Greenest restaurant in Canada

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

MidAmerican Energy Wind XI expands Iowa wind power with the Beaver Creek and Prairie farms, 169 turbines and 338 MW, delivering renewable energy, grid reliability, rural jobs, and long-term tax revenue through major investment.

Key Points

MidAmerican Energy Wind XI is a $3.6B Iowa wind buildout adding 2,000 MW to enhance reliability, jobs, and tax revenue.

✅ 169 turbines at Beaver Creek and Prairie deliver 338 MW.

✅ Wind supplies 36.6 percent of Iowa electricity generation.

✅ Projects forecast $62.4M in property taxes over 20 years.

Power company MidAmerican Energy recently announced the beginning of operations at two huge wind farms in the US state of Iowa.

The two projects, called Beaver Creek and Prairie, total 169 turbines and have a combined capacity of 338 megawatts (MW), enough to meet the annual electricity needs of 140,000 homes in the state.

“We’re committed to providing reliable service and outstanding value to our customers, and wind energy accomplishes both,” said Mike Fehr, vice president of resource development at MidAmerican. “Wind energy is good for our customers, and it’s an abundant, renewable resource that also energizes the economy.”

The wind farms form part of MidAmerican Energy’s major Wind XI project, which will see an extra 2,000MW of wind power built, and $3.6 billion invested amid notable wind farm acquisitions shaping the market by the end of 2019. The company estimates it is the largest economic development project in Iowa’s history.

Iowa is something of a hidden powerhouse in American wind energy. The technology provides an astonishing 36.6 percent of the state’s entire electricity generation and plays a growing role in the U.S. electricity mix according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). It also has the second largest amount of installed capacity in the nation at 6917MW; Texas is first with over 21,000MW.

Along with capital investment, wind power brings significant job opportunities and tax revenues for the state. An estimated 9,000 jobs are supported by the industry, something a U.S. wind jobs forecast stated could grow to over 15,000 within a couple of years.

MidAmerican Energy is also keen to stress the economic benefits of its new giant projects, claiming that they will bring in $62.4 million of property tax revenue over their 20-year lifetime.

Tom Kiernan, AWEA’s CEO, revealed last year that, as the most-used source of renewable electricity in the U.S., wind energy is providing more than five states in the American Midwest with over 20 percent of electricity generation, “a testament to American leadership and innovation”.

“For these states, and across America, wind is welcome because it means jobs, investment, and a better tomorrow for rural communities”, he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Germany Energiewende Lessons highlight climate policy tradeoffs, as renewables, wind and solar face grid constraints, coal phase-out delays, rising electricity prices, and public opposition, informing Canada on diversification, hydro, oil and gas, and balanced transition.

Key Points

Insights from Germany's renewable shift on costs, grid limits, and emissions to guide Canada's balanced energy policy.

✅ Evidence: high power prices, delayed coal exit, limited grid buildout

✅ Land, materials, and wildlife impacts challenge wind and solar scale-up

✅ Diversification: hydro, nuclear, gas, and storage balance reliability

News that Greta Thunberg is visiting Alberta should be welcomed by all Canadians.

The teenaged Swedish environmentalist has focused global attention on the climate change debate like never before. So as she tours our province, where selling renewable energy could be Alberta's next big thing, what better time for a reality check than to look at a country that is furthest ahead in already adapting steps that Greta is advocating.

That country is Germany. And it’s not a pretty sight.

Germany embraced the shift toward renewable energy before anyone else, and did so with gusto. The result?

Germany’s largest newsmagazine Der Spiegel published an article on May 3 of this year entitled “A Botched Job in Germany.” The cover showed broken wind turbines and half-finished transition towers against a dark silhouette of Berlin.

Germany’s renewable energy transition, Energiewende, is a bust. After spending and committing a total of US$580 billion to it from 2000 to 2025.

Why is that? Because it’s been a nightmare of foolish dreams based on hope rather than fact, resulting in stalled projects and dreadfully poor returns.

Last year Germany admitted it had to delay its phase-out of coal and would not meet its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitment. Only eight per cent of the transmission lines needed to support this new approach to powering Germany have been built.

Opposition to renewables is growing due to electricity prices rising to the point they are now among the highest in the world. Wind energy projects in Germany are now facing the same opposition that pipelines are here in Canada. 

Opposition to renewables in Germany, reports Forbes, is coming from people who live in rural or suburban areas, in opposition to the “urbane, cosmopolitan elites who fetishize their solar roofs and Teslas as a sign of virtue.” Sound familiar?

So, if renewables cannot successfully power Germany, one of the richest and most technologically advanced countries in the world, who can do it better?

The biggest problem with using wind and solar power on a large scale is that the physics just don’t work. They need too much land and equipment to produce sufficient amounts of electricity.

Solar farms take 450 times more land than nuclear power plants to produce the same amount of electricity. Wind farms take 700 times more land than natural gas wells.

The amount of metal required to build these sites is enormous, requiring new mines. Wind farms are killing hundreds of endangered birds.

No amount of marketing or spin can change the poor physics of resource-intensive and land-intensive renewables.

But, wait. Isn’t Norway, Greta’s neighbour, dumping its energy investments and moving into alternative energy like wind farms in a big way?

No, not really. Fact is only 0.8 per cent of Norway’s power comes from wind turbines. The country is blessed with a lot of hydroelectric power, but that’s a historical strength owing to the country’s geography, nothing new.

And yet we’re being told the US$1-trillion Oslo-based Government Pension Fund Global is moving out of the energy sector to instead invest in wind, solar and other alternative energy technologies. According to 350.org activist Nicolo Wojewoda this is “yet another nail in the coffin of the coal, oil, and gas industry.”

Well, no.

Norway’s pension fund is indeed investing in new energy forms, but not while pulling out of traditional investments in oil and gas. Rather, as any prudent fund manager will, they are diversifying by making modest investments in emerging industries such as Alberta's renewable energy surge that will likely pay off down the road while maintaining existing investments, spreading their investments around to reduce risk. Unfortunately for climate alarmists, the reality is far more nuanced and not nearly as explosive as they’d like us to think.

Yet, that’s enough for them to spin this tale to argue Canada should exit oil and gas investment and put all of our money into wind and solar, even as Canada remains a solar power laggard according to experts.

That is not to say renewable energy projects like wind and solar don’t have a place. They do, and we must continue to innovate and research lower-polluting ways to power our societies on the path to zero-emissions electricity by 2035 in Canada.

But like it actually is in Norway, investment in renewables should supplement — not replace — fossil fuel energy systems if we aim for zero-emission electricity in Canada by 2035 without undermining reliability. We need both.

And that’s the message that Greta should hear when she arrives in Canada.

Rick Peterson is the Edmonton-based founder and Beth Bailey is a Calgary-based supporter of Suits and Boots, a national not-for-profit group of investment industry professionals that supports resource sector workers and their families.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Snohomish PUD rate increase addresses storm recovery after a bomb cyclone and extended cold snap, stabilizing finances and grid reliability while offering assistance programs, payment plans, and energy efficiency for customers.

Key Points

Temp 5.8% residential hike in Feb 2025 to recover storm costs, meet cold snap demand, and uphold reliable service.

✅ 5.8% residential increase effective Feb 2025

✅ Driven by bomb cyclone damage and cold snap demand

✅ Aid includes payment plans, efficiency rebates, low income support

In early February 2025, the Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) announced a temporary increase in electricity rates to offset the financial impact of severe weather events, including a bomb cyclone and an extended cold snap, that occurred in late 2024. This decision aims to stabilize the utility's finances, a pattern seen at other utilities such as Florida Power & Light, which pursued a hurricane surcharge to recover storm costs, while ensuring continued service reliability for its customers.

Background of the Weather Events

In November 2024, the Pacific Northwest experienced a powerful bomb cyclone—a rapidly intensifying storm characterized by a significant drop in atmospheric pressure. This event brought heavy rainfall, strong winds, and widespread power outages across the region. Compounding the situation, a prolonged cold weather period in December 2024 and January 2025 led to increased energy demand, and similar conditions drove up Pennsylvania power rates in the same winter season, as residents and businesses relied heavily on heating systems.

Impact on Snohomish PUD

The combination of the bomb cyclone and the subsequent cold weather placed considerable strain on the Snohomish PUD's infrastructure and financial resources. The utility incurred substantial costs for emergency repairs, restoration efforts, and the procurement of additional electricity to meet the heightened demand during the cold snap. These unforeseen expenses prompted the PUD to seek a temporary rate adjustment to maintain financial stability and continue providing reliable service to its customers.

Details of the Rate Increase

Effective February 2025, the Snohomish PUD implemented a temporary electricity rate increase of 5.8% for residential customers, compared with a 3% BC Hydro increase in the same region for context. This adjustment is designed to recover the additional costs incurred during the severe weather events. The PUD has communicated that this rate increase is temporary and will be reevaluated after a specified period to determine if further adjustments are necessary.

Customer Impact and Assistance Programs

While the rate increase is intended to be temporary, it may still pose a financial burden for some customers, even as some markets expect rates to stabilize in 2025 in other jurisdictions. To mitigate this impact, the Snohomish PUD has outlined several assistance programs:

• Payment Plans: Customers facing financial hardship can enroll in extended payment plans to spread the cost of the increased rates over a longer period.

• Energy Efficiency Programs: The PUD offers incentives and resources to help customers reduce energy consumption, potentially lowering their overall bills.

• Low-Income Assistance: Eligible low-income customers may qualify for additional support through state and federal assistance programs.

The utility encourages customers to contact their customer service department to explore these options and find the best solutions for their individual circumstances.

Community Response and Future Considerations

The announcement of the rate increase has elicited mixed reactions from the community. Some residents express understanding, recognizing the necessity of maintaining infrastructure and service reliability. Others have voiced concerns about the financial impact, particularly among vulnerable populations, a debate also seen with higher BC Hydro rates in nearby British Columbia.

Looking ahead, the Snohomish PUD is committed to enhancing its infrastructure to better withstand future extreme weather events, an approach aligned with other utilities' multi-year rate proposals to fund upgrades. This includes investing in grid modernization, implementing advanced weather forecasting tools, and developing comprehensive emergency response plans. The utility also plans to engage with the community through public forums and surveys to gather feedback and collaboratively develop strategies that balance financial sustainability with customer affordability.

The temporary electricity rate increase by the Snohomish County Public Utility District reflects the financial challenges posed by severe weather events and parallels regional trends, including BC Hydro's 3.75% over two years adjustments, and underscores the importance of proactive infrastructure investment and community engagement. While the rate adjustment aims to stabilize the utility's finances, the PUD remains focused on supporting its customers through assistance programs and ongoing efforts to enhance service reliability and resilience against future climate-related events.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Biomass Energy faces scrutiny as hydropower from Muskrat Falls via the Maritime Link increases, raising concerns over carbon emissions, biodiversity, ratepayer costs, and efficiency versus district heating in the province's renewable mix.

Key Points

Electricity from wood chips and waste wood in Nova Scotia, increasingly questioned as hydropower from the Maritime Link grows.

✅ Hydropower deliveries reduce need for biomass on the grid

✅ Biomass is inefficient, costly, and impacts biodiversity

✅ District heating offers better use of forestry residuals

The Ecology Action Centre's senior wilderness coordinator is calling on the Nova Scotia government to reduce the use of biomass to generate electricity now that more hydroelectric power is flowing into the province.

In 2020, the government of the day signed a directive for Nova Scotia Power to increase its use of biomass to generate electricity, including burning more wood chips, waste wood and other residuals from the forest industry. At the time, power from Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project in Labrador was not flowing into the province at high enough levels to reach provincial targets for electricity generated by renewable resources.

In recent months, however, the Maritime Link from Muskrat Falls has delivered Nova Scotia's full share of electricity, and, in some cases, even more, as the province also pursues Bay of Fundy tides projects to diversify supply.

Ray Plourde with the Ecology Action Centre said that should be enough to end the 2020 directive.

Ray Plourde is senior wilderness coordinator for the Ecology Action Centre. (CBC)
Biomass is "bad on a whole lot of levels," said Plourde, including its affects on biodiversity and the release of carbon into the atmosphere, he said. The province's reliance on waste wood as a source of fuel for electricity should be curbed, said Plourde.

"It's highly inefficient," he said. "It's the most expensive electricity on the power grid for ratepayers."

A spokesperson for the provincial Natural Resources and Renewables Department said that although the Maritime Link has "at times" delivered adequate electricity to Nova Scotia, "it hasn't done so consistently," a context that has led some to propose an independent planning body for long-term decisions.

"These delays and high fossil fuel prices mean that biomass remains a small but important component of our renewable energy mix," Patricia Jreiga said in an email, even as the province plans to increase wind and solar projects in the years ahead.

But to Plourde, that explanation doesn't wash.

The Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board recently ruled that Nova Scotia Power could begin recouping costs of the Maritime Link project from ratepayers. As for the rising cost of fossil fuels, Ploude noted that the inefficiency of biomass means there's no deal to be had using it as a fuel source.

"Honestly, that sounds like a lot of obfuscation," he said of the government's position.

No update on district heating plans
At the time of the directive, government officials said the increased use of forestry byproducts at biomass plants in Point Tupper and Brooklyn, N.S., including the nearby Port Hawkesbury Paper mill, would provide a market for businesses struggling to replace the loss of Northern Pulp as a customer. Brooklyn Power has been offline since a windstorm damaged that plant in February, however. Repairs are expected to be complete by the end of the year or early 2023.

Ploude said a better use for waste wood products would be small-scale district heating projects, while others advocate using more electricity for heat in cold regions.

Although the former Liberal government announced six public buildings to serve as pilot sites for district heating in 2020, and a list of 100 other possible buildings that could be converted to wood heat, there have been no updates.

"Currently, we're working with several other departments to complete technical assessments for additional sites and looking at opportunities for district heating, but no decisions have been made yet," provincial spokesperson Steven Stewart said in an email.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

World Bank Energy Policy debates financing for coal, oil, gas, and renewables to fight energy poverty, expand grid reliability, ensure baseload power, and balance climate goals with development finance for affordable, reliable electricity access.

Key Points

It outlines the bank's stance on financing fossil fuels and renewables to expand affordable, reliable electricity.

✅ Focus on energy access, baseload reliability, and poverty alleviation

✅ Debate over coal, gas, and renewables in development finance

✅ Geopolitics: China and Russia fill funding gaps, raising risks

Why isn’t the World Bank using all available energy resources in its global efforts to fight poverty? That’s the question I’ve asked World Bank President David Malpass. Nearly two years ago, the multilateral development bank decided to stop supporting critical coal, oil and gas projects that help people in developing countries escape poverty.

Along with 11 other senators, and as a member who votes on whether to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to the World Bank, I am pressing the bank to lift these restrictions. Developing countries desperately need access to a steady supply of affordable, reliable clean electricity to support economic growth.

The World Bank has pulled funding for critical electricity projects in poor countries, including high-efficiency power stations that are fueled by coal, even as efforts to revitalize coal communities with clean energy have grown.

Despite Kosovo having the world’s fifth-largest reserves of coal, the bank announced it would only support new energy projects from renewable sources going forward. Kosovo’s Minister of Economic Development Valdrin Lluka responded: “We don’t have the luxury to do such experiments in a poor country such as Kosovo. … It is in our national security interest to secure base energy inside our country.”

The World Bank’s misguided move comes as 840 million people worldwide are living without electricity, including 70 percent of sub-Saharan Africa, and as the fall in global energy investment may lead to shortages.

Even more troubling, nearly 3 billion people in developing countries rely on fuels like wood and other biomass for cooking and home heating, resulting in serious health problems and premature deaths, and the pandemic saw widespread electricity shut-offs that deepened energy insecurity. In 2016, household smoke killed an estimated 2.6 million people.

The World Bank’s mission is to lift people out of poverty. The bank is now compromising that mission in favor of a political agenda targeting certain energy sources.

With the World Bank blocking financing to affordable and reliable energy projects, Russia and China are stepping up their investments in order to gain geopolitical leverage.

President Vladimir Putin is pursuing Russian oil and gas projects in Mozambique, Gabon, and Angola. China’s Belt and Road Initiative is supporting traditional energy resources, with 36 percent of its power projects from 2014 to 2017 involving coal. South Africa had to turn to the China Development Bank to fund its $1.5 billion coal-fired power plant.

There are real risks for countries partnering with China and Russia on these projects. Developing countries are facing what some are calling China’s “debt trap” diplomacy. These nations have also raised concerns over safety compliance, unfair business practices, and labor standards.

As the bank’s largest contributor, the United States has a duty to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars are used wisely and effectively. Every U.S. dollar at the World Bank should make a difference for people in the developing world.

My colleagues and I have asked the bank to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy as it strives to achieve its mission to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. We will take the bank’s response into account during the congressional appropriations process.

The United States is a top global energy producer. And yet Democrats running for president are pursuing anti-energy policies that would hurt not only the United States but the entire world, with implications for U.S. national security as well.

Utilizing our abundant energy resources has fueled an American energy renaissance and a booming U.S. economy, even as disruptions in coal and nuclear have strained the grid, with millions of new jobs and higher wages.

People who are struggling to survive and thrive in developing countries deserve the same opportunity to access affordable and reliable sources of power.

As Microsoft founder and global philanthropist Bill Gates has noted of renewables: "Many people experiencing energy poverty live in areas without access to the kind of grids that are needed to make those technologies cheap and reliable enough to replace fossil fuels."

Ultimately, there is a role for all sources of energy to help countries alleviate poverty and improve the education, health and wellbeing of their people.

The solution to ending energy poverty does not lie in limiting options, but in using all available options. The World Bank must recommit to ending extreme poverty by helping countries use all of the world’s abundant energy resources. Let’s end energy poverty now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News