Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Blake Shaffer for his invaluable assistance.
Introduction
In an era when achieving multiple policy goals simultaneously can be elusive, connecting Canada’s provinces via long-distance transmission represents a unique convergence of economic, social, and environmental benefits. While barriers exist, there is a broad consensus across various sectors and political affiliations that Canada must modernize its electric transmission systems, particularly across provincial borders.
For example, Manitoba’s NDP Premier Wab Kinew has noted that a Canada-wide electricity grid is an idea whose time has come—a sentiment supported by a growing body of literature, including region-specific and nationwide reports to which members of our authorship team contributed. Similarly, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has called for “nation-building infrastructure” and pre-approved corridors for transmission. Prime Minister Mark Carney has emphasized the need for “moving at a speed not seen in generations to build…energy grids.” Margaret Kenequanash, CEO of pioneering Indigenous majority-owned transmission builder Wataynikaneyap Power, highlighted how such infrastructure improves the quality of life for remote First Nations, ensuring future generations can thrive.
The reasons for this widespread support are manifold. Economically, new transmission promises to lower overall system costs and enhance reliability by integrating previously siloed electricity systems—for instance, allowing for flexible hydro resources in one province to balance the variability of wind and solar in others. Socially, these buildouts serve as a “nation-building” exercise that binds regions together and fosters the participation of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Nations in a sector where they have often historically been excluded. Environmentally, transmission infrastructure enables the rapid development of large low-carbon loads, such as data centers, and facilitates the integration of diverse clean energy generation sources. Given these benefits in a moment when Canada is keen to build our nation’s infrastructure and resilience, the opportunity for interprovincial transmission has never been more promising.
Canada’s electricity system is underbuilt and deeply fragmented: more than 80 per cent of Canada’s electricity flows south to the United States, rather than east-west between provinces. Canada currently has more capacity to export electricity to the United States than it has to share between its own jurisdictions, leaving many Indigenous Nations to face unreliable, outdated, or non-existent grid infrastructure. This status quo restricts community ability to develop new economic projects in their territories, adopt clean technologies, or participate in larger-scale renewable generation.
Canada’s fragmented electricity system and the lack of reliable grid infrastructure in many Indigenous communities are often treated as separate challenges; in reality, they are deeply interconnected. Indigenous ownership in transmission is one of the few solutions that addresses both simultaneously: strengthening regional grid reliability while advancing Indigenous self-determination and economic opportunity.
The central challenge is therefore no longer whether to build, but how. Private interests, regulatory differences, and provincial autonomy disputes have traditionally served as barriers.
While no single solution exists, this Perspective examines an ownership model critical to Canada’s energy transition: Indigenous-led transmission.
Historically, Indigenous communities have not owned the infrastructure crossing their territories. The next logical step in economic reconciliation and energy security is for these communities to lead new builds within provinces, while growing their footprint and development plans across provinces.
As rights holders, Indigenous involvement in transmission development is an imperative. Recent projects, such as the North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL) and Hydro One’s equity partnerships, indicate a shift toward significant Indigenous stakes in infrastructure. This work focuses on an ownership model that reframes participation and moves beyond the baseline of Impact Benefit Agreements (IBAs) and minority stakes to place Indigenous communities in control. By doing so, communities can apply their values and capabilities to key development decisions—potentially shaping everything from technical nuances, like corridor selection, to social license and project economics. We argue that outright leadership is the necessary evolution for infrastructure traversing traditional territories.
In the spirit of reconciliation, the authors have come together as practitioner-scholars representing both Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives. We contend that the leadership model proposed herein represents sustainable reconciliation in action, and deserves continued support from all levels of government.
Background: Evolution and history of Indigenous leadership in clean energy markets
The precedent for this evolution in how transmission infrastructure is built has already been partially established in a different facet of the energy system—clean electricity generation. In fact, one of the authors was privileged enough to witness the change from IBAs, to minority equity participation, then majority ownership, and eventually wholly-owned asset ownership during time in a remote region of northwestern Ontario (see the 2012 review Blazing a new path forward: A case study on the Pic River First Nation). This remarkable Nation’s journey was not inevitable; indeed, British Columbia-based large infrastructure projects related to clean energy transition did not land at the same final community destination of full Indigenous ownership and leadership, as a companion comparative case study analysis demonstrated.
Every case is unique to the impacted community and provincial regulatory environment; however, significant intraprovincial momentum is building. In Ontario, Hydro One now partners on a 50-50 split model for major projects valued at over $100 million. In British Columbia, BC Hydro is collaborating with the eight-member First Nations-led K’uul Power on the multi-billion-dollar NCTL, supported by early works financing from the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Interprovincial projects go a step beyond, and involve a complex array of provinces, regulators, and topographies. Potential ideological and cross-cultural challenges can emerge, and success is by no means guaranteed. Nevertheless, while no project is without challenges, mutual benefit can be achieved through structured cooperation.
The scale of this opportunity is quantifiable. A 2023 report commissioned by the First Nations Major Projects Coalition (FNMPC) estimated, as of the time of writing, $27.75 billion in total capital costs in the transmission sector nationally, with $5.2 billion in potential Indigenous equity participation in transmission alone. Transmission ownership is particularly well-suited to community economic development: lines operate under regulated rate-of-return models that provide stable, bond-like revenue streams for decades. Such cash flows create predictable own-source revenue that can, over time, reduce or replace dependence on federal transfer payments. This matters deeply in a context where, as the National Indigenous Economic Strategy for Canada has documented, four out of every five First Nations reserves have median incomes below the poverty line, and over 36 per cent of Indigenous people aged 15 and over rely on government transfers as their main income source.
Yet not every community will or should follow the same path. As the previously-mentioned FNMPC’s transmission report notes, “What works for one Nation may not work for another. The economics, and therefore risk and rewards, of each project are unique and must be evaluated on their own merits.” The distinction between participation, equity, and outright project leadership is therefore not a ladder all Nations must climb—it is a spectrum of options that must be exercised on community-defined terms, grounded in free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC).
Envisioning the gold standard: Indigenous leadership in interprovincial transmission
Across Canada, equity participation has become an important step forward in Indigenous involvement in clean energy projects. The electricity sector is an essential avenue for economic reconciliation, and Indigenous leadership is the new table stakes for project development. Ownership stakes generate long-term predictable revenue, create jobs, build capacity, secure interconnections, and reflect recognition of First Nations rights and title.
Indigenous communities are uniquely positioned to facilitate collaboration with provincial, environmental, and corporate interests. As co-author Kwatuuma Sayers has observed, First Nations territories transcend provincial borders, allowing them to lead conversations with utilities and grid operators. This dynamic creates a once-in-a-generation opportunity for First Nations to lead major infrastructure projects, moving beyond the recognition of FPIC.
However, the traditional model where Nations hold passive equity in projects conceived, structured, and largely governed by others is not the end point—it is a transition point. Transmission infrastructure, in particular, calls for a shift beyond that ownership model toward true Indigenous project leadership. For too long, Canada’s Indigenous Nations have been sidelined on major infrastructure projects that occupy their territories. The Indigenous Power Coalition, which one of the authors leads, supports the capacity to put these Nations at the centre and in the driver’s seat of future clean electricity developments. Indigenous Power Coalition is flipping the script on the role of Indigenous Nations in clean electricity infrastructure development—from responsive to proactive, from consulted partner to leader—on projects that will provide benefits for generations.
The Indigenous Power Coalition accomplishes this in two key ways:
- Identifying potential projects and convening Nations around clean electricity infrastructure opportunities to create the collaborative space for coalition building.
- Supporting informed decision-making by bringing technical, legal, and financial expertise to the table to provide Nations with informed decision-making about the benefits and risks.
Transmission lines drive the geography of economic opportunity. They determine which regions develop, which resources connect to markets, and how power flows across territories. When First Nations participate as equity partners in projects designed and controlled by external proponents, they may benefit financially, but they are not shaping the core strategic decisions that affect their lands, communities, and long-term development pathways. Project leadership, on the other hand, means First Nations act as the controlling proponents, defining the corridor vision, selecting partners, structuring governance frameworks, negotiating with utilities and regulators, and determining how risk and returns are balanced. Capital is mobilized in service of Nations’ collective priorities—and not the other way around.
For transmission lines specifically, this shift is critical, because it represents generational infrastructure. Transmission lines operate for decades and enable electrification, industrial development, renewables integration, and regional economic resilience. If Nations are to exercise self-determination within the electricity system, leadership in transmission is one of the clearest and most resilient pathways. The traditional model can preserve legacy development patterns: external developers control project design and timelines, while First Nations are invited into ownership once key decisions are largely set. Often, the benefits derived from legacy approaches to asset ownership are not granted—only the risks. Even where equity ownership percentages are meaningful, governance authority and agenda-setting power often remain limited.
Over time, this misconfiguration constrains capacity building and perpetuates reliance on outside proponents. First Nations-led and owned transmission reverses that pattern. It creates space for Nation-to-Nation engagement with provinces, utilities, and investors. It aligns infrastructure planning with Indigenous laws, environmental resource management practices, and long-term economic strategies. It builds internal expertise in finance, regulatory navigation, engineering oversight, and major project delivery. Leadership does not mean going it alone; strategic partnerships remain essential. The distinction between the two models lies in who defines the vision and who holds ultimate decision-making authority.
Moving beyond the traditional model is not simply about increasing ownership percentages—it is about governance, control, and strategic direction.
Transmission is the backbone of the clean electricity system, and Indigenous leadership ensures that infrastructure development reflects rights, responsibilities, and relationships rooted in the territories it crosses.
The community well-being case for ownership is strong. Nations that have moved into transmission ownership report a cascade of downstream benefits beyond revenue. When Wataynikaneyap Power connected 24 remote First Nations communities to Ontario’s electricity grid, it replaced the need for environmentally-damaging and logistically-precarious diesel-powered generators—and for shipping fuel via winter roads that are less reliable due to warmer winters. On-reserve population growth is another pressing driver: new homes built in many communities are uninhabited due to load restrictions and subsequent lack of power. When Nations own the infrastructure connecting their communities to the grid, they gain the ability to respond directly to that growth—funding housing, health centres, schools, and elder-care facilities through own-source revenue rather than grant applications.
The National Indigenous Economic Strategy for Canada makes this connection explicit: “Community economic development directly impacts the quality of life for all community members. Small business development leads to increased workforce participation, which is a key determinant of economic health and overall health in communities.” Infrastructure ownership is one of the fastest routes to that outcome, because it generates stable, long-duration revenue without depending on resource commodity price cycles or government program continuity.
Interprovincial connections amplify these community-level benefits. Stronger east-west interconnections allow utilities to manage resources across seasons and time zones—thereby reducing the need for each province to overbuild generation capacity and passing those savings on to ratepayers. When First Nations own portions of these interties, they capture a share of that value directly. The Wasoqonatl Transmission Line between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick is projected to save Nova Scotia ratepayers approximately $200 million over its operational life—and two Mi’kmaw and Mi’gmaq First Nations entities hold equity ownership stakes in that same asset.
This is the model: Indigenous ownership of interprovincial infrastructure that simultaneously advances grid reliability, lowers system costs, and generates long-term community revenue.
The next phase of clean electricity development must therefore move beyond the traditional model of development from participation toward true Indigenous project leadership. That’s especially important for transmission, where both the opportunities and responsibilities are generational.
Cautious optimism: Equity has many benefits, but also risks
It is clear that owning a transmission asset is an enviable proposition for many communities. As already outlined, under many transmission procurement models, a community can own—with a bond-like regulated rate of return—a decarbonization asset that directly supports sovereignty and financial self-reliance. Major project development can be a source of not only tremendous civic pride and political excitement, but also employment and training opportunities. Ownership of revenue-bearing assets can eventually replace federal transfer payments as the primary source of funding to Indigenous communities.
However, there is a misconception that Indigenous equity is without risk. Experience suggests a more nuanced reality. While the goals of political autonomy and fiscal self-reliance are worthy, a thoughtful risk management framework is essential.
As with any form of investment, there are also notable potential costs, and Nations should be clear on that tension.
For one, there is always the fundamental (albeit unlikely) risk that even with the best of intentions, the project may simply not return a positive net present value (financial jargon referring to when a project’s ultimate return on the capital invested falls short of the revenue projections). The more alarming cousin of poor profitability is completion risk—projects may not go ahead, and hard costs (such as legal counsel or advisors) are still typically due regardless of completion. Of course—even with modern financial and engineering project controls—the ultimate ownership benefits can be distorted by unexpected events, cost increases, surprises (such as the discovery of a new endangered species along the corridor designated for the transmission facility), natural disasters, changes in public opinion, and other possibilities too numerous to list.
Second, a Nation often needs to purchase the equity to move beyond a more nominal ownership stake. While contributions such as land access, government grants, environmental assessments, and social permission can net a small equity piece (e.g. 5-10 per cent) in negotiations, only hard-cash investment will create the significant partnership stake (e.g. 30-50 per cent) required in order for Indigenous Nations to truly be equal partners at the table. Making the decision to invest will inevitably divert a community’s scarce financial and non-financial resources that would otherwise be expended on alternative Nation priorities. Communities can be understandably nervous about such a large budget item.
Third, it’s important to remember that sometimes the ultimate decisions are not within a community’s control. Third parties (including other Indigenous organizations) may have final veto over a project’s trajectory. A change in federal, provincial, county, or municipal government can often result in project cancellations or cessation of beneficial legislative frameworks.
Finally, reputational risk is worth considering. Indigenous communities are constantly under the microscope, and public image is a significant factor in decision making. The media has not been kind to Indigenous organizations who have undertaken failed endeavours. No Indigenous organization wishes to receive negative publicity or, even worse, to be seen as having been duped or swindled.
The structural barriers to Indigenous equity participation are not simply about risk appetite — they are embedded in law. As some of the authors have argued elsewhere, Section 89 of the Indian Act prohibits First Nations from pledging reserve-based assets as collateral, making it structurally difficult to access the affordable capital that infrastructure-scale equity investment requires. The Canada Indigenous Loan Guarantee Corporation (CILGC), launched in 2024 and expanded to $10 billion in guarantee capacity in March 2025, represents a direct legislative response to this barrier.
International comparisons reinforce what is possible over time. The Royal Bafokeng Nation in South Africa used mineral royalties—initially extracted from their lands with minimal community benefit—to build Royal Bafokeng Holdings, a community-owned investment portfolio valued at approximately $56 billion South African Rand ($4.6 billion CAD), which today funds schools, health clinics, and infrastructure across 29 villages.
The Māori Queen’s Kotahitanga Fund, launched in 2025 with Indigenous investors pledging approximately $100 million NZD ($81 million CAD) in seed capital, similarly shows how Indigenous-controlled investment vehicles can insulate communities from political volatility and government dependency. These examples affirm both the ambition and the long horizon that transmission ownership requires. They also demonstrate the path from rights holder to infrastructure owner.
In order for First Nations to participate meaningfully, they will have to put up their own capital and have some “skin in the game.” That capital is not likely to come from government grants or other program funding. Most First Nations do not yet have the kind of own-source revenue to fund participation in multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects. The best available solution is the First Nations Finance Authority (FNFA), a statutory institution that allows First Nations to borrow funds from capital markets at rates below bank prime. Proposed amendments to its governing legislation, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, 2005, would allow for the formation of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs). Currently, the FNFA can only lend directly to First Nations governments who have qualified as Borrowing Members, but under an SPV model, specific projects with multiple Indigenous communities impacted or participating can access capital on their own to gain significant equity ownership. At the time of writing, FNFA has an “AA” credit rating from Moody’s and Morningstar DBRS—equal to and better than some provincial issuers. This model could significantly reduce the cost of capital for major projects, potentially saving millions in financing costs.
The proposed structure would create SPVs that are Indigenous-owned, typically structured as Limited Partnerships with defined ownership agreements and clear governance protocols and procedures. At least one participating First Nation must be a pre-approved Borrowing Member of the FNFA, and the remaining participants must also meet required financial governance standards. The SPV entity itself must generate stable cash flow and acquire a loan guarantee from an institution like the CILGC or a provincial body like the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation. The model brings together and layers multiple stakeholders and entities to create a first of its kind financing stack which could revolutionize the way major projects in Canada get built. Under this model, the SPV becomes the project proponent, putting their Indigenous owners in the driver’s seat.
Call to action/conclusion
For Indigenous governments, we urge a rethink on sovereignty practices and nationhood conceptualization. This would appear as a shift away from lobbying Ottawa for funding and recognition of FPIC towards owning and managing major infrastructure to generate revenue. Ownership and management of major infrastructure and public services are a primary function of government the world over. Many Indigenous governments have taken charge of infrastructure, including roads, water and wastewater, and landfills. A few, such as Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, are now modestly providing services such as power generation, transmission, and fiber optic or satellite internet/communications. The historical model of receiving grants and relying on disbursements has a very mixed record, and is susceptible to both political volatility and distinct stop-start risks, depending on the policy environment.
Policymakers would be well advised to expedite the passage of the proposed amendments to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, 2005—allowing FNFA to extend its borrowing capacity to SPVs created for major infrastructure projects and allowing access to FNFA’s below-prime borrowing rates collectively, backed by a federal or provincial loan guarantee such as those now available through CILGC. This amendment has been drafted, presented to Parliament, and championed by FNFA leadership before the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance. It awaits passage. There may be a day when existing funding slices, which are sometimes perceived as insufficient, may dwindle in future throne speeches.
For the federal government and provincial regulators, Indigenous-led transmission is a practical accelerant for Canada’s grid expansion. Every major transmission corridor crosses Indigenous territories, and over the next two decades, Canada must double or triple grid capacity.
Projects built with Indigenous partnership face less opposition, move through regulatory processes faster, and reach operation sooner.
The National Indigenous Economic Strategy’s estimate is instructive: closing the productivity gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians would increase Canada’s GDP by $27.7 billion—and infrastructure ownership is one of the most durable pathways to that outcome. The continued economic marginalization of Indigenous Peoples in Canada costs the economy $27.7 billion. Transmission ownership is a positive step towards economic reconciliation.
For capital markets and institutional investors, the CILGC lowers borrowing costs for Indigenous equity investments, while the constitutional protections of Section 35 and UNDRIP provides a stable legal foundation for long-term project governance. As Nations Royalty Corp. and Selkirk Copper Mines Inc. have recently demonstrated, Indigenous-owned enterprises can access public capital markets—a model that transmission-owning entities may eventually pursue.
Going forward, owning infrastructure—critical and otherwise—will be essential to the self-determination many Indigenous communities and community members crave. As already highlighted, this approach can provide the long-duration revenue streams that community membership requires. Owning the grid means owning the future. For Indigenous Nations, transmission lines are instruments of self-determination that connect communities to economic opportunity, reduce diesel dependency, fund the services community members deserve, and affirm the authority of Nations over territories their ancestors have governed since time immemorial.
A note from the authors
All the views expressed, and all errors, remain the responsibility of the authors. Krupa and Busch further affirm that all views expressed herein represent the perspectives of the authors and are therefore not to be taken as representative of the views of any organization(s) with which they were/are affiliated in the past, present, and/or future.
