that reliability, high functioning equipment with high standards. Not only do we get high levels of safety, but we get high levels of reliability, which then is

commercially very important for our supply mix in the province. Now, there were other things that were taking place as well, which also encouraged us to rely more on nuclear power. And I'm thinking here about the commitment made by former Premier Dalton McGinty, the 24th Premier of Ontario, to get out of all coal fire generation in the province, which presumably meant, guess you guys in the nuclear business thought, well, if we're not going to do any more coal fire generation, they're going to depend on us even more. Is that right? That's absolutely right. You know, Bruce Power would not be where we are today without the promise to phase out coal fired electricity.

Bruce Power was formed in 2001, but it was in 2003, as you note, that Premier McGinty made that commitment. And in 2003, we required coal to meet about almost 25% of our electricity needs, 25%. Fast forward to the year 2014, that was zero. It took the government longer than they had anticipated to get to that phase out of coal. But an interesting statistic, if you look at the amount of energy needed to phase out coal in Ontario, 90% of that energy came from increased nuclear, whether it was the restart of our Bruce A units, whether it was the operational improvements that we made in units, 90% of that total energy came from nuclear. So one of the things we always like to say around here is when nuclear generation is up, it's when we rely less on coal. If you compare that to other jurisdictions around

the world like Germany who phased out nuclear power, they had the exact opposite happen, where when their nuclear generation dropped, their demand for coal went up considerably. Now, presumably, the decision makers at Queens Park had other options besides going more dependent on nuclear. Presumably, they could have imported power from the United States or decided to go more into natural gas or more into renewables or more or frankly they could have just postponed doing the coal fire generation promise to eliminate that. Why do you think they'd double down on nuclear at that time? Well, I think if you look at it at the time when they came out with the the roadmap to phase out coal, they really did invest in everything that they could. They did expand hydroelectric. You see the expansion of hydroelectric. You see the expansion of Niagara Falls through Big Becky and the expansion of that. You did see strengthening of inner ties. And there certainly was a lot of renewing. renewables and gas plants built during that time. But the truth is it was the nuclear fleet that did the heavy lifting. And I think at the end of the day, what coal did provide Ontario was a high

degree of reliability. And so when you look at how do I get what else is available to me to that high degree of reliability, it was it was nuclear that filled the gap. You know, I remember my first year at Bruce Power, we had about 46 smog days in southern Ontario. Last few years, we've had zero to one as an example. And so, you know, phasing coal out, I think it was one of those items that once it started, there was an expectation that we needed to lead the world and finish the job on it. And nuclear was that, that reliability that was necessary. You know, we shouldn't idolize or demonize any energy sources. What makes us successful is a mix, whether it's with a combination of nuclear, hydro, natural gas, renewables. It's really all about the right mix. And so I think any government that is

really looking at practical, executable policy needs to look at it from that perspective. There's no one source that's going to do everything. You've got to build a mix that's effective and reliable and tries to balance those factors off as best as possible. Well, let me see if I can push back on that a little bit. Should we not demonize coal? I mean, that stuff's pretty rotten for our environment, right? The way I look at is it's really about policy choices, right? We made a policy choice in Ontario that, and I agree with the policy choice. I'm very passionate about it, but the policy choice was we don't want smog days. We don't want our emergency rooms filled. We don't want people with asthma. And for that reason, we phased it out. Coal played an important role in Ontario for a long

period of time. It had just an enormous environmental and health consequence. So I agree with that. So maybe it's fair to push back. Maybe we will demonize coal and I'll agree with you on that. Okay. One for Paken. All right. We'll take it. You did mention in that list, I think I said, three mile island and then there was Chernobyl and you added Fukushima which took place in Japan in 2011 and essentially this tidal wave overwhelmed the nuclear capacity there so much so that it actually had impact well beyond Japan's borders I think Germany decided to shut down its oldest reactors after that and they I think they went to a complete nuclear phase out in all of Germany as a result of what happened in Japan now that was then could you understand Germany's approach and thinking

at that time. Well, I mean, I think it will go down in history as one of the most significant mistakes a country has ever made on electricity policy. In Germany, it was a it was a need-jerk reaction, in my opinion. It didn't look at the facts of this situation. And I think a lot of it was politically driven. I mean, Germany for many decades has had very fractured governments where coalitions have to come together to govern. And I think there was a very small fact, fraction of people that had a disproportionate impact. So it was an overreaction. And if you fast forward to where we are today, Germany has among the highest emissions of electricity systems in Europe as a result of this. And also you look at their energy security is severely degraded.

So I think it was a knee-jerk reaction. And it was entirely coming out of the Fukushima event. But what I would also say is Germany has had a long history of being a country. that was always, I would say, on borderline, whether they were all in or not on nuclear. And I think a lot of it has to do with the political dynamics in that country. But it's quite unfortunate. You see the most significant growth in emissions coming from Germany. People are paying very high electricity bills. And clearly relying on natural gas from Russia has not been a winning scenario for the country.

Well, I was just going to say it's made them far more dependent on Russian fossil fuels, which with the benefit of 15 years of hindsight now since Fukushima, surely that can't be a good decision. Fair to say? No, that's right. That's right. And one of the reasons why you invest in nuclear power is it's a long-term, stable, reliable electricity. And in the world we are in now, energy security matters. You know, I gave this example this morning, and I compared it to public transit. I always think of nuclear power as like as the subway that you build in in public transit. It's the long-lived, reliable, steady infrastructure investment that you have. And when you lose that, it's very, very difficult to get it back. And I should say

Germany had amongst some of the most high-performing nuclear plants in the world. They had a very strong nuclear industry. And that's what makes it more difficult for those of us that watch those plants removed from service. High-performing, very safe, reliable plants removed for political reasons. Now, at the same time that Germany was deciding to get out of nuclear because of the Fukushima incident, Ontario took obviously the exact opposite approach. Roach. Why did we, and I remember doing shows on this on TVO at the time when Fukushima happened, why did Ontario decide to go in exactly the opposite direction from what the Germans did? Well, I think it's much similar to the question you asked me about the 1990s and the late 1980s.

You know, it was a recognition in Ontario that when we have events around the world, we're not going to discount those events. We're going to make sure we learn from them and double down and continue to confirm that what we are doing here put safety first. So I think first and foremost, there was an appropriate amount of recognition that the plants continued to operate to high degrees of reliability and safety here in Canada and in Ontario. And I think there was also a recognition of the strategic long-term nature of it, that we need to make long-term decisions when it comes to energy infrastructure.

We can't be knee-jerk. And I think if there's one area that Ontario has really stood out of a lot of subnational jurisdictions in the world, it's about taking the long-term view on energy policy, whether it's with our hydro fleet from decades and decades ago to our nuclear fleet now, those long-term decisions have really given us on a relative basis very stable energy rates and stable energy reliability compared to a lot of jurisdictions around the world. Whether you compare Ontario with states like California or European countries, we've had much more stable levels of energy security here in the province.

And that's really important to our families and businesses and our economy overall. Do you mean security of price or supply? A combination of both. I mean, there have been, if you look at, for example, the price reliability that nuclear has brought into the market, it has been an anchoring component of our electricity prices here in Ontario. It's also been an anchoring component of cost as well that ties in with that supply. That's not to say there hasn't been other drivers of energy costs in Ontario, but nuclear

and hydro have really been the foundational blocks in the province for. for many, many years. Now, I note that about a year ago, I believe Germany ended its opposition to recognizing nuclear power as equivalent to renewables in the European Union climate policy. So what do we infer from that change of heart? Well, I think they're seeing now and living through the consequences of not having that stable, baseload, reliable nuclear. And so there's a recognition now that they got it wrong. There's a recognition that nuclear plays an important role in the European in supply mix. The challenge in Germany is that a lot of this is really too late. They took perfectly effectively operating nuclear plants, removed them from service, contributed to high emissions

and lack of energy security. And it's very, very tough, Steve, to wind the clockback. But I think there's a recognition, even in Germany and some of those groups that we're advocating for this at the time, that that was a mistake. In fact, even if you take groups that historically have not been the most pro-nuclear and that's okay, that's a healthy part of the debate. Even those types of, those groups now are talking about that a megawatt hour of nuclear power that displaces fossil fuels is a good megawatt hour of electricity produced. So we've really seen over the last 15 years a real shift of consensus around nuclear power in a lot of these countries. There's no chance to get to the energy security and emissions reductions we want by 2050 without it. But I think, Steve,

that my biggest personal takeaway is for too many years we've talked about what, you know, energy sources as binary. And I think where we need to shift the responsible discussion to is what is a mix? And I think when anybody talks about a mix, that's really when the support for nuclear dramatically increases because I think people want to see a balance mix. And nuclear has got to be part of that. And we'll be back right after this. So let's move to the present and the future then. If we're talking about the appropriate mix today, what are the numbers look like? What's the ideal mix? Well, Ontario has produced an integrated long-term energy plan. You saw recently Prime Minister Carney come out with a strategy for Canada's electricity sector by 2050.

Essentially, in Ontario, it looks like ensuring that as growth and demand for electricity increases between now and 2050, that nuclear continues to play the role that we are today. So right now we provide, as I mentioned about, between 50 to 60 percent, depending on what units are off for refurbishment of Ontario's supply mix. And as our demand for electricity grows between now and 2050, there's a goal to ensure that nuclear continues to play that role. That will require new nuclear. You see the construction of new SMRs underway by OPG at Darlington. And here's, Here at Bruce Power, we're looking at the construction of through a planning process here of additional large-scale reactors along with OPG doing the same at Wesleyville. So there's really a view of nuclear continuing to play the role it has historically in the future.

Now, you did a few acronyms there that I'm going to translate for a second because SMRs are small module reactors and OPG is Ontario Power Generation. And I'm wondering whether you feel that those small nuclear reactors and we distinguish those from like Bruce or Darlington or Pickering, which are, you know, massive. These are small. Do you consider them, because they're being built by another car, they're being employed by another company? Do you consider them competition for what you're doing? The way I really look at the opportunity before us with nuclear is, given the volume of nuclear we're going to need to build in Ontario, Steve, between Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power, we see ourselves as partners and collaborators. If you look at the success of our refurbishment projects between Bruce Power and OPG, we've collaborated and shared information in a very open manner.

This is a theme you'll continue to hear with nuclear. So I don't see those as a competitor to what we're doing. We want to see OPG successful. We recognize that our shared reputation as an industry is linked here. And so we very much look at this as an opportunity to collaborate. With all of the nuclear generation, we are our. are going to need. It's not about one one company winning and another one losing. It's really about making sure we're successful that we deliver these projects to clearly generate safe, reliable

electricity. But most importantly, these are large capital expenditures. And delivering them on time and budget as we have with our refurb program is job number one. Just say that again, because, you know, for those of us who are accustomed to paying attention to how over budget and delayed LRTs or subways or train station renovations take place. They're never on time. They're never on budget. Your last attempt was what? Yeah, so on time on budget. So Bruce Power, we have a multi-year refurbishment program. We're just, as we speak right now, bringing Unit 3 back to service. We are delivering our life extension program on time on budget through reactors three to eight. It's an $18 billion program. We're halfway through the program. It's on time and on budget. And that's really important for us.

Steve to deliver that. We are going to, we're putting investor capital at risk to achieve that, but most importantly, we want to deliver these projects so we deliver not only the electricity when people need it, but at a competitive cost. And so by delivering these projects on time and on budget, you heard that right, is essential to that. And I would also argue it's a prerequisite to our credibility to being able to pursue large new nuclear down the road. At the risk of this sounding like too much of a softball question, but given the realities, how is it possible that you guys are doing this on time and on budget when so many other mega projects in Ontario and in Canada never are? I always say that if you look at the history of infrastructure projects, and by the way, nuclear, we have had challenging

infrastructure projects in our own sector. Not so much for you guys, though. It's been, it's been Ontario Hydro and OPG that have had the cost and the delay overruns. Well, and what we really want to do is learn from our past, learn from other people's past, but also learn from non-nuclear projects. And when you look at large infrastructure projects and the things that cause them to be laid and over budget, there's some common themes that emerge that we were insistent and disciplined on building into our investment philosophy. And some of those common themes are, before you start construction, you have design complete. You have a complete estimate. You have the job completely mapped out. you have your regulatory approvals in place. You put these elements of certainty in place early. So when you go to execute the work and you go to execute the job that the workers are set up for success. A lot of infrastructure projects, Steve, run into issues because they have to go back to square one. And once you ramp up an infrastructure project, you know, we have 10,000 people working on our site this week. So if we have to go back on something, you're basically have those, a lot of those individuals sitting idle and you're not

advancing the project. So we've learned that rigorous planning and preparation, spending the time up front is what sets infrastructure projects up for success. And you need to be very disciplined with that. Everybody always wants to get going right away. And we really believe that to go fast, you need to go slow. And that's really been our mantra. And we're going to continue focusing on that because that's what people expect of us. The B-Hag right now is to get to a net zero- emission energy grid for the province of Ontario, let's say by 2050. So you get 25 years to get there, basically. Are we on track to get there? I mean, what I would say is right now we're making some very important steps that are right in that direction. If I look at Ontario as an example, the government

has supported what they call through the IESO. I'm saying acronyms against Eve, the independent electricity system operator, no regret actions to advance the pre-development planning and preparation. So we're making important steps forward on that. We're looking at our regulatory processes to make sure that they are streamlined and efficient, that when we spend time on those things, we're focused on the items of safety, environmental protection and reliability, not secondary elements. And so I believe we are well positioned. If I look at the work that Bruce Power is undertaking to contribute to that, I believe we're

exactly where we need to be. And I believe that as Canadians and Ontarians, we can do this. It is a significant goal. But when I look at what we did in Ontario and Canada, building out our electricity system in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, what we have in front of us is absolutely achievable. We've done it in the past and we can do it again. And I think the external world that we are facing today has created an environment that has introduced a number of challenges with trade and geopolitical dynamics. But what it's also done is it's challenged us to, I think, really step up as Canadians

and get to a point where we understand we have to do these things again. And so I'm very optimistic. What I say, it's a slam dunk, Steve. Of course I wouldn't. But I think we're on track. And I'm very, very optimistic about what we can achieve with, with really the unique environment we're faced with today. Well, okay, I should, I guess, point out that for some of the people,

who thought that we would be a lot less reliant on natural gas at this stage, they are disappointed because they are concerned we're using more natural gas at this point in our history than we should be if we want to get to zero emissions by 2050. Is that fair to say? I think that's absolutely fair to say. I mean, I think natural gas has emerged as a really important source to be used for peaking and other components. So I think that's absolutely a fair statement. There is tribalism nowadays in politics. There is tribalism in sports. There is tribalism in religion. And perhaps not surprisingly, there is tribalism in the energy sector as well. There are some folks who are, you know, pushing solar, and it's all about solar and that's it. Or wind, or nuclear or whatever. I guess my question is

how important is embracing renewables such as solar and wind or getting us to net zero in Ontario? I really think to get to the electricity mix that we want to be at by 2050. I think we're going to need in all the above approach. I think we're going to continue to need to optimize our hydroelectric assets. You see Ontario power generation investing in important projects to drive hydroelectric generation. We've talked about nuclear. Renewables are also going to be a part of that. And you've seen that articulated in the integrated energy plan. But I also think, Steve, that natural gas is going to continue to play an important role. If you look at the prime minister's recent commentary on the role of natural gas.

What they really talk about is how natural gas electricity generation in targeted uses actually contributes to further decarbonization of the economy from an electrification perspective. So, you know, I think we need to stay focused on net zero does not mean zero emissions. Net zero means how do you find that right balance? And when I look at what's in front of us as a province and as a country, clearly we want to lead the world in terms of net zero. But natural gas is going to play a part of our energy mix, not only today, but in the future. And I think that balance is appropriate.

And I think we need to be thoughtful. And I agree with you on the tribalism comment. You know, look, I'm very pro-nuclear, so I kind of get my elbows up sometimes. But it's about building the mix. And I think the mix is what. And I think that's what the public is expecting of us as well. To put the tribalism aside, as you would say, and really talk about what's a responsible balance mix, a mix that balances affordability, reliability, reliability, and also protecting the environment. I think we can do all the above.

And how does Bruce C fit into that mix? Very much Bruce C for me is about maintaining the role that we have today. So as the demand for electricity is growing in Ontario, the brew site provides about a third of Ontario's electricity. So really ensuring that this site continues to play the role going forward that we have in the past. I really think nuclear as the anchor supply source is going to be really important in that mix. And Bruce C is a potential to be a transformational project, not only for our site, but for Ontario.

And it would be one of the first large-scale nuclear plants in a generation. And so that's why I think Bruce C is a project that a lot of people are watching, not only in Ontario and Canada, but around the world. I think it's the biggest one in 30 years. So that's a lot of responsibility on your head. What keeps you up at night? Well, I think we stay very much focused, firstly, on completing the life extension refurbishment program we have underway right now. As I mentioned earlier, we're halfway through that and that program will go to the early 2030. So to me, completing that program with high degrees of safety, safety, quality, schedule and cost is really, really going to be the prerequisite to having the opportunity to build large-scale nuclear again.

What I really focus on is the discipline in which we tackle the opportunity, taking it step by step. Right now we're in a federal impact assessment process. So working through that process, earning the support of our surrounding communities, earning the support of indigenous nations, working through that process, and doing the early planning and preparation. So Steve, I very much look at this is you eat the elephant one bite at a time. We take it forward step by step methodically. And just like we've done with our refurbishment program, if we follow that discipline, that's what's going to set us up for success. I try to not lose too much. My wife always says I don't sleep like a baby. I sleep like a husband, but really follow that step by step approach. And if we're methodical

about that, that's what's going to set us up for success. I do remember John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate saying, oh, now that I've lost it to Barack Obama and it's over, I sleep like a baby. I get up every two hours crying. So I'm glad to hear you're not sleeping like a baby. Okay, let's let's go. Well, actually, you raised something there and I should just get a comment from you on that, which is to say, could you characterize the nature of your relationships with indigenous groups that you have to deal with? Should there be any? I don't even know, actually, as it relates to the project you're involved in right now. A key component to any project success is very strong community support and support from indigenous nations. So this site, the Bruce site, is on

traditional territories of the Sagina-Ojibway Nation. So we are working with the Sagina-Jibway nation on how we want to engage in the in the Bruce Sea project. How do we earn their support? How do we engage them in this early part of the process to not only advance a project, but advance a project that addresses some of the concerns they have and the opportunities that they want to see? And what is an economic potential partnership in the in the project? So that's what we're focused on on today. We as a site have been very committed to what I call reconcilia action. A number of months ago, we announced a historic partnership with the Sagina Ojibway Nation on our existing eight units where the Sagina Ojibway Nation invested a quarter billion dollars into a joint

medical isotope production business. I certainly don't want to speak for the Sagina Ojibway Nation. I'm very focused on earning their support. They haven't made a decision on on Bruce C yet. And I would say it's still very early in the process and we want to do that work together to earn their support. In the broader community and among the public and Greybrus and Huron, we have a tremendous amount of enthusiasm and support, but we're still really in the early stages of that project. And we want everybody to engage and we're committed as an operator earning that support as we go through the process here. So step by step. And that's really, I think we know where we need to end up at the end of the day. I should pick up on another thing you just said there. And that is the

medical isotope business because that is a byproduct of some of what you do. First of all, what are medical isotopes and what is the business that you are engaged in as a result of your work there? Well, medical isotopes is really another form of energy. So when you flip the light switch, obviously electricity is what puts the lights on and the bulb on in the room. Medical isotopes are a form of energy that is used in modern healthcare to sterilize medical equipment to diagnose and to treat cancer. And what often many Canadians don't know, I'm the chair of the Canadian Nuclear Isotope Council and Canada has been a world leader in the production of these medical isotopes for over 50 years. If you think of modern medicine, if you think of the role of nuclear

medicine, Canada was really the pioneer in medical isotopes. And we produce medical isotopes in Canada in two ways. We produce them in cyclotrons like you have in Triumph in British Columbia. And we also produce them in our power reactors. And we have a unique capability in our power reactors here at Bruce Power, but also at Ontario Power Generation, to produce medical isotopes from our power reactors. And we are a dominant player in the world when it comes to providing these lifesaving medical isotopes. So it's a real Canadian success story. If you go into any hospital, anywhere in the world and you see sterilized medical equipment, chances are that equipment was sterilized using Cobalt 60 from Ontario. If you go in for a prostate cancer treatment, anywhere

in the world with a drug like PluVicto, chances are that isotope came from Bruce Power. So I always like to say it's 1% of our cash flow, but 50% of the value proposition. And I can tell you, when I talk to workers or people about our industry, medical isotopes are one of the key attributes that people look to the Canadian industry as one of the reasons why we should be into nuclear power. One of the biggest, I guess, question marks, I guess in the thought bubble above our entire country right now is what's going to happen with our, call it Kusma, call it USMACA, call it NAFTA 2.0, whatever you're calling it, those negotiations with the United States. And we've got a deadline

approaching and then, you know, who knows what the rest of the year is going to look like with the American political calendar creeping up on us all, I guess, about five months from now. What role do you see energy playing in all of these negotiations? I think it is sort of the trillion dollar question when we think of the quantum. of trade back and forth between our two countries. I've had the opportunity to participate in a number of trade missions with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and Premier Ford and some of his ministers in Washington over the last year. And what I can tell you is there is no doubt in my mind that energy is a is a major component of what we can bring to the table. And I'm a big believer in

this Fortress Amcan narrative and plan the premier has brought forward. Because what I think it does is it really can create a win-win scenario between Canada and the United States. The United States needs the energy that we have, whether it's from our oil and gas sector, out west, whether it's from our nuclear sector. You look at broadly in critical minerals. You look at the nuclear supply chain we have for key components. There is an amazing, or medical isotopes, too, for that matter. There is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to think about what does North American energy security look like. I think that's good for Americans. I think it's good for Canadians. I don't believe you can have energy security without national security and reliability.

And one of the things we haven't talked a lot about yet in this discussion, but if you go to 100 people in the United States and 100 people in Canada and you say, what is your top one or two issue for your country? I guarantee you affordability is right at the top. And if we think about what some of the aspirations are for people in the United States in terms of affordability, the issues of energy costs have actually significantly challenged the affordability picture in the United States. So I think energy security from Canada can be good for Canada, but it can also be very important in terms of some of the challenges you're seeing in the United States. So I think it's central. And I believe we're always much stronger when we work together. And, you know, I'm an eternal optimist.

I know we're in challenging times, but I think we've really been faced with as a scenario where this has given us, I think, a shake in Canada to say, let's double down and make sure we can execute on these strengths we've had. And it allows us to put forward some of these solutions for what I think will be a longer term win-win for both countries. And not only between Canada and the U.S., but a win-win with energy security, whether it's with Europe and another like-minded countries. James, I want to ask you one last thing, and it's a bit of a personal question, but what did you take in university and where did you go? Yeah, so I've been here at Bruce Power for 23 years. When I first went to university, I actually studied energy policy, Steve. A lot of my technical and business training I did later in my career once I started at Bruce Power, but I grew up in a small town called Port Elgin, just north of the site. My dad was a firefighter here on site. So when I was growing up, this was the time where this site was really devastated and shut down. And my dad actually was very close to losing his job. And so it really impacted our whole community. And so I just became interested in what is happening to my community. What role does energy play in that? And so that's what I went away to study at the University of Guelph. And we just celebrated our 25 years at Bruce Power. And I started as Bruce Power as a development student. I was my first job at Bruce Power. And it was just because it was important in my community. And this is one of those organizations where you have the opportunity to learn.

operations, you have an opportunity for technical training and a lot of opportunity in business. So it's been quite a journey, Steve, but it came from a very tough time in our community that seized my interest in this. And yeah, it's been quite a ride. Well, I've known you for a few years, but I never knew that origin story. And I always wondered how you got into this racket. That makes perfect sense, given the explanation you just put forward. James Cognac, chief operating officer, executive vice president, Bruce Power. really a pleasure talking to you for the last half hour or so, and good luck with all of what's on your plate these days.

Thanks for having me, Steve.