Utilities pledge to be ready for plug-ins

Ontario Electricity Rebate clarifies hydro rates as OEB aligns bills with inflation, shows true cost per kilowatt hour, and replaces Fair Hydro Plan; transparent on-bill credit offsets increases tied to nuclear refurbishment and supply costs.

Key Points

A line-item credit on Ontario hydro bills that offsets higher electricity costs and reflects OEB-set rates.

✅ Starts Nov. 1 with rates in line with inflation

✅ Shows true per-kWh cost plus separate rebate line

✅ Driven by nuclear refurbishment and supply costs

The Ontario Energy Board says electricity rate changes for households and small businesses will be going up starting next week.

The agency says rates are scheduled to increased by about $1.99 or nearly 2% for a typical residential customer who uses 700 kilowatt hours per month.

The provincial government said in March it would continue to subsidize hydro rates, through legislation to lower rates, and hold any increases to the rate of inflation.

The OEB says the new rates, which the board says are “in line” with inflation, will take effect Nov. 1 as changes for electricity consumers roll out and could be noticed on bills within a few weeks of that date.

Prices are increasing partly due to government legislation aimed at reflecting the actual cost of supply on bills, and partly due to the refurbishment of nuclear facilities, contributing to higher hydro bills for some consumers.

So, effective November 1, Ontario electricity bills will show the true cost of power, after a period of a fixed COVID-19 hydro rate, and will include the new Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Previously the electricity rebate was concealed within the price-per-kilowatt-hour line item on electricity statements, prompting Hydro One bill redesign discussions to improve clarity. This meant customers could not see how much the government rebate was reducing their monthly costs, and bills did not display the true cost of electricity used.

"People deserve facts and accountability, especially when it comes to hydro costs," said Energy Minister Rickford.

The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will appear as a transparent on-bill line item and will replace the former government's Fair Hydro Plan says a government news release. This change comes in response to the Auditor General's special report on the former government's Fair Hydro Plan which revealed that "the government created a needlessly complex accounting/financing structure for the electricity rate reduction in order to avoid showing a deficit or an increase in net debt."

"The Electricity Distributors Association commends the government's commitment to making Ontario's electricity bills more transparent," said Teresa Sarkesian, President of the Electricity Distributors Association. "As the part of our electricity system that is closest to customers, local hydro utilities appreciated the opportunity to work with the government on implementing this important initiative. We worked to ensure that customers who receive their electricity bill will have a clear understanding of the true cost of power and the amount of their on-bill rebate. Local hydro utilities are focused on making electricity more affordable, reducing red tape, and providing customers with a modern and reliable electricity system that works for them."

The average customer will see the electricity line on their bill rise, showing the real cost per kilowatt hour. The new Ontario Electricity Rebate will compensate for that rise, and will be displayed as a separate line item on hydro bills. The average residential bill will rise in line with the rate of inflation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario electricity emissions forecast highlights rising grid CO2 as nuclear refurbishments and the Pickering closure drive more natural gas, limited renewables, and delayed Quebec hydro imports, pending advances in storage and transmission upgrades.

Key Points

A projection that Ontario's grid CO2 will rise as nuclear units refurbish or retire, increasing natural gas use.

✅ Nuclear refurbs and Pickering shutdown cut zero-carbon baseload

✅ Gas plants fill capacity gaps, boosting GHG emissions

✅ Quebec hydro imports face cost, transmission, and timing limits

Ontario's energy grid is among the cleanest in North America — but the province’s nuclear plans mean that some of our progress will be reversed over the next decade.

What was once Canada’s largest single source of greenhouse-gas emissions is now a solar-power plant. The Nanticoke Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant in Haldimand County, was decommissioned in stages from 2010 to 2013 — and even before the last remaining structures were demolished earlier this year, Ontario Power Generation had replaced its nearly 4,000 megawatts with a 44-megawatt solar project in partnership with the Six Nations of the Grand River Development Corporation and the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation.

But neither wind nor solar has done much to replace coal in Ontario’s hydro sector, a sign of how slowly Ontario is embracing clean power in practice across the province. At Nanticoke, the solar panels make up less than 2 per cent of the capacity that once flowed out to southern Ontario over high-voltage transmission lines. In cleaning up its electricity system, the province relied primarily on nuclear power — but the need to extend the nuclear system’s lifespan will end up making our electricity dirtier again.

“We’ve made some pretty great strides since 2005 with the fuel mix,” says Terry Young, vice-president of corporate communications at the Independent Electricity System Operator, the provincial agency whose job it is to balance supply and demand in Ontario’s electricity sector. “There have been big changes since 2005, but, yes, we will see an increase because of the closure of Pickering and the refurbs coming.”

“The refurbs” is industry-speak for the major rebuilds of both the Darlington and Bruce nuclear-power stations. The two are both in the early stages of major overhauls intended to extend their operating lives into the 2060s: in the coming years, they’ll be taken offline and rebuilt. (The Pickering nuclear plant will not be refurbished and will shut down in 2024.)

The catch is that, as the province loses its nuclear capacity in increments, Ontario will be short of electricity in the coming years and the IESO will need to find capacity elsewhere to make sure the lights stay on. And that could mean burning a lot more natural gas — and creating more greenhouse-gas emissions.

According to the IESO’s planning assumptions, electricity will be responsible for 11 megatonnes of greenhouse-gas emissions annually by 2035 (last year, it was three megatonnes). That’s the “reference case” scenario: if conservation and efficiency policies shave off some electricity demand, we could get it down to something like nine megatonnes. But if demand is higher than expected, it could be as high as 13 megatonnes — more than quadruple Ontario’s 2018 emissions.

Even in the worst-case scenario, the province’s emissions from electricity would still be less than half of what they were in 2005, before the province began phasing out its coal generation. But it’s still a reversal of a trend that both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives have boasted about — the Liberals to justify their energy policies, the PCs to justify their hostility to a federal carbon tax.

Young emphasized that technology can change and that the IESO’s planning assumptions are just that: projections based on the information available today. A revolution in electricity storage could make it possible to store the province’s cleaner power sources overnight for use during the day, but that’s still only in the realm of speculation — and the natural-gas infrastructure exists in the real world, today.

Ontario Power Generation — the Crown corporation that operates many of the province’s power plants, including Pickering and Darlington — recently bought four gas plants, two of them outright (two it already owned in part). All were nearly complete or already operational, so the purchase itself won’t change the province’s emissions prospects. Rather, OPG is simply looking to maintain its share of the electricity market after the Pickering shutdown.

“It will allow us to maintain our scale, with the upcoming end of Pickering’s commercial operations, so that we can continue our role as the driver of Ontario’s lower carbon future,” Neal Kelly, OPG’s director of media, issues, and management, told TVO.org via email. “Further, there is a growing need for flexible gas fired generation to support intermittent wind and solar generation.”

The shift to more gas-fired generation has been coming for a while, and critics say that Ontario has missed an opportunity to replace the lost Pickering capacity with something cleaner. MPP Mike Schreiner, leader of the Green party, has argued for years that Ontario should have pursued an agreement with Quebec to import clean hydroelectricity.

“To me, it’s a cost-effective solution, and it’s a zero-emissions solution,” Schreiner says. “Regardless of your position on sources of electricity, I think everyone could agree that waterpower from Quebec is going to be less expensive.”

Quebec is eager to sell Ontario its surplus hydro power, but not everyone agrees that importing power would be cheaper. A study published by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce (and commissioned by Ontario Power Generation) calls the claim a “myth” and states that upgrading electric-transmission wires between Ontario and Quebec would cost $1.2 billion and take 10 years, while some estimates suggest fully greening Ontario's grid would cost far more overall.

With Quebec imports seemingly a non-starter and major changes to Ontario’s nuclear fleet already underway, there’s only one path left for this province’s greenhouse-gas emissions: upwards.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canadian Energy Infrastructure Tariffs are reshaping pipelines, deregulation, and energy independence, as U.S. trade tensions accelerate approvals for Alberta oil sands, Trans Mountain expansion, and CAPP proposals amid regulatory reform and market diversification.

Key Points

U.S. tariff threats drive approvals, infrastructure, and diversification to strengthen Canada energy security.

✅ Tariff risk boosts support for pipelines and export routes

✅ Faster project approvals and deregulation gain political backing

✅ Diversifying markets reduces reliance on U.S. buyers

In recent months, the Canadian energy sector has experienced a shift in public and political attitudes toward infrastructure projects, particularly those related to oil and gas production. This shift has been largely influenced by the threat of tariffs from the United States, as well as growing concerns about energy independence and U.S.-Canada trade tensions more broadly.

Scott Burrows, the CEO of Pembina Pipeline Corp., noted in a conference call that the potential for U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy imports has spurred a renewed sense of urgency and receptiveness toward energy infrastructure projects in Canada. With U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs Trump tariff threat on Canadian imports, particularly a 10% tariff on energy products, there is increasing recognition within Canada that these projects are essential for the country’s long-term economic and energy security.

While the direct impact of the tariffs is not immediate, industry leaders are optimistic about the long-term benefits of deregulation and faster project approvals, even as some see Biden as better for Canada’s energy sector overall. Burrows highlighted that while it will take time for the full effects to materialize, there are significant "tailwinds" in favor of faster energy infrastructure development. This includes the possibility of more streamlined regulatory processes and a shift toward more efficient project timelines, which could significantly benefit the Canadian energy sector.

This changing landscape is particularly important for Alberta’s oil production, which is one of the largest contributors to Canada’s energy output. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has responded to the growing tariff threat by releasing an “energy platform,” outlining recommendations for Ottawa to help mitigate the risks posed by the evolving trade situation. The platform includes calls for improved infrastructure, such as pipelines and transportation systems, and priorities like clean grids and batteries, to ensure that Canadian energy can reach global markets more effectively.

The tariff threat has also sparked a wider conversation about the need for Canada to strengthen its energy infrastructure and reduce its dependency on the U.S. for energy exports. With the potential for escalating trade tensions, there is a growing push for Canadian energy resources to be processed and utilized more domestically, though cutting Quebec’s energy exports during a tariff war. This has led to increased political support for projects like the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which aims to connect Alberta’s oil sands to new markets in Asia via the west coast.

However, the energy sector’s push for deregulation and quicker approvals has raised concerns among environmental groups and Indigenous communities. Critics argue that fast-tracking energy projects could lead to inadequate environmental assessments and greater risks to local ecosystems. These concerns underscore the tension between economic development and environmental protection in the energy sector.

Despite these concerns, there is a clear consensus that Canada’s energy industry needs to evolve to meet the challenges posed by shifting trade dynamics, even as polls show support for energy and mineral tariffs in the current dispute. The proposed U.S. tariffs have made it increasingly clear that the country’s energy infrastructure needs significant investment and modernization to ensure that Canada can maintain its status as a reliable and competitive energy supplier on the global stage.

As the deadline for the tariff decision approaches, and as Ford threatens to cut U.S. electricity exports, Canada’s energy sector is bracing for the potential fallout, while also preparing to capitalize on any opportunities that may arise from the changing trade environment. The next few months will be critical in determining how Canadian policymakers, businesses, and environmental groups navigate the complex intersection of energy, trade, and regulatory reform.

While the threat of U.S. tariffs may be unsettling, it is also serving as a catalyst for much-needed changes in Canada’s energy policy. The push for faster approvals and deregulation may help address some of the immediate concerns facing the sector, but it will be crucial for the government to balance economic interests with environmental and social considerations as the country moves forward in its energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Utility Renewable Investment Gap highlights Oxford study in Nature Energy: most electric utilities favor fossil fuels over clean energy transition, expanding coal and gas, risking stranded assets and missing climate targets despite global decarbonization commitments.

Key Points

Most utilities grow fossil capacity over renewables, slowing decarbonization and jeopardizing climate goals.

✅ Only 10% expand renewables faster than coal and gas growth

✅ 60% still add fossil plants; 15% actively cut coal and gas

✅ Risks: stranded assets, missed climate targets, policy backlash

Only one in 10 of the world’s electric utility companies are prioritising clean energy investment over growing their capacity of fossil fuel power plants, according to research from the University of Oxford.

The study of more than 3,000 utilities found most remain heavily invested in fossil fuels despite international efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and barriers to 100% renewables in the US that persist, and some are actively expanding their portfolio of polluting power plants.

The majority of the utility companies, many of which are state owned, have made little change to their generation portfolio in recent years.

Only 10% of the companies in the study, published in the research journal Nature Energy, are expanding their renewable energy capacity, mirroring global wind and solar growth patterns, at a faster rate than their gas- or coal-fired capacity.

Advertisement
Of the companies prioritising renewable energy growth, 60% have not stopped concurrently expanding their fossil fuel portfolio and only 15% of these companies are actively reducing their gas and coal capacity.

Galina Alova, the author of the report, said the research highlighted “a worrying gap between what is needed” to tackle the climate crisis, with calls for a fossil fuel lockdown gaining attention, and “what actions are being taken by the utility sector”.

The report found 10% of utilities were favouring growth in gas-fired power plants. This cluster is dominated by US utilities, even as renewables surpass coal in US generation in the broader market, eager to take advantage of the country’s shale gas reserves, followed by Russia and Germany.

Only 2% of utilities are actively growing their coal-fired power capacity ahead of renewables or gas. This cluster is dominated by Chinese utilities – which alone contributed more than 60% of coal-focused companies – followed by India and Vietnam.

The report found the majority of companies prioritising renewable energy were clustered in Europe. Many of the industry’s biggest players are investing in low-carbon energy and green technologies, even as clean energy's dirty secret prompts debate, to replace their ageing fossil fuel power plants.

Sign up to the daily Business Today email or follow Guardian Business on Twitter at @BusinessDesk
In the UK, amid UK renewables backlog that has stalled billions, coal plants are shutting at pace ahead of the government’s 2025 ban on coal-fired power in part because the UK’s domestic carbon tax on power plants make them uneconomic to run.

“Although there have been a few high-profile examples of individual electric utilities investing in renewables, this study shows that overall, the sector is making the transition to clean energy slowly or not at all,” Alova said.

“Utilities’ continued investment in fossil fuels leaves them at risk of stranded assets – where power plants will need to be retired early – and undermines global efforts to tackle climate change.”
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Brazil ICMS Tax Cap limits state VAT on fuels, natural gas, electricity, communications, and transit, promising short-term price relief amid inflation, with federal compensation to states and potential legal challenges affecting investments and ANP auctions.

Key Points

A policy capping state VAT at 17-18 percent on fuels, electricity, and services to temper prices and inflation.

✅ Caps VAT to 17-18% on fuels, power, telecom, transit

✅ Short-term relief; medium-long term impact uncertain

✅ Federal compensation; potential court challenges, investment risk

Brazil’s congress approved a bill that limits the ICMS tax rate that state governments can charge on fuels, natural gas, electricity, communications, and public transportation. 

Local lawyers told BNamericas that the measure may reduce fuel and power prices in the short term, similar to Brazil power sector relief loans seen during the pandemic, but it is unlikely to produce any major effects in the medium and long term. 

In most states the ceiling was set at 17% or 18% and the federal government will pay compensation to the states for lost tax revenue until December 31, via reduced payments on debts that states owe the federal government.

The bill will become law once signed by President Jair Bolsonaro, who pushed strongly for the proposal with an eye on his struggling reelection campaign for the October presidential election. Double-digit inflation has turned into a major election issue and fuel and electricity prices have been among the main inflation drivers, as seen in EU energy-driven inflation across the bloc this year. Congress’ approval of the bill is seen by analysts as political victory for the Brazilian leader.

How much difference will it make?

Marcus Francisco, tax specialist and partner at Villemor Amaral Advogados, said that in the formation of fuel and electricity prices there are other factors, including high natural gas prices, that drive increases.

“In the case of fuels, if the barrel of oil [price] increases, automatically the final price for the consumer will go up. For electricity, on the other hand, there are several subsidies and policy choices such as Florida rejecting federal solar incentives that are part of the price and that can increase the rate [paid],” he said. 

There is also a possibility that some states will take the issue to the supreme court since ICMS is a key source of revenue for them, Francisco added.

Tiago Severini, a partner at law firm Vieira Rezende, said the comparison between the revenue impact and the effective price reduction, based on the estimates made by the states and the federal government, seems disproportionate, and, as seen in Europe, rolling back European electricity prices is often tougher than it appears. 

“In other words, a large tax collection impact is generated, which is quite unequal among the different states, for a not so strong price reduction,” he said.

“Due to the lack of clarity regarding the precision of the calculations involved, it’s difficult even to assess the adequacy of the offsets the federal government has been considering, and international cases such as France's new electricity pricing scheme illustrate how complex it can be to align fiscal offsets with regulatory constraints, to cover the cost it would have with the compensation for the states” Severini added.

The compensation ideas that are known so far include hiking other taxes, such as the social contribution on net profits (CSLL) that is paid by oil and gas firms focused on exploration and production.

“This can generate severe adverse effects, such as legal disputes, reduced investments in the country, and reduced attractiveness of the new auctions by [sector regulator] ANP, and costly interventions like the Texas electricity market bailout after extreme weather events,” Severini said. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Green Party Mission Possible 2030 outlines a rapid transition to renewable energy, electric vehicles, carbon pricing, and grid modernization, phasing out oil and gas while creating green jobs, public transit upgrades, and building retrofits.

Key Points

A Canadian climate roadmap to decarbonize by 2030 via renewables, EVs, carbon pricing, and grid upgrades.

✅ Ban on new gas cars by 2030; accelerate EV adoption and charging.

✅ 100 percent renewable-powered grid with interprovincial links.

✅ Just transition: retraining, green jobs, and building retrofits.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May has a vision for Canada in 2030. In 11 years, all new cars will be electric. A national ban will prohibit anyone from buying a gas-powered vehicle. No matter where you live, charging stations will make driving long distances easy and affordable. Alberta’s oil industry will be on the way out, replaced by jobs in sectors such as urban farming, renewable energy and retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency. The electric grid will be powered by 100 per cent renewable energy as Canada’s race to net-zero accelerates.

It’s all part of the Greens’ “Mission Possible” – a detailed plan released Monday with a level of ambition made clear by its very name. May insists it’s the only way to confront the climate crisis head-on before it’s too late.

“We have to set our targets on what needs to be done. You can’t negotiate with physics,” May told CTV’s Power Play on Monday.

But is that 2030 vision realistic?

CTVNews.ca spoke with experts in economics, political policy, renewable energy and climate science to explore how feasible May’s plan is, how much it would cost and what transitioning to an environmentally-centred economy would look like for everyday Canadians.

MOVING TO A GREEN ECONOMY

Recent polling from Nanos Research shows that the environment and climate change is the top issue among voters this election.

If the Greens win a majority on Oct. 21 – an outcome that May herself acknowledged isn’t likely – it would signal a major restructuring of the Canadian economy.

According to the party’s platform, jobs in the fuels sectors, such as oil and gas production in Alberta, would eventually disappear. The Greens say those job losses would be replaced by opportunities in a variety of fields including renewable energy, farming, public transportation, manufacturing, construction and information technology.

The party would also introduce a guaranteed livable income and greater support for technical and educational training to help workers transition to new jobs.

But Jean-Thomas Bernard, an economist who specializes in energy markets, said plenty of people in today’s energy sector, such as oil and gas workers, wouldn’t have the skills to make that transition.

“Quite a few of these jobs have low technical requirements. Driving a truck is driving a truck. So quite few of these people will not have the capacity to be recycled into well-paid jobs in the renewable sector,” he said.

“Maybe this would be for the young generation, but not people who are 40, 45, 50.”

Ryan Katz-Rosene is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa who researches environmental policy. He says May’s overall pitch is technically possible but would require a huge amount of enthusiasm on behalf of the public. 

“The plan in itself is not physically impossible. It is theoretically achievable. But it would require a major, major change in the urgency and the level of action, the level of investment, the level of popular urgency, the level of political commitment,” he said.

“But it’s not completely fantastical in it being theoretically impossible.”

PHASING OUT BITUMEN PRODUCTION

Katz-Rosene said that, under the Greens’ plan, Canadians would need to pay for a bold carbon pricing plan that helps shift the country away from fossil fuels and has significant implications for electricity grids, he said. It would also mean dramatically upscaling the capacity of Canada’s existing electrical grid to account for millions of new electric cars, reflecting the need for more electricity to hit net-zero as demand grows.

 “Given Canada’s slow attempt to climate action and pretty lacklustre results in these years, to be frank, this plan is very, very difficult to achieve. We’re talking 11 years from now. But things change, people change, and sometimes that change can occur very quickly. Just look at the type of climate mobilization we’re seen among young people in the last year, or the last five years.”

Bernard, the economist, is less optimistic. He cited international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol from 1997 and the more recent Paris Climate Agreement and said that little has come of those plans.

A climate solution with teeth, he suggests, would need to be global – something that no federal government can completely control.

“I find a lot this talk to be overly optimistic. I don’t know why we keep having this talk that is overly optimistic,” he said, adding that he believes humankind is already beyond the point of being able to stop irreversible climate change. 

“I think we are moving toward a mess, but the effort to control that is still not there.”

As for transitioning away from Canada’s oil industry, Bernard said May’s plan simply wouldn’t work.

“Trying to block some oil production here and there means more oil will be produced elsewhere,” he said. “Canada could become a clean country, but worldwide it would not be much.”

Mike Hudema, a climate organizer with Greenpeace Canada, thinks the Green Party’s promises for 2030 are big – and that’s kind of the point.

“They are definitely ambitious, but ambition is exactly what these times call for.  Unfortunately our government has delayed acting on this problem for so long that we have a very short timeline which we have to turn the ship,” he said.

“So this is the type of ambition that the science is calling for. So yes, I believe that if we here in Canada were to put our minds to addressing this problem, then we have the ability to reach it in that 2030 timeframe.”

In a statement to CTVNews.ca, a Green Party spokesperson said the 2030 timeline is intended to meet the 45 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 as laid out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“If we miss the 2030 target, we risk triggering runaway global warming,” the spokesperson said.

GREENING THE GRID BY 2030

Greening Canada’s existing electric grid – a goal May has pegged to 2030 – is quite feasible, Katz-Rosene said, and cleaning up Canada’s electricity is critical to meeting climate pledges. Already, 82 per cent of the country’s electric grid is run off of renewable resources, which makes Canada a world leader in the field, he said.

Hudema agrees.

“It is feasible. Canada does have a grid already that has a lot of renewables in it. So yes we can definitely make it over the hump and complete the transition. But we do need investments in our electric grid infrastructure to ensure a certain capability. That comes with tremendous job growth. That’s the exciting part that people keep missing,” Hudema said.

But Bernard said switching the grid to 100 per cent renewables would be quite difficult. He suggested that the Greens’ 2030 vision would require Ontario and Quebec’s hydro production to help power the Prairies.

“To think we could boost (hydro production) much more in order to meet Saskatchewan and Alberta’s needs? Oh boy. To do this before 2030? I think that’s not reasonable, not feasible.”

In a statement to CTV News, the Greens said their strategy includes building new connections between eastern Manitoba and western Ontario to transmit clean energy. They would also upgrade existing connections between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and between B.C. and Alberta to boost reliability.

A number of “micro-grids” in local communities capable of storing clean energy would help reduce the dependency on nationwide distribution systems, the party said.

Even so, the Greens acknowledged that, by 2030, some towns and cities will still be using some fossil fuels, and that even by 2050 – the goal for achieving overall carbon neutrality – some “legacy users” of fossil fuels will remain.

However, according to party projections, the emissions of these “legacy users” would be at most 8 per cent of today’s levels and those emissions would be “more than completely offset” by re-forestation and new technologies, such as CO2 capture and storage.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE REVOLUTION

The Green Party’s platform promises to revolutionize the Canadian auto sector. By 2030, all new cars made in Canada would be electric and federal EV sales regulations would prohibit the sale of cars powered by gasoline.

Danny Harvey, a geography professor with the University of Toronto who specializes in renewable energy, said he thinks May’s plan for making a 100 per cent renewable-powered electric grid is feasible.

On cars, however, he thinks the emphasis on electric vehicles is “misplaced.”

“At this point in time we should be requiring automobiles to transition, by 2030, to making cars that can go three times further on a litre of gasoline than at present. This would require selling only advanced hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), which would run entirely on gasoline (like current HEVs),” he said.

“After that, and when the grid is fully ready, we could make the transition to fully electric or plugin hybrid electric vehicles, possibly using H2 for long-distance driving.”

At the moment, zero-emissions vehicles account for just over 2 per cent of annual vehicle sales in Canada. Katz-Rosene said that “isn’t a whole lot,” but the industry is on an exponential growth curve that doesn’t show any signs of slowing.

The trouble with May’s 2030 goal on electric vehicles, he said, has to do with Canadians’ taste in vehicles. In short: Canadians like trucks.

“The biggest obstacle I see is that I don’t even think it’s possible to get a light-duty truck, a Ford F150, in an electric model in Canada. And that’s the most popular type of vehicle,” he said.

However, if a zero emissions truck were on the market – something that automakers are already working on – then that could potentially shake things up, especially if the government introduces incentives for electric vehicles and higher taxes on gasoline, he said.

WHAT ABOUT THE COST?

CTVNews.ca reached out to the Green Party to ask how it would pay to revamp the electrical grid. The party did not give a precise figure but said that the plan “has been estimated to cost somewhat less” than the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion.

The Greens have vowed to scrap the expansion and put that money toward the project.

Upgrading the electric grid to 100 per cent sustainable energy would also be a cost-effective, long-term solution, the Greens believe, though critics say Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans amid the transition.

“Current projects for renewable energy in Canada and worldwide are consistently at lower capital and operating costs than any type of fossil, hydro or nuclear energy project,” the party spokesperson said.

The party’s platform includes other potential sources of money, including closing tax loopholes for the wealthy, cracking down on offshore tax dodging and a new corporate tax on e-commerce companies, such as Facebook, Amazon and Netflix. The Greens have also vowed to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies.

As for the economic realities, Katz-Rosene acknowledged that May’s plan may appeal to “radical” voters who view economic growth as anathema to addressing climate change.

But while May’s plan would be disruptive, it isn’t anti-capitalist, he said.

“It’s restrained capitalism. But it by no means an anti-capitalist platform, and none of the parties have an anti-capitalist platform by any stretch of the imagination,” Katz-Rosene said.

From an economist’s perspective, Bernard said the plan is still “very costly” and that taxes can only go so far.

“In the end, no corporation operates at a loss. At some stage, these taxes have to go to the users,” he said.

But conversations around money must also consider the cost of inaction on climate change, Hudema said.

“Costing (Elizabeth May) is always a concern and how we’re going to afford these things is something we definitely need to keep top of mind. But within that conversation we need to look at what is the cost of not doing what is in line with what the science is saying. I would say that cost is much more substantial.”

“The forecast, if we don’t act – it’s astronomical.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News