Power line may trigger surge in rates

California energy rebate freeze disrupts heat pump incentives, HVAC upgrades, and climate funding, as federal uncertainty stalls Inflation Reduction Act support, delaying home electrification, energy efficiency gains, and greenhouse gas emissions reductions statewide.

Key Points

A statewide pause on $290M incentives for heat pumps and HVAC upgrades due to federal climate funding uncertainty.

✅ $290M program paused amid federal funding freeze

✅ Heat pump, HVAC, electrification upgrades delayed

✅ Previously approved rebates honored; new apps halted

California’s push for a more energy-efficient future has hit a significant roadblock as the state pauses a $290 million rebate program aimed at helping homeowners replace inefficient heating and cooling systems with more energy-efficient alternatives. The California Energy Commission announced the suspension of the program, citing uncertainty stemming from President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze funding for various climate-related initiatives.

The Halted Program

The energy rebate program, which utilizes federal funding to encourage the use of energy-efficient appliances such as heat pumps, was a crucial part of California’s efforts to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By providing financial incentives for homeowners to upgrade to more efficient heating and cooling systems, the program aimed to make green energy solutions more accessible and affordable to residents. The rebate program had been popular, with many homeowners eager to participate in the initiative to lower their energy costs and improve the sustainability of their homes.

However, due to the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, the California Energy Commission announced on Monday that it would no longer be accepting new applications for the program. The agency did clarify that it would continue to honor rebates for applications that had already been approved. The pause will remain in effect until the Trump administration provides more clarity regarding the program's future funding.

The Trump Administration’s Role

This move highlights a broader issue regarding access to federal funding for state-level energy programs. The Trump administration’s decision to freeze funding for climate-related initiatives has left many states in limbo, as previously approved federal money has not been distributed as expected. Despite federal court rulings directing the Trump administration to restore these funds, states like California are still struggling to navigate the uncertainty of climate-related financial support from the federal government.

California’s decision to pause the rebate program comes after similar actions by other states. Arizona paused a similar program just a week prior, and Rhode Island had already paused new applications earlier this year. These states are all recipients of funding from a larger $4.3 billion initiative under the Inflation Reduction Act, which is designed to help homeowners purchase energy-efficient appliances like heat pumps, water heaters, and electric cooktops.

Impact of the Freeze

The pause of California's rebate program has serious implications for both consumers and the state’s energy goals. For residents, the halt means delays in the ability to upgrade to more energy-efficient home systems, which could lead to higher energy costs in the short term, a concern amid soaring electricity prices across the state.

The $290 million program was a significant step in encouraging homeowners to invest in energy efficiency, and its suspension leaves a gap in the availability of resources for those who were hoping to make energy-saving upgrades. Many of these upgrades are not just beneficial to homeowners, but they also contribute to the state’s overall energy efficiency goals, helping to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy sources, even as California's dependence on fossil fuels persists, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

Federal and State Tensions

The freeze in funding is just one of many points of tension between the Trump administration and states like California, which have pursued aggressive environmental policies aimed at reducing emissions and combating climate change. California has often found itself at odds with the federal government on environmental issues, especially under the leadership of President Trump. The state’s ambitious environmental policies have sometimes clashed with the federal government's approach, including efforts to wind down its fossil fuel industry in line with climate goals.

In this case, the freeze on climate-related funding appears to be part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to limit federal spending on environmental programs, and as regulators weigh whether the state may need more power plants, planning remains complex. While the freeze impacts states that are working to transition to clean energy, critics argue that such moves undermine efforts to tackle climate change and could slow down progress toward a greener future.

The Path Forward

For California, the next steps will depend heavily on the actions of the federal government. While the state can continue to push for climate funding in the courts, the lack of clarity around the release of federal funds creates uncertainty for state programs that rely on these resources. As California continues to navigate this funding freeze, it will need to explore alternative solutions to keep its energy efficiency programs on track, such as efforts to revamp electricity rates to clean the grid, even in the face of federal challenges.

In the meantime, California residents and homeowners who were hoping to take advantage of the rebate program may have to wait until further clarification from the federal government is provided, even as officials warn of a looming electricity shortage in coming years. Whether the program can be restored or expanded in the future remains to be seen, but for now, the pause serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggles that states face when dealing with shifting federal priorities.

As the issue unfolds, other states facing similar challenges may take cues from California’s actions, and with California exporting energy policies to Western states, broader conversations about how federal and state governments can collaborate to ensure that energy efficiency initiatives and climate goals are not sidelined due to political or budgetary differences.

California’s decision to pause its $290 million energy rebate program is a significant development in the ongoing struggle between state and federal governments over climate-related funding. The uncertainty created by the Trump administration’s freeze on energy efficiency programs has led to disruptions in state-level efforts to promote sustainability and reduce emissions. As the situation continues to evolve, both California and other states will need to consider how to move forward without relying on federal funding that may or may not be available in the future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Florida Electricity Deregulation Ruling highlights the Florida Supreme Court decision blocking a ballot measure on retail choice, preserving utility monopolies for NextEra and Duke Energy, while similar deregulation efforts arise in Virginia and Arizona.

Key Points

A high court decision removing a retail choice ballot measure, keeping Florida utility monopolies intact for incumbents.

✅ Petition language deemed misleading for 2020 ballot

✅ Preserves NextEra and Duke Energy market dominance

✅ Similar retail choice pushes in VA and AZ

Florida’s top court ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that would have allowed customers to pick their electricity provider, even as Florida solar incentives face rejection by state leaders, threatening monopolies held by utilities such as NextEra Energy Inc. and Duke Energy Corp.

In a ruling Thursday, the court said the petition’s language is “misleading” and doesn’t comply with requirements to be included on the 2020 ballot, reflecting debates over electricity pricing changes at the federal level. The measure’s sponsor, Citizens for Energy Choice, said the move ends the initiative, even as electricity future advocacy continues nationwide.

“While we were confident in our plan to gather the remaining signatures required, we cannot overcome this last obstacle,” the group’s chair, Alex Patton, noting ongoing energy freedom in the South efforts, said in a statement.

The proposed measure was one of several efforts underway to deregulate U.S. electricity markets, including New York’s review of retail energy markets this year. Earlier this week, two Virginia state lawmakers unveiled a bill to allow residents and businesses to pick their electricity provider, threatening Dominion Energy Inc.’s longstanding local monopoly. And in Arizona, where Arizona Public Service Co. has long reigned, regulators are considering a similar move, while in New England Hydro-Quebec’s export bid has been energized by a court decision.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions rose in Q2 as electricity and transport pollution increased, despite renewable energy growth. Net zero targets, carbon dioxide equivalent metrics, and land use changes underscore mixed trends in decarbonisation.

Key Points

About 499-500 Mt CO2-e annually, with a 2% quarterly rise led by electricity and transport.

✅ Q2 emissions rose to 127 Mt from 124.4 Mt seasonally adjusted

✅ Electricity sector up to 41.6 Mt; transport added nearly 1 Mt

✅ Land use remains a net sink; renewables expanded capacity

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in the June quarter by about 2% as pollution from the electricity sector and transport increased.

Figures released on Tuesday by the Morrison government showed that on a year to year basis, emissions for the 12 months to last June totalled 498.9m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That tally was down 2.1%, or 10.8m tonnes compared with the same period a year earlier.

However, on a seasonally adjusted quarterly basis, emissions increased to 127m tonnes, or just over 2%, from the 124.4m tonnes reported in the March quarter. For the year to March, emissions totalled 494.2m tonnes, underscoring the pickup in pollution in the more recent quarter even as global coal power declines worldwide.

A stable pollution rate, if not a rising one, is also implied by the government’s release of preliminary figures for the September quarter. They point to 125m tonnes of emissions in trend terms for the July-September months, bringing the year to September total to about 500m tonnes, the latest report said.

The government has made much of Australia “meeting and beating” climate targets. However, the latest statistics show mostly emissions are not in decline despite its pledge ahead of the Glasgow climate summit that the country would hit net zero by 2050, and AEMO says supply can remain uninterrupted as coal phases out over the next three decades.

“Nothing’s happening except for the electricity sector,” said Hugh Saddler, an honorary associate professor at the Australian National University. Once Covid curbs on the economy eased, such as during the current quarter, emission sources such as from transport will show a rise, he predicted.

Falling costs for new wind and solar farms, with the IEA naming solar the cheapest in history worldwide, are pushing coal and gas out of electricity generation, as well as pushing down power prices. In seasonally adjusted terms, though, emissions for that sector rose from 39.7m tonnes the March quarter to 41.6m in the June one.

Most other sectors were steady, with pollution from transport adding almost 1m tonnes in the June quarter.

On an annual basis, a 500m tonnes tally is the lowest since records began in the 1990s, and IEA reported global emissions flatlined in 2019 for context. That lower trajectory, though, is lower due much to the land sector remaining a net sink even as some experts raise questions about the true trends when it comes to land clearing.

According to the government, this sector – known as land use, land-use change and forestry – amounted to a net reduction of emissions of 24.4m tonnes, or almost negative 5% of the national total, in the year to June.

Sign up to receive an email with the top stories from Guardian Australia every morning

“The magnitude of this net sink has decreased by 0.6% (0.2 Mt CO2-e) on the previous 12 months due to an increase in emissions from agricultural soils, partially offset by a continuing decline in land clearing emissions,” the latest report said.

For its part, the government also touted the increase of renewable energy, as seen in Canada's electricity progress too, as central to driving emissions lower.

“Since 2017, Australia’s consumption of renewable energy has grown at a compound annual rate of 4.6%, with more than $40bn invested in Australia’s renewable energy sector,” Angus Taylor, the federal energy minister said, while UK net zero policy changes show a different approach. “Last year, Australia deployed new solar and wind at eight times the global per capita average.”

ANU’s Saddler said the main driver had been the 2020 Renewable Energy Target that the Coalition government had cut, and had anyway been implemented “a very considerable time ago”.

Tim Baxter, the Climate Council’s senior researcher, said “the time for leaning on the achievements of others is long since past”.

“We need a federal government willing to step up on emissions reductions and take charge with real policy, not wishlists,” he said, referring to the government’s net zero plan to rely on technologies to cut pollution in pursuit of a sustainable electric planet in practice, some of which don’t exist now.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Alberta Rate of Last Resort provides a baseline electricity price, boosting energy reliability, affordability, and consumer protection amid market volatility, aligning with grid modernization, integration, pricing transparency, and oversight from the Alberta Utilities Commission.

Key Points

A fallback electricity rate ensuring affordable, reliable power and consumer protection during market volatility.

✅ Guarantees a stable baseline price when markets spike

✅ Supports vulnerable customers lacking competitive offers

✅ Overseen by AUC to balance protection and competition

The Alberta government has announced significant strides in its electricity market reforms, unveiling a new plan under new electricity rules that aims to enhance energy reliability and affordability for consumers. This initiative, highlighted by the introduction of a "rate of last resort," is a critical response to ongoing challenges in the province's electricity sector, particularly following recent market volatility and increasing consumer concerns about rising electricity prices across the province.

Understanding the Rate of Last Resort

The "rate of last resort" (RLR) is designed to ensure that all Albertans have access to affordable electricity, even when they face challenges securing a competitive rate in the open market. This measure is particularly beneficial for those who may not have the means or the knowledge to navigate complex energy contracts, such as low-income families or seniors.

Under this new plan, the RLR will serve as a safety net, guaranteeing a stable and predictable rate for customers who find themselves without a competitive provider. This move is seen as a crucial step in addressing the needs of vulnerable populations who might otherwise be at risk of being shut out of the energy market.

Market Volatility and Consumer Protection

Alberta's electricity market has faced significant fluctuations over the past few years, and is headed for a reshuffle as policymakers respond to unpredictability in pricing and service availability. The rise in energy costs has caused distress among consumers, with many advocating for stronger protections against sudden price hikes.

The government's recent decision to implement the RLR is a direct acknowledgment of these concerns. By creating a baseline rate, officials aim to provide consumers with peace of mind, knowing that there is a fallback option should market conditions turn unfavorable. This initiative complements other measures aimed at enhancing consumer protections, including improved transparency in pricing, the consumer price cap on power bills being advanced, and the regulation of energy suppliers.

Broader Implications for Alberta’s Energy Landscape

This plan is not only about consumer protection; it also represents a broader shift towards a more sustainable and stable energy market in Alberta, aligning with proposed electricity market changes under consideration. The introduction of the RLR is part of a comprehensive strategy that includes investments in renewable energy and infrastructure improvements. By modernizing the grid and promoting cleaner energy sources, the government aims to reduce dependency on fossil fuels while maintaining reliability and affordability.

Additionally, this move aligns with the province's goals to meet climate targets and transition to a more sustainable energy future as Alberta is changing how it produces and pays for electricity through policy updates. As the demand for clean energy grows, Alberta is positioning itself to be a leader in this transformation, appealing to both residents and businesses committed to sustainability.

Public and Industry Reactions

The announcement has garnered mixed reactions from various stakeholders. While consumer advocacy groups have largely praised the government's efforts to protect consumers and ensure affordable electricity, some industry experts express concerns about potential long-term impacts on competition, arguing the market needs competition to remain dynamic. They argue that while the RLR provides immediate relief, it could disincentivize companies from offering competitive rates, leading to a less dynamic market in the future.

The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) is expected to play a pivotal role in overseeing the implementation of the RLR, ensuring that it operates effectively and that any unintended consequences are addressed swiftly. This regulatory oversight will be crucial in balancing consumer protection with the need for a competitive energy market.

Conclusion

As Alberta forges ahead with its electricity market reforms, the introduction of the rate of last resort marks a significant step in enhancing consumer protection and ensuring energy affordability. While challenges remain, the government's proactive approach reflects a commitment to addressing the needs of all Albertans, particularly those most vulnerable to market fluctuations.

In this evolving energy landscape, the RLR will serve not only as a safety net for consumers but also as a foundation for a more sustainable and reliable electricity system. As Alberta continues to adapt to changing energy demands and climate considerations, the effectiveness of these measures will be closely monitored, shaping the future of the province’s electricity market.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

European Oil Majors Energy Transition highlights BP, Shell, and Total rapidly scaling renewables, wind and solar assets, hydrogen, electricity, and EV charging while cutting upstream capex, aligning with net-zero goals and utility-style energy services.

Key Points

It is the shift by BP, Shell, Total and peers toward renewables, electricity, hydrogen, and EV charging to meet net-zero goals.

✅ Offshore wind, solar, and hydrogen projects scale across Europe

✅ Capex shifts, fossil output declines, net-zero targets by 2050

✅ EV charging, utilities, and power trading become core services

Under pressure from governments and investors, including rising investor pressure at utilities that reverberates across the sector, industry leaders like BP and Shell are accelerating their production of cleaner energy.

This may turn out to be the year that oil giants, especially in Europe, started looking more like electric companies.

Late last month, Royal Dutch Shell won a deal to build a vast wind farm off the coast of the Netherlands. Earlier in the year, France’s Total, which owns a battery maker, agreed to make several large investments in solar power in Spain and a wind farm off Scotland. Total also bought an electric and natural gas utility in Spain and is joining Shell and BP in expanding its electric vehicle charging business.

At the same time, the companies are ditching plans to drill more wells as they chop back capital budgets. Shell recently said it would delay new fields in the Gulf of Mexico and in the North Sea, while BP has promised not to hunt for oil in any new countries.

Prodded by governments and investors to address climate change concerns about their products, Europe’s oil companies are accelerating their production of cleaner energy — usually electricity, sometimes hydrogen — and promoting natural gas, which they argue can be a cleaner transition fuel from coal and oil to renewables, as carbon emissions drop in power generation.

For some executives, the sudden plunge in demand for oil caused by the pandemic — and the accompanying collapse in earnings — is another warning that unless they change the composition of their businesses, they risk being dinosaurs headed for extinction.

This evolving vision is more striking because it is shared by many longtime veterans of the oil business.

“During the last six years, we had extreme volatility in the oil commodities,” said Claudio Descalzi, 65, the chief executive of Eni, who has been with that Italian company for nearly 40 years. He said he wanted to build a business increasingly based on green energy rather than oil.

“We want to stay away from the volatility and the uncertainty,” he added.

Bernard Looney, a 29-year BP veteran who became chief executive in February, recently told journalists, “What the world wants from energy is changing, and so we need to change, quite frankly, what we offer the world.”

The bet is that electricity will be the prime means of delivering cleaner energy in the future and, therefore, will grow rapidly as clean-energy investment incentives scale globally.

American giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron have been slower than their European counterparts to commit to climate-related goals that are as far reaching, analysts say, partly because they face less government and investor pressure (although Wall Street investors are increasingly vocal of late).

“We are seeing a much bigger differentiation in corporate strategy” separating American and European oil companies “than at any point in my career,” said Jason Gammel, a veteran oil analyst at Jefferies, an investment bank.

Companies like Shell and BP are trying to position themselves for an era when they will rely much less on extracting natural resources from the earth than on providing energy as a service tailored to the needs of customers — more akin to electric utilities than to oil drillers.

They hope to take advantage of the thousands of engineers on their payrolls to manage the construction of new types of energy plants; their vast networks of retail stations to provide services like charging electric vehicles; and their trading desks, which typically buy and hedge a wide variety of energy futures, to arrange low-carbon energy supplies for cities or large companies.

All of Europe’s large oil companies have now set targets to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Most have set a ”net zero” ambition by 2050, a goal also embraced by governments like the European Union and Britain.

The companies plan to get there by selling more and more renewable energy and by investing in carbon-free electricity across their portfolios, and, in some cases, by offsetting emissions with so-called nature-based solutions like planting forests to soak up carbon.

Electricity is the key to most of these strategies. Hydrogen, a clean-burning gas that can store energy and generate electric power for vehicles, also plays an increasingly large role.

The coming changes are clearest at BP. Mr. Looney said this month that he planned to increase investment in low-emission businesses like renewable energy by tenfold in the next decade to $5 billion a year, while cutting back oil and gas production by 40 percent. By 2030, BP aims to generate renewable electricity comparable to a few dozen large offshore wind farms.

Mr. Looney, though, has said oil and gas production need to be retained to generate cash to finance the company’s future.

Environmentalists and analysts described Mr. Looney’s statement that BP’s oil and gas production would decline in the future as a breakthrough that would put pressure on other companies to follow.

BP’s move “clearly differentiates them from peers,” said Andrew Grant, an analyst at Carbon Tracker, a London nonprofit. He noted that most other oil companies had so far been unwilling to confront “the prospect of producing less fossil fuels.”

While there is skepticism in both the environmental and the investment communities about whether century-old companies like BP and Shell can learn new tricks, they do bring scale and know-how to the task.

“To make a switch from a global economy that depends on fossil fuels for 80 percent of its energy to something else is a very, very big job,” said Daniel Yergin, the energy historian who has a forthcoming book, “The New Map,” on the global energy transition now occurring in energy. But he noted, “These companies are really good at big, complex engineering management that will be required for a transition of that scale.”

Financial analysts say the dreadnoughts are already changing course.

“They are doing it because management believes it is the right thing to do and also because shareholders are severely pressuring them,” said Michele Della Vigna, head of natural resources research at Goldman Sachs.

Already, he said, investments by the large oil companies in low-carbon energy have risen to as much as 15 percent of capital spending, on average, for 2020 and 2021 and around 50 percent if natural gas is included.

Oswald Clint, an analyst at Bernstein, forecast that the large oil companies would expand their renewable-energy businesses like wind, solar and hydrogen by around 25 percent or more each year over the next decade.

Shares in oil companies, once stock market stalwarts, have been marked down by investors in part because of the risk that climate change concerns will erode demand for their products. European electric companies are perceived as having done more than the oil industry to embrace the new energy era.

“It is very tricky for an investor to have confidence that they can pull this off,” Mr. Clint said, referring to the oil industry’s aspirations to change.

But, he said, he expects funds to flow back into oil stocks as the new businesses gather momentum.

At times, supplying electricity has been less profitable than drilling for oil and gas. Executives, though, figure that wind farms and solar parks are likely to produce more predictable revenue, partly because customers want to buy products labeled green.

Mr. Descalzi of Eni said converted refineries in Venice and Sicily that the company uses to make lower-carbon fuel from plant matter have produced better financial results in this difficult year than its traditional businesses.

Oil companies insist that they must continue with some oil and gas investments, not least because those earnings can finance future energy sources. “Not to make any mistake,” Patrick Pouyanné, chief executive of Total, said to analysts recently: Low-cost oil projects will be a part of the future.

During the pandemic, BP, Total and Shell have all scrutinized their portfolios, partly to determine if climate change pressures and lingering effects from the pandemic mean that petroleum reserves on their books — developed for perhaps billions of dollars, when oil was at the center of their business — might never be produced or earn less than previously expected. These exercises have led to tens of billions of dollars of write-offs for the second quarter, and there are likely to be more as companies recalibrate their plans.

“We haven’t seen the last of these,” said Luke Parker, vice president for corporate analysis at Wood Mackenzie, a market research firm. “There will be more to come as the realities of the energy transition bite.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change 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