GEÂ’s Immelt defends nuclear safety record

UAE Barakah Nuclear Plant connects Unit 1 to the grid, supplying clean electricity, nuclear baseload power, and lower carbon emissions, with IAEA oversight, FANR regulation, and South Korea collaboration, supporting energy security and economic diversification.

Key Points

The UAE Barakah Nuclear Plant is a four-reactor project delivering clean baseload power and reducing CO2.

✅ Unit 1 online; four reactors to supply 25% of UAE electricity

✅ Cuts 21 million tons CO2 annually; clean baseload for grid

✅ FANR-licensed; IAEA and WANO oversight ensure safety

Unit 1 of the UAE’s Barakah plant — the Arab world’s first nuclear energy plant in the region — has connected to the national power grid, in a historic moment enabling it to provide cleaner electricity to millions of residents and help reduce the oil-rich country’s reliance on fossil fuels. 

“This is a major milestone, we’ve been planning for this for the last 12 years now,” Mohamed Al Hammadi, CEO of Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation (ENEC), told CNBC’s Dan Murphy in an exclusive interview ahead of the news.

Unit 1, which has reached 100% power as it steps closer to commercial operations, is the first of what will eventually be four reactors, which when fully operational are expected to provide 25% of the UAE’s electricity and reduce its carbon emissions by 21 million tons a year, according to ENEC. That’s roughly equivalent to the carbon emissions of 3.2 million cars annually.

The Gulf country of nearly 10 million is the newest member of a group of now 31 countries running nuclear power operations. It’s also the first new country to launch a nuclear power plant in three decades, the last being China’s nuclear energy program in 1990.

“The UAE has been growing from an electricity demand standpoint,”  Al Hammadi said. “That’s why we are trying to meet the demand (and) at the same time have it with less carbon emissions.”

The UAE’s electricity mix will continue to include gas and renewable energy, with “the baseload from nuclear,” including emerging next-gen nuclear designs, the CEO added, which he described as a “safe, clean and reliable source of electricity” for the country.

The project is also providing “highly compensated jobs” for the Emiratis and will introduce new industries for the country’s economy, Al Hammadi said. The company noted that it has awarded roughly 2,000 contracts worth more than $4.8 billion for local companies.

International collaboration
The UAE’s nuclear watchdog FANR, the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation, granted the operating license for Unit 1 in February, after an extensive inspection process to ensure the plant’s compliance with regulatory requirements. The license is expected to last 60 years. The program also involved collaboration with external bodies including the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the government of South Korea, and its pre-start-up review was completed in January by the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). The WANO and the IAEA have conducted over 40 inspection and review missions at Barakah.   

But the project has its critics, particularly some experts from the independent Nuclear Consulting Group non-profit, who have expressed concern about Barakah’s safety features and potential environmental risks.  

In response, ENEC said the “adherence to the highest standards of safety, quality and security is deeply embedded within the fabric of the UAE Peaceful Nuclear Energy Program.”

“The Barakah Plant meets all national and international regulatory requirements and standards for nuclear safety,” a  company statement said. It added that the reactor design had been certified by the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, FANR and the US-based Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “demonstrating the robustness of this design for safety and operating reliability.”

Worries of regional proliferation 
The achievement for the UAE is particularly significant given tensions in the wider region over nuclear proliferation. 

Some observers have warned of a regional arms race, though the UAE already partakes in what nuclear energy experts call the “gold standard” of civilian nuclear partnerships: The U.S.-UAE 123 Agreement for Peaceful Civilian Nuclear Energy Cooperation. It allows the UAE to receive nuclear materials, equipment and know-how from the U.S. while precluding it from developing dual-use technology by barring uranium enrichment and fuel reprocessing, the processes required for building a bomb.

By contrast, nearby Iran has suspended its compliance to the multilateral 2015 deal that regulated its nuclear power development and many fear its approach toward bomb-making capability. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has voiced its desire to develop a nuclear energy program without adhering to a 123 agreement.

And most recently, in the wake of a historic deal that has seen the UAE become the first Gulf country to normalize relations with Israel, Iran responded by warning the agreement would bring a “dangerous future” for the Emirati government. 

But ENEC and UAE officials emphasize the program’s commitment to safety, transparency and international cooperation, and its necessity for meeting growing electricity demand by cleaner means. 

“The nuclear industry is growing, with milestones around the world being reached, and the UAE is no exception. We are pursuing our electricity demand to meet that in a safe, secure and stable manner, and also doing it in an environmentally friendly way,” Al Hammadi said.

“Having four reactors that will provide 25% of electricity for the nation and will avoid us emitting 21 million tons of CO2 on an annual basis, as part of a broader green industrial revolution approach, is a very serious step to take — and the UAE is not talking about it, it is doing it, and we are reaping the benefits of it as we speak right now.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Africa Energy Access Funding faces disbursement bottlenecks as SDG 7 goals demand investment in decentralized solar, minigrids, and rural electrification; COVID-19 pressures donors, requiring faster approvals, standardized documentation, and stronger project preparation and due diligence.

Key Points

Financing to expand Africa's electrification, advancing SDG 7 via disbursement to decentralized solar and minigrids.

✅ Accelerates investment for SDG 7 and rural electrification

✅ Prioritizes decentralized solar, minigrids, and utilities

✅ Speeds approvals, standard docs, and project preparation

The time frame from final funding approval to disbursement can be the most painful part of any financing process, and the access-to-electricity sector is not spared.

Amid the global spread of the coronavirus over the last few weeks, there have been several funding pledges to promote access to electricity in Africa. In March, the African Development Bank and other partners committed $160 million for the Facility for Energy Inclusion to boost electricity connectivity in Africa through small-scale solar systems and minigrids. Similarly, the Export-Import Bank of the United States allocated $91.5 million for rural electrification in Senegal.

Rockefeller chief wants to redefine 'energy poverty'

Rajiv Shah, president of The Rockefeller Foundation, believes that SDG 7 on energy access lacks ambition. He hopes to drive an effort to redefine it.

Currently, funding is not being adequately deployed to help achieve universal access to energy. The International Energy Agency’s “Africa Energy Outlook 2019” report estimated that an almost fourfold increase in current annual access-to-electricity investments — approximately $120 billion a year over the next 20 years — is required to provide universal access to electricity for the 530 million people in Africa that still lack it.

While decentralized renewable energy across communities, particularly solar, has been instrumental in serving the hardest-to-reach populations, tracking done by Sustainable Energy for All — in the 20 countries with about 80% of those living without access to sustainable energy — suggests that decentralized solar received only 1.2% of the total electricity funding.

The spread of COVID-19 is contributing significantly to Africa’s electricity challenges across the region, creating a surge in the demand for energy from the very important health facilities, an exponential increase in daytime demand as a result of most people staying and working indoors, and a rise from some food processing companies that have scaled up their business operations to help safeguard food security, among others. Thankfully — and rightly so — access-to-electricity providers are increasingly being recognized as “essential service” providers amid the lockdowns across cities.

To start tackling Africa’s electricity challenges more effectively, “funding-ready” energy providers must be able to access and fulfill the required conditions to draw down on the already pledged funding. What qualifies as “funding readiness” is open to argument, but having a clear, commercially viable business and revenue model that is suitable for the target market is imperative.

Developing the skills required to navigate the due-diligence process and put together relevant project documents is critical and sometimes challenging for companies without prior experience. Typically, the final form of all project-related agreements is a prerequisite for the final funding approval.

In addition, having the right internal structures in place — for example, controls to prevent revenue leakage, an experienced management team, a credible board of directors, and meeting relevant regulatory requirements such as obtaining permits and licenses — are also important indicators of funding readiness.

1. Support for project preparation. Programs — such as the Private Financing Advisory Network and GET.invest’s COVID-19 window — that provide business coaching to energy project developers are key to helping surmount these hurdles and to increasing the chances of these projects securing funding or investment. Donor funding and technical-assistance facilities should target such programs.

2. Project development funds. Equity for project development is crucial but difficult to attract. Special funds to meet this need are essential, such as the $760,000 for the development of small-scale renewable energy projects across sub-Saharan Africa recently approved by the African Development Bank-managed Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa.

3. Standardized investment documentation. Even when funding-ready energy project developers have secured investors, delays in fulfilling the typical preconditions to draw down funds have been a major concern. This is a good time for investors to strengthen their technical assistance by supporting the standardization of approval documents and funding agreements across the energy sector to fast-track the disbursement of funds.

4. Bundled investment approvals and more frequent approval sessions. While we implement mechanisms to hasten the drawdown of already pledged funding, there is no better time to accelerate decision-making for new access-to-electricity funding to ensure we are better prepared to weather the next storm. Donors and investors should review their processes to be more flexible and allow for more frequent meetings of investment committees and boards to approve transactions. Transaction reviews and approvals can also be conducted for bundled projects to reduce transaction costs.

5. Strengthened local capacity. African countries must also commit to strengthening the local manufacturing and technical capacity for access-to-electricity components through fiscal incentives such as extended tax holidays, value-added-tax exemptions, accelerated capital allowances, and increased investment allowances.

The ongoing pandemic and resulting impacts due to lack of electricity have further shown the need to increase the pace of implementation of access-to-electricity projects. We know that some of the required capital exists, and much more is needed to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 7 — about access to affordable and clean energy for all — by 2030.

It is time to accelerate our support for access-to-electricity companies and equip them to draw down on pledged funding, while calling on donors and investors to speed up their funding processes to ensure the electricity gets to those most in need.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

SaskPower Rate Hike 2022-2023 signals higher electricity rates in Saskatchewan as natural gas costs surge; the Rate Review Panel approved increases, affecting residential utility bills amid affordability concerns and government energy policy shifts.

Key Points

An 8% SaskPower electricity rate increase split 4% in Sept 2022 and 4% in Apr 2023, driven by natural gas costs.

✅ 4% increase Sept 1, 2022; +4% on Apr 1, 2023

✅ Panel-approved amid natural gas price surge and higher fuel costs

✅ Avg residential bill up about $5 per step; affordability concerns

The NDP Opposition is condemning the provincial government’s decision to approve the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel’s recommendation to increase SaskPower’s rates for the first time since 2018, despite a recent 10% rebate pledge by the Sask. Party.

The Crown electrical utility’s rates will increase four per cent this fall, and another four per cent in 2023, a trajectory comparable to BC Hydro increases over two years. According to a government news release issued Thursday, the new rates will result in an average increase of approximately $5 on residential customers’ bills starting on Sept. 1, 2022, and an additional $5 on April 1, 2023.

“The decision to increase rates is not taken lightly and came after a thorough review by the independent Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel,” Minister Responsible for SaskPower Don Morgan said in a news release, amid Nova Scotia’s 14% hike this year. “World events have caused a significant rise in the price of natural gas, and with 42 per cent of Saskatchewan’s electricity coming from natural gas-fueled facilities, SaskPower requires additional revenue to maintain reliable operations.”

But NDP SaskPower critic Aleana Young says the rate hike is coming just as businesses and industries are struggling in an “affordability crisis,” even as Manitoba Hydro scales back a planned increase next year.

She called the announcement of an eight per cent increase in power bills on a summer day before the long weekend “a cowardly move” by the premier and his cabinet, amid comparable changes such as Manitoba’s 2.5% annual hikes now proposed.

“Not to mention the Sask. Party plans to hike natural gas rates by 17% just days from now,” said Young in a news release issued Friday, as Manitoba rate hearings get underway nearby. “If Scott Moe thinks his choices — to not provide Saskatchewan families any affordability relief, to hike taxes and fees, then compound those costs with utility rate hikes — are defensible, he should have the courage to get out of his closed-door meetings and explain himself to the people of this province.”

The province noted natural gas is the largest generation source in SaskPower’s fleet. As federal regulations require the elimination of conventional coal generation in Canada by 2030, SaskPower’s reliance on natural gas generation is expected to grow, with experts in Alberta warning of soaring gas and power prices in the region. Fuel and Purchased Power expense increases are largely driven by increased natural gas prices, and SaskPower’s fuel and purchased power expense is expected to increase from $715 million in 2020-21 to $1.069 billion in 2023-24. This represents a 50 per cent increase in fuel and purchased power expense over three years.

“In the four years since our last increase SaskPower has worked to find internal efficiencies, but at this time we require additional funding to continue to provide reliable and sustainable power,” SaskPower president & CEO Rupen Pandya said in the release “We will continue to be transparent about our rate strategy and the need for regular, moderate increases.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Texas Electric Cooperatives outperformed during Winter Storm Uri, with higher customer satisfaction, equitable rolling blackouts, and stronger grid reliability compared to deregulated markets, according to ERCOT-area survey data of regulated utilities and commercial providers.

Key Points

Member-owned utilities in Texas delivering power, noted for reliability and fair outages during Winter Storm Uri.

✅ Member-owned, regulated utilities serving local communities

✅ Rated higher for blackout management and communication

✅ Operate outside deregulated markets; align incentives with users

Winter Storm Uri began to hit parts of Texas on February 13, 2021 and its onslaught left close to 4.5 million Texas homes and businesses without power, and many faced power and water disruptions at its peak. By some accounts, the preliminary number of deaths attributed to the storm is nearly 200, and the economic toll for the Lone Star State is estimated to be as high as $295 billion. 

The more than two-thirds of Texans who lost power during this devastating storm were notably more negative than positive in their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, mirrored by a rise in electricity complaints statewide, with one exception. That exception are the members of the more than 60 electric cooperatives operating within the Texas Interconnection electrical grid, which, in sharp contrast to the customers of the commercial utilities that provide power to the majority of Texans, gave their local utility a positive evaluation related to its performance during the storm.

In order to study Winter Storm Uri’s impact on Texas, the Hobby School of Public Affairs at the University of Houston conducted an online survey during the first half of March of residents 18 and older who live in the 213 counties (91.5% of the state population) served by the Texas power grid, which is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT). 

Three-quarters of the survey population (75%) live in areas with a deregulated utility market, where a specified transmission and delivery utility by region is responsible for delivering the electricity (purchased from one of a myriad of private companies by the consumer) to homes and businesses. The four main utility providers are Oncor, CenterPoint CNP -2.2%, American Electric Power (AEP) North, and American Electric Power (AEP) Central. 

The other 25% of the survey population live in areas with regulated markets, where a single company is responsible for both delivering the electricity to homes and businesses and serves as the only source from which electricity is purchased. Municipal-owned and operated utilities (e.g., Austin Energy, Bryan Texas Utilities, Burnet Electric Department, Denton Municipal Electric, New Braunfels Utilities, San Antonio’s CPS Energy CMS -2.1%) serve 73% of the regulated market. Electric cooperatives (e.g., Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative, Central Texas Electric Cooperative, Guadalupe Valley Cooperative, Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Pedernales Electricity Cooperative, Wood County Electric Cooperative) serve one-fifth of this market (21%), with private companies accounting for 6% of the regulated market.

The overall distribution of the survey population by electric utility providers is: Oncor (38%), CenterPoint (21%), municipal-owned utilities (18%), AEP Central & AEP North combined (12%), electric cooperatives (6%), other providers in the deregulated market (4%) and other providers in the regulated market (1%). 

There were no noteworthy differences among the 31% of Texans who did not lose power during the winter storm in regard to their evaluations of their local electricity provider or their belief that the power cuts in their locale were carried out in an equitable manner.  

However, among the 69% of Texans who lost power, those served by electric cooperatives in the regulated market and those served by private electric utilities in the deregulated market differed notably regarding their evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility, both in regard to their management of the rolling blackouts, amid debates over market reforms to avoid blackouts, and to their overall performance during the winter storm. Those Texans who lost power and are served by electric cooperatives in a regulated market had a significantly more positive evaluation of the performance of their local electric utility than did those Texans who lost power and are served by a private company in a deregulated electricity market. 

For example, only 24% of Texans served by electric cooperatives had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s overall performance during the winter storm, compared to 55%, 56% and 61% of those served by AEP, Oncor and CenterPoint respectively. A slightly smaller proportion of Texans served by electric cooperatives (22%) had a negative evaluation of their local electric utility’s performance managing the rolling blackouts during the winter storm, compared to 58%, 61% and 71% of Texans served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint, respectively.

Texans served by electric cooperatives in regulated markets were more likely to agree that the power cuts in their local area were carried out in an equitable manner compared to Texans served by commercial electricity utilities in deregulated markets. More than half (52%) of those served by an electric cooperative agreed that power cuts during the winter storm in their area were carried out in an equitable manner, compared to only 26%, 23% and 23% of those served by Oncor, AEP and CenterPoint respectively

The survey data did not allow us to provide a conclusive explanation as to why the performance during the winter storm by electric cooperatives (and to a much lesser extent municipal utilities) in the regulated markets was viewed more favorably by their customers than was the performance of the private companies in the deregulated markets viewed by their customers. Yet here are three, far from exhaustive, possible explanations.

First, electric cooperatives might have performed better (based on objective empirical metrics) during the winter storm, perhaps because they are more committed to their customers, who are effectively their bosses. .  

Second, members of electric cooperatives may believe their electric utility prioritizes their interests more than do customers of commercial electric utilities and therefore, even if equal empirical performance were the case, are more likely to rate their electric utility in a positive manner than are customers of commercial utilities.  

Third, regulated electric utilities where a single entity is responsible for the commercialization, transmission and distribution of electricity might be better able to respond to the type of challenges presented by the February 2021 winter storm than are deregulated electric utilities where one entity is responsible for commercialization and another is responsible for transmission and distribution, aligning with calls to improve electricity reliability across Texas.

Other explanations for these findings may exist, which in addition to the three posited above, await future empirical verification via new and more comprehensive studies designed specifically to study electric cooperatives, large commercial utilities, and the incentives that these entities face under the regulatory system governing production, commercialization and distribution of electricity, including rulings that some plants are exempt from providing electricity in emergencies under state law. 

Still, opinion about electricity providers during Winter Storm Uri is clear: Texans served by regulated electricity markets, especially by electric cooperatives, were much more satisfied with their providers’ performance than were those in deregulated markets. Throughout its history, Texas has staunchly supported the free market. Could Winter Storm Uri change this propensity, or will attempts to regulate electricity lessen as the memories of the storm’s havoc fades? With a hotter summer predicted to be on the horizon in 2021 and growing awareness of severe heat blackout risks, we may soon get an answer.   

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

OPG Small Modular Reactors advance clean energy with advanced nuclear, baseload power, renewables integration, and grid reliability; factory built, scalable, and cost effective to support Ontario energy security and net zero goals.

Key Points

Factory built nuclear units delivering reliable, low carbon power to support Ontario's grid, renewables, climate goals.

✅ Factory built modules cut costs and shorten schedules

✅ Provides baseload power to balance wind and solar

✅ Enhances grid reliability with advanced safety and waste reduction

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is at the forefront of Canada’s energy transformation, demonstrating a robust commitment to sustainable energy solutions. One of the most promising avenues under exploration is the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), as OPG broke ground on the first SMR at Darlington to launch this next phase. These innovative technologies represent a significant leap forward in the quest for reliable, clean, and cost-effective energy generation, aligning with Ontario’s ambitious climate goals and energy security needs.

Understanding Small Modular Reactors

Small Modular Reactors are advanced nuclear power plants that are designed to be smaller in size and capacity compared to traditional nuclear reactors. Typically generating up to 300 megawatts of electricity, SMRs can be constructed in factories and transported to their installation sites, offering flexibility and scalability that larger reactors do not provide. This modular approach reduces construction time and costs, making them an appealing option for meeting energy demands.

One of the key advantages of SMRs is their ability to provide baseload power—energy that is consistently available—while simultaneously supporting intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. As Ontario continues to increase its reliance on renewables, SMRs could play a crucial role in ensuring that the energy supply remains stable and secure.

OPG’s Initiative

In its commitment to advancing clean energy technologies, OPG has been a strong advocate for the adoption of SMRs. The province of Ontario has announced plans to develop three additional small modular reactors, part of its plans for four Darlington SMRs that would further enhance the region’s energy portfolio. This initiative aligns with both provincial and federal climate objectives, and reflects a collaborative provincial push on nuclear innovation to accelerate clean energy.

The deployment of SMRs in Ontario is particularly strategic, given the province’s existing nuclear infrastructure, including the continued operation of Pickering NGS that supports grid reliability. OPG operates a significant portion of Ontario’s nuclear fleet, and leveraging this existing expertise can facilitate the integration of SMRs into the energy mix. By building on established operational frameworks, OPG can ensure that new reactors are deployed safely and efficiently.

Economic and Environmental Benefits

The introduction of SMRs is expected to bring substantial economic benefits to Ontario. The construction and operation of these reactors will create jobs, including work associated with the Pickering B refurbishment across the province, stimulate local economies, and foster innovation in nuclear technology. Additionally, SMRs have the potential to attract investment from both domestic and international stakeholders, positioning Ontario as a leader in advanced nuclear technology.

From an environmental perspective, SMRs are designed with enhanced safety features and lower waste production compared to traditional reactors, complementing life-extension measures at Pickering that bolster system reliability. They can significantly contribute to Ontario’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. By providing a reliable source of clean energy, SMRs will help mitigate the impacts of climate change while supporting the province's transition to a sustainable energy future.

Community Engagement and Collaboration

Recognizing the importance of community acceptance and stakeholder engagement, OPG is committed to an open dialogue with local communities and Indigenous groups. This collaboration is essential to addressing concerns and ensuring that the deployment of SMRs is aligned with the values and priorities of the residents of Ontario. By fostering a transparent process, OPG aims to build trust and support for this innovative energy solution.

Moreover, the development of SMRs will involve partnerships with various stakeholders, including government agencies, research institutions, and private industry, such as the OPG-TVA partnership to advance new nuclear technology. These collaborations will not only enhance the technical aspects of SMR deployment but also ensure that Ontario can capitalize on shared expertise and resources.

Looking Ahead

As Ontario Power Generation moves forward with plans for three additional Small Modular Reactors, the province stands at a critical juncture in its energy evolution. The integration of SMRs into Ontario’s energy landscape promises a sustainable, reliable, and economically viable solution to meet growing energy demands while addressing climate change challenges.

With the support of government initiatives, community collaboration, and continued innovation in nuclear technology, Ontario is poised to become a leader in the advancement of Small Modular Reactors. The successful implementation of these projects could serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to transition to cleaner energy sources, highlighting the role of nuclear power in a balanced and sustainable energy future.

In conclusion, OPG's commitment to developing Small Modular Reactors not only reinforces Ontario’s energy security but also demonstrates a proactive approach to addressing the pressing challenges of climate change and environmental sustainability. The future of energy in Ontario looks promising, driven by innovation and a commitment to clean energy solutions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News