Ontario delays deadline for final nuclear bids

Russia-Ukraine Energy Ceasefire Violations escalate as U.S.-brokered truce frays, with drone strikes, shelling, and grid attacks disrupting gas supply and power infrastructure across Kursk, Luhansk, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk, prompting sanctions calls.

Key Points

Alleged breaches of a U.S.-brokered truce, with both sides striking power grids, gas lines, and critical energy nodes.

✅ Drone and artillery attacks reported on power and gas assets

✅ Both sides accuse each other of breaking truce terms

✅ U.S. mediation faces verification and compliance hurdles

Russia and Ukraine have traded fresh accusations regarding violations of a fragile energy ceasefire, brokered by the United States, which both sides had agreed to last month. These new allegations highlight the ongoing tensions between the two nations and the challenges involved in implementing a truce amid global energy instability in such a complex and volatile conflict.

The U.S.-brokered ceasefire had initially aimed to reduce the intensity of the fighting, specifically in the energy sector, where both sides had previously targeted each other’s infrastructure. Despite this agreement, the accusations on Wednesday suggest that both Russia and Ukraine have continued their attacks on each other's energy facilities, a crucial aspect of the ceasefire’s terms.

Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that Ukrainian forces had launched drone and shelling attacks in the western Kursk region, cutting power to over 1,500 homes. This attack allegedly targeted key infrastructure, leaving several localities without electricity. Additionally, in the Russian-controlled part of Ukraine's Luhansk region, a Ukrainian drone strike hit a gas distribution station, severely disrupting the gas supply for over 11,000 customers in the area around Svatove.

In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia of breaking the ceasefire. He claimed that Russian drone strikes had targeted an energy substation in Ukraine’s Sumy region, while artillery fire had damaged a power line in the Dnipropetrovsk region, leaving nearly 4,000 consumers without power even as Ukraine increasingly leans on electricity imports to stabilize the grid. Ukraine's accusations painted a picture of continued Russian aggression against critical energy infrastructure, a strategy that had previously been a hallmark of Russia’s broader military operations in the war.

The U.S. had brokered the energy truce as a potential stepping stone toward a more comprehensive ceasefire agreement. However, the repeated violations raise questions about the truce’s viability and the broader prospects for peace between Russia and Ukraine. Both sides are accusing each other of undermining the agreement, which had already been delicate due to previous suspicions and mistrust. In particular, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, has expressed impatience with the slow progress in moving toward a lasting peace, amid debates over U.S. national energy security priorities.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov defended Russia’s stance, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin had shown a commitment to peace by agreeing to the energy truce, despite what he termed as daily Ukrainian attacks on Russian infrastructure. He reiterated that Russia would continue to cooperate with the U.S., even though the Ukrainian strikes were ongoing. This perspective suggests that Russia remains committed to the truce but views Ukraine’s actions as violations that could potentially derail efforts to reach a more comprehensive ceasefire.

On the other hand, President Zelensky argued that Russia was not adhering to the terms of the ceasefire. He urged the U.S. to take a stronger stance against Russia, including increasing sanctions on Moscow as punishment for its violations. Zelensky’s call for heightened sanctions is a continuation of his efforts to pressure international actors, particularly the U.S. and European countries, to provide greater energy security support for Ukraine’s struggle and to hold Russia accountable for its actions.

The ceasefire’s fragility is also reflected in the differing views between Ukraine and Russia on what constitutes a successful resolution. Ukraine had proposed a full 30-day ceasefire, but President Putin declined, raising concerns about monitoring and verifying compliance with the terms. This disagreement suggests that both sides are not entirely aligned on what a peaceful resolution should look like and how it can be realistically achieved.

The situation is complicated by the broader context of the war, which has now dragged on for over three years. The conflict has seen significant casualties, immense destruction, and deep geopolitical ramifications. Both countries are heavily reliant on their energy infrastructures, making any attack on these systems not only a military tactic but also a form of economic warfare. Energy resources, including electricity and natural gas, have become central to the ongoing conflict, with both sides using them to exert pressure on the other amid Europe's deepening energy crisis that reverberates beyond the battlefield.

As of now, it remains unclear whether the recent violations of the energy ceasefire will lead to a breakdown of the truce or whether the United States will intervene further to restore compliance, even as Ukraine prepares for winter amid energy challenges. The situation remains fluid, and the international community continues to closely monitor the developments. The U.S., which played a central role in brokering the energy ceasefire, has made it clear that it expects both sides to uphold the terms of the agreement and work toward a more permanent cessation of hostilities.

The continued accusations between Russia and Ukraine regarding the breach of the energy ceasefire underscore the challenges of negotiating peace in such a complex and entrenched conflict. While both sides claim to be upholding their commitments, the reality on the ground suggests that reaching a full and lasting peace will require much more than temporary truces. The international community, particularly the U.S., will likely continue to push for stronger actions to enforce compliance and to prevent the conflict from further escalating. The outcome of this dispute will have significant implications for both countries and the broader European energy landscape and security landscape.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Saamis Solar Park advances Medicine Hat's renewable energy strategy, as DP Energy secures AUC approval for North America's largest urban solar, repurposing contaminated land; capacity phased from 325 MW toward an initial 75 MW.

Key Points

A 325 MW solar project in Medicine Hat, Alberta, repurposing contaminated land; phased to 75 MW under city ownership.

✅ City acquisition scales capacity to 75 MW in phased build

✅ AUC approval enables construction and grid integration

✅ Reuses phosphogypsum-impacted land near fertilizer plant

DP Energy, an Irish renewable energy developer, has finalized the sale of the Saamis Solar Park—a 325 megawatt (MW) solar project—to the City of Medicine Hat in Alberta, Canada. This transaction marks the development of North America's largest urban solar initiative, while mirroring other Canadian clean-energy deals such as Canadian Solar project sales that signal market depth.

Project Development and Approval

DP Energy secured development rights for the Saamis Solar Park in 2017 and obtained a development permit in 2021. In 2024, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) granted approval for construction and operation, reflecting Alberta's solar growth trends in recent years, paving the way for the project's advancement.

Strategic Acquisition by Medicine Hat

The City of Medicine Hat's acquisition of the Saamis Solar Park aligns with its commitment to enhancing renewable energy infrastructure. Initially, the project was slated for a 325 MW capacity, which would significantly bolster the city's energy supply. However, the city has proposed scaling the project to a 75 MW capacity, focusing on a phased development approach, and doing so amid challenges with solar expansion in Alberta that influence siting and timing. This adjustment aims to align the project's scale with the city's current energy needs and strategic objectives.

Utilization of Contaminated Land

An innovative aspect of the Saamis Solar Park is its location on a 1,600-acre site previously affected by industrial activity. The land, near Medicine Hat's fertilizer plant, was previously compromised by phosphogypsum—a byproduct of fertilizer production. DP Energy's decision to develop the solar park on this site exemplifies a productive reuse of contaminated land, transforming it into a source of clean energy.

Benefits to Medicine Hat

The development of the Saamis Solar Park is poised to deliver multiple benefits to Medicine Hat:

• Energy Supply Enhancement: The project will augment the city's energy grid, much like municipal solar projects that provide local power, providing a substantial portion of its electricity needs.

• Economic Advantages: The city anticipates financial savings by reducing carbon tax liabilities, as lower-cost solar contracts have shown competitiveness, through the generation of renewable energy.

• Environmental Impact: By investing in renewable energy, Medicine Hat aims to reduce its carbon footprint and contribute to global sustainability efforts.

DP Energy's Ongoing Commitment

Despite the sale, DP Energy maintains a strong presence in Canada, where Indigenous-led generation is expanding, with a diverse portfolio of renewable energy projects, including solar, onshore wind, storage, and offshore wind initiatives. The company continues to focus on sustainable development practices, striving to minimize environmental impact while maximizing energy production efficiency.

The transfer of the Saamis Solar Park to the City of Medicine Hat represents a significant milestone in renewable energy development. It showcases effective land reutilization, strategic urban planning, and a shared commitment to sustainable energy solutions, aligning with federal green electricity procurement that reinforces market demand. This project not only enhances the city's energy infrastructure but also sets a precedent for integrating large-scale renewable energy projects within urban environments.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project faces NEB certificate review, with public hearings, Indigenous consultation, and cross-border approval weighing permit vs certificate timelines, potential land expropriation, and Hydro's 2020 in-service date for the 308-MW intertie.

Key Points

A cross-border hydro line linking Manitoba and Minnesota, now under NEB review through a permit or certificate process.

✅ NEB recommends certificate with public hearings and cabinet approval

✅ Stakeholders cite land, health, and economic impacts along route

✅ Hydro targets May-June 2020 in-service despite review

A recommendation from the National Energy Board could push back the construction start date of a $453-million hydroelectric transmission line from Manitoba to Minnesota.

In a letter to federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, the regulatory agency recommends using a "certificate" approval process, which could take more time than the simpler "permit" process Manitoba Hydro favours.

The certificate process involves public hearings, reflecting First Nations intervention seen in other power-line debates, to weigh the merits of the project, which would then go to the federal cabinet for approval.

The NEB says this process would allow for more procedural flexibility and "address Aboriginal concerns that may arise in the circumstances of this process."

The Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project would provide the final link in a chain that brings hydroelectricity from generating stations in northern Manitoba, through the Bipole III transmission line and, like the New England Clean Power Link project, across the U.S. border as part of a 308-megawatt deal with the Green Bay-based Wisconsin Public Service.

When Hydro filed its application in December 2016, it had expected to have approval by the end of August 2017 and to begin construction on the line in mid-December, in order to have the line in operation by May or June 2020.  

Groups representing stakeholders along the proposed route of the transmission line had mixed reactions to the energy board's recommendation.

A lawyer representing a coalition of more than 120 landowners in the Rural Municipality of Taché and around La Broquerie, Man., welcomed the opportunity to have a more "fulsome" discussion about the project.

"I think it's a positive step. As people become more familiar with the project, the deficiencies with it become more obvious," said Kevin Toyne, who represents the Southeast Stakeholders Coalition.

Toyne said some coalition members are worried that Hydro will forcibly expropriate land in order to build the line, while others are worried about potential economic and health impacts of having the line so close to their homes. They have proposed moving the line farther east.

When the Clean Environment Commission — an arm's-length provincial government agency — held public hearings on the proposed route earlier this year, the coalition brought their concerns forward, echoing Site C opposition voiced by northerners, but Toyne says both the commission and Hydro ignored them.

Hydro still aiming for 2020 in-service date

The Manitoba Métis Federation also participated in those public hearings. MMF president David Chartrand worries about the impact a possible delay, as seen with the Site C work halt tied to treaty rights, could have on revenue from sales of hydroelectric power to the U.S.

"I know that a lot of money, billions have been invested on this line. And if the connection line is not done, then of course this will be sitting here, not gaining any revenue, which will affect every Métis in this province, given our Hydro bill's going to go up," Chartrand said.The NEB letter to Minister Carr requests that he "determine this matter in an expedited manner."

Manitoba Hydro spokesperson Bruce Owen said in an email that the Crown corporation will participate in whatever process, permit or certificate, the NEB takes.

"Manitoba Hydro does not have any information at this point in time that would change the estimated in-service date (May-June 2020) for the Manitoba-Minnesota Transmission Project," he said.

The federal government "is currently reviewing the NEB's recommendation to designate the project as subject to a certificate, which would result in public hearings," said Alexandre Deslongchamps, a spokesperson for Carr.

"Under the National Energy Board Act, an international power line requires either the approval by the NEB through a permit or approval by the Government of Canada by a certificate. Both must be issued by the NEB," he wrote in an email to CBC News.

By law, the certificate process is not to take longer than 15 months.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Bruce C Project advances Ontario clean energy with NRCan funding for nuclear reactors, impact assessment, licensing, and Indigenous engagement, delivering reliable baseload power and low-carbon electricity through pre-development studies at Bruce Power.

Key Points

A proposed nuclear build at Bruce Power, backed by NRCan funding for studies, licensing, and impact assessment to expand clean power.

✅ Up to $50M NRCan support for pre-development

✅ Focus: feasibility, impact assessment, licensing

✅ Early Indigenous and community engagement

Canada's clean energy landscape received a significant boost recently with the announcement of federal funding for the Bruce Power's Bruce C Project. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) pledged up to $50 million to support pre-development work for this potential new nuclear build on the Bruce Power site. This collaboration between federal and provincial governments signifies a shared commitment to a cleaner energy future for Ontario and Canada.

The Bruce C Project, if it comes to fruition, has the potential to be a significant addition to Ontario's clean energy grid. The project envisions constructing new nuclear reactors at the existing Bruce Power facility, located on the shores of Lake Huron. Nuclear energy is a reliable source of clean electricity generation, as evidenced by Bruce Power's operating record during the pandemic, producing minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation.

The funding announced by NRCan will be used to conduct crucial pre-development studies. These studies will assess the feasibility of the project from various angles, including technical considerations, environmental impact assessments, and Indigenous and community engagement, informed by lessons from a major refurbishment that required a Bruce reactor to be taken offline, to ensure thorough planning. Obtaining a license to prepare the site and completing an impact assessment are also key objectives for this pre-development phase.

This financial support from the federal government aligns with both national and provincial clean energy goals. The "Powering Canada Forward" plan, spearheaded by NRCan, emphasizes building a clean, reliable, and affordable electricity system across the country. Ontario's "Powering Ontario's Growth" plan echoes these objectives, focusing on investment options, such as the province's first SMR project, to electrify the province's economy and meet its growing clean energy demand.

"Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world and the nuclear industry is leading the way," stated Mike Rencheck, President and CEO of Bruce Power. He views this project as a prime example of collaboration between federal and provincial entities, along with the private sector, where recent manufacturing contracts underscore industry capacity.

Nuclear energy, however, remains a topic of debate. While proponents highlight its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing reliable baseload power, opponents raise concerns about nuclear waste disposal and potential safety risks. The pre-development studies funded by NRCan will need to thoroughly address these concerns as part of the project's evaluation.

Transparency and open communication with local communities and Indigenous groups will also be crucial for the project's success. Early engagement activities facilitated by the funding will allow for open dialogue and address any potential concerns these stakeholders might have.

The Bruce C Project is still in its early stages. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will provide valuable data to determine the project's viability. If the project moves forward, it has the potential to significantly contribute to Ontario's clean energy future, while also creating jobs and economic benefits for local communities and suppliers.

However, the project faces challenges. Public perception of nuclear energy and the lengthy regulatory process are hurdles that will need to be addressed, as debates around the Pickering B refurbishment have highlighted in Ontario. Additionally, ensuring cost-effectiveness and demonstrating the project's long-term economic viability will be critical for securing broader support.

The next few years will be crucial for the Bruce C Project. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will be instrumental in determining its feasibility. If successful, this project could be a game-changer for Ontario's clean energy future, building on the province's Pickering life extensions to strengthen system adequacy, offering a reliable, low-carbon source of electricity for the province and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hurricane Grid Resilience examines how utilities manage outages with renewables, microgrids, and robust transmission and distribution systems, balancing solar, wind, and batteries to restore service, harden infrastructure, and improve storm response and recovery.

Key Points

Hurricane grid resilience is a utility approach to withstand storms, reduce outages, and speed safe power restoration.

✅ Focus on T&D hardening, vegetation management, remote switching

✅ Balance generation mix; integrate solar, wind, batteries, microgrids

✅ Plan 12-hour shifts; automate forecasting and outage restoration

When operators of Duke Energy's control room in Raleigh, North Carolina wait for a hurricane, the mood is often calm in the hours leading up to the storm.

“Things are usually fairly quiet before the activity starts,” said Mark Goettsch, the systems operations manager at Duke. “We’re anxiously awaiting the first operation and the first event. Once that begins, you get into storm mode.”

Then begins a “frenzied pace” that can last for days — like when Hurricane Florence parked over Duke’s service territory in September.

When an event like Florence hits, all eyes are on transmission and distribution. Where it’s available, Duke uses remote switching to reconnect customers quickly. As outages mount, the utility forecasts and balances its generation with electricity demand.

The control center’s four to six operators work 12-hour shifts, while nearby staff members field thousands of calls and alarms on the system. After it’s over, “we still hold our breath a little bit to make sure we’ve operated everything correctly,” said Goettsch. Damage assessment and rebuilding can only begin once a storm passes.

That cycle is becoming increasingly common in utility service areas like Duke's.

A slate of natural disasters that reads like a roll call — Willa, Michael, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Florence and Thomas — has forced a serious conversation about resiliency. And though Goettsch has heard a lot about resiliency as a “hot topic” at industry events and meetings, those conversations are only now entering Duke’s control room.

Resilience discussions come and go in the energy industry. Storms like Hurricane Sandy and Matthew can spur a nationwide focus on resiliency, but change is largely concentrated in local areas that experienced the disaster. After a few news cycles, the topic fades into the background.

However, experts agree that resilience is becoming much more important to year-round utility planning and operations as utilities pursue decarbonization goals across their fleets. It's not a fad.

“If you look at the whole ecosystem of utilities and vendors, there’s a sense that there needs to be a more resilient grid,” said Miki Deric, Accenture’s managing director of utilities, transmission and distribution for North America. “Even if they don’t necessarily agree on everything, they are all working with the same objective.”

Can renewables meet the challenge?

After Hurricane Florence, The Intercept reported on coal ash basins washed out by the storm’s overwhelming waters. In advance of that storm, Duke shut down one nuclear plant to protect it from high winds. The Washington Post also recently reported on a slowly leaking oil spill, which could surpass Deepwater Horizon in size, caused by Hurricane Ivan in 2004.

Clean energy boosters have seized on those vulnerabilities.They say solar and wind, which don’t rely on access to fuel and can often generate power immediately after a storm, provide resilience that other electricity sources do not.

“Clearly, logistics becomes a big issue on fossil plants, much more than renewable,” said Bruce Levy, CEO and president at BMR Energy, which owns and operates clean energy projects in the Caribbean and Latin America. “The ancillaries around it — the fuel delivery, fuel storage, water in, water out — are all as susceptible to damage as a renewable plant.”

Duke, however, dismissed the notion that one generation type could beat out another in a serious storm.

“I don’t think any generation source is immune,” said Duke spokesperson Randy Wheeless. “We’ve always been a big supporter of a balanced energy mix, reflecting why the grid isn't 100% renewable in practice today. That’s going to include nuclear and natural gas and solar and renewables as well. We do that because not every day is a good day for each generation source.”

In regard to performance, Wade Schauer, director of Americas Power & Renewables Research at Wood Mackenzie, said the situation is “complex.” According to him, output of solar and wind during a storm depends heavily on the event and its location.

While comprehensive data on generation performance is sparse, Schauer said coal and gas generators could experience outages at 25 percent while stormy weather might cut 95 percent of output from renewables, underscoring clean energy's dirty secret about variability under stress. Ahead of last year’s “bomb cyclone” in New England, WoodMac data shows that wind dropped to less than 1 percent of the supply mix.

“When it comes to resiliency, ‘average performance’ doesn't cut it,” said Schauer.

In the future, he said high winds could impact all U.S. offshore wind farms, since projects are slated for a small geographic area in the Northeast. He also pointed to anecdotal instances of solar arrays in New England taken out by feet of snow. During Florence, North Carolina’s wind farms escaped the highest winds and continued producing electricity throughout. Cloud cover, on the other hand, pushed solar production below average levels.

After Florence passed, Duke reported that most of its solar came online quickly, although four of its utility-owned facilities remained offline for weeks afterward. Only one was because of damage; the other three remained offline due to substation interconnection issues.

“Solar performed pretty well,” said Wheeless. “But did it come out unscathed? No.”

According to installer reports, solar systems fared relatively well in recent storms, even as the Covid-19 impact on renewables constrained projects worldwide. But the industry has also highlighted potential improvements. Following Hurricanes Maria and Irma, the Federal Emergency Management Agency published guidelines for installing and maintaining storm-resistant solar arrays. The document recommended steps such as annual checks for bolt tightness and using microinverters rather than string inverters.

Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) also assembled a guide for retrofitting and constructing new installations. It described attributes of solar systems that survived storms, like lateral racking supports, and those that failed, like undersized and under-torqued bolts.

“The hurricanes, as much as no one liked them, [were] a real learning experience for folks in our industry,” said BMR’s Levy. “We saw what worked, and what didn’t.”          

Facing the "800-pound gorilla" on the grid

Advocates believe wind, solar, batteries and microgrids offer the most promise because they often rely less on transmitting electricity long distances and could support peer-to-peer energy models within communities.

Most extreme weather outages arise from transmission and distribution problems, not generation issues. Schauer at WoodMac called storm damage to T&D the “800-pound gorilla.”

“I'd be surprised if a single customer power outage was due to generators being offline, especially since loads where so low due to mild temperatures and people leaving the area ahead of the storm,” he said of Hurricane Florence. “Instead, it was wind [and] tree damage to power lines and blown transformers.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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