California Legislators Prepare Vote to Crack Down on Utility Spending

Texas PUC Appointments signal post-storm reform as Gov. Greg Abbott taps Peter Lake and advances Will McAdams for Senate confirmation, affecting ERCOT oversight, grid reliability, wholesale power pricing, and securitization for co-ops.

Key Points

Texas PUC appointments add Peter Lake and Will McAdams to steer ERCOT, grid reliability, and market policy.

✅ Peter Lake nominated chair to replace Arthur D'Andrea.

✅ Will McAdams advances toward Senate confirmation.

✅ Focus on ERCOT oversight, price cap debate, grid resilience.

A new set of Texas electricity regulators began to take shape Monday, as Gov. Greg Abbott nominated a finance expert to be the next chairman of the Public Utility Commission while his earlier choice of a PUC member moved toward Senate confirmation.

The Republican governor put forward Peter Lake of Austin, who has spent more than five years as an Abbott appointee to the Texas Water Development Board, as his second commission pick in as many weeks.

“I am confident he will bring a fresh perspective and trustworthy leadership to the PUC,” Abbott said of Lake, who once worked as a trader of futures and derivatives for a firm belonging to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and more recently has eagerly promoted bonds for the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas.

“Peter’s expertise in the Texas energy industry and business management will make him an asset to the agency,” Abbott, who has touted grid readiness in recent months, said in a written statement. “I urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Peter’s appointment.”

On Monday, the Senate appeared to be moving quickly to confirm Abbott’s April 1 selection for the PUC, Will McAdams, president of Associated Builders and Contractors of Texas and a former legislative aide who helped write policy for regulated industries such as electricity.

McAdams was among the 129 nominees that the Senate Nominations Committee voted out, 8-0. His nomination heads now to the Senate floor.

All three of Abbott’s handpicked PUC commissioners who were in place before and during February’s calamitous winter storm have since quit or said they’re resigning, even as Sierra Club criticism of Abbott's demands intensified in the aftermath.

February’s polar vortex left in its wake physical and financial wreckage after a nonprofit grid operator answering to the PUC, amid calls for market reforms to avoid blackouts, shut off electricity to more than 4 million Texans, causing the deaths of at least 125 people, 13 of them in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.

Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday named Will McAdams to the embattled Public Utility Commission of Texas. McAdams is a construction industry lobbyist with strong ties to the GOP-controlled Legislature. In Feb. 17 file photo, winter storm's snowfall andn large electrical transmission lines in South Arlington are pictured.

In a 45-minute confirmation hearing, McAdams, as lawmakers discussed ways to improve electricity reliability statewide, drew praise – and few tough questions.

McAdams, who previously worked for three GOP senators, testified that had he been on the commission in February, he would not have kept in place a controversial, $9,000-per-megawatt hour price cap on wholesale power for about 32 hours on Feb. 18-19.

“I don’t see myself making that decision,” he said.

McAdams, though, hedged slightly, saying he’s not privy to all information that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT, and the PUC may have had at their disposal during the crisis.

The comments were notable because Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and the Senate have fought with Abbott and the House over $16 billion in overcharges that, according to an independent market monitor, wrongly accrued near the end of the Feb. 15-19 outages.

Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, said the commission’s former chairwoman, DeAnn Walker, and Bill Magness, president of ERCOT, decided to hold the high cap in place because there “was still great concern about grid stability, even though there was significant reserves.”

He pressed McAdams to call that incorrect, which McAdams did.

“Given the fact pattern that I’m privy to, senator,” it wasn’t the right move, he said. “But again, there may be other facts out there. There probably are.”

McAdams acknowledged many homeowners and businesses were traumatized.

“The public’s confidence in the ability of the PUC to effectively regulate our electric markets has been badly damaged and shaken,” he said.

McAdams spoke favorably of renewable energy, calling wind and solar “absolutely valuable resources,” as the electricity sector faces profound change nationwide. To whatever extent those are not available, the PUC should “firm that up” with “dispatchable forms of generation,” such as gas, coal and nuclear, McAdams said.

He also called for lawmakers to consider providing electricity market bailout through “securitization,” or low-interest bond financing, to rural electric co-ops that were unable to pay the massive wholesale power bills they racked up during the February crisis.

“It would prevent those systems from having to front-load those costs onto their own members and smooth that out over a term of years,” while preventing an “uplift” of costs to other market participants who wisely hedged against soaring prices, McAdams said.

Noting that more than 400 bills have been filed to change ERCOT and how it’s governed, and as Texans prepare to vote on grid modernization funding this year, McAdams told the Senate panel, “It is clear to me that the Legislature wants meaningful changes to the status quo – to ensure that something positive comes out of this tragedy.”

Lake, who if confirmed by the Senate would replace Arthur D’Andrea as PUC chairman, grew up in Tyler. He attended prep school in New England and earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago and a master of business administration degree from Stanford University.

He then worked for a commodities trading firm, a behavioral health company and as a business consultant before he became director of business development for Tyler-based Lake Ronel Oil Co. in 2014.

In late 2015, Abbott named Lake to the Texas Water Development Board and in February 2018 picked him to be the chairman of the three-member board that seeks to ensure water supplies for a fast-growing state.

Lake has steered the water board as it rolled out additional loans for water projects, approved by the Legislature and voters in 2013, and took the lead after Hurricane Harvey on flood control planning and infrastructure financing.

He’s posted exuberantly on Twitter as he toured agricultural water installations, lakes in West Texas and river authorities.

If confirmed, Lake and McAdams each would make $189,500 a year.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Western Canada Hydropower Drought strains British Columbia and Manitoba as reservoirs hit historic lows, cutting hydroelectric output and prompting power imports, natural gas peaking, and grid resilience planning amid climate change risks this winter.

Key Points

Climate-driven reservoir lows cut hydro in B.C. and Manitoba, prompting imports and backup gas to maintain reliability.

✅ Reservoirs at multi-year lows cut hydro generation capacity

✅ BC Hydro and Manitoba Hydro import electricity for reliability

✅ Natural gas turbines used; climate change elevates drought risk

Severe drought conditions in Western Canada are compelling two hydroelectricity-dependent provinces, British Columbia and Manitoba, to import power from other regions. These provinces, known for their reliance on hydroelectric power, are facing reduced electricity production due to low water levels in reservoirs this autumn and winter as energy-intensive customers encounter temporary connection limits.

While there is no immediate threat of power outages in either province, experts indicate that climate change is leading to more frequent and severe droughts. This trend places increasing pressure on hydroelectric power producers in the future, spurring interest in upgrading existing dams as part of adaptation strategies.

In British Columbia, several regions are experiencing "extreme" drought conditions as classified by the federal government. BC Hydro spokesperson Kyle Donaldson referred to these conditions as "historic," and a first call for power highlights the strain, noting that the corporation's large reservoirs in the north and southeast are at their lowest levels in many years.

To mitigate this, BC Hydro has been conserving water by utilizing less affected reservoirs and importing additional power from Alberta and various western U.S. states. Donaldson confirmed that these measures would persist in the upcoming months.

Manitoba is also facing challenges with below-normal levels in reservoirs and rivers. Since October, Manitoba Hydro has occasionally relied on its natural gas turbines to supplement hydroelectric production as electrical demand could double over the next two decades, a measure usually reserved for peak winter demand.

Bruce Owen, a spokesperson for Manitoba Hydro, reassured that there is no imminent risk of a power shortage. The corporation can import electricity from other regions, similar to how it exports clean energy in high-water years.

However, the cost implications are significant. Manitoba Hydro anticipates a financial loss for the current fiscal year, with more red ink tied to emerging generation needs, the second in a decade, with the previous one in 2021. That year, drought conditions led to a significant reduction in the company's power production capabilities, resulting in a $248-million loss.

The 2021 drought also affected hydropower production in the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy reported a 16% reduction in overall generation, with notable decreases at major facilities like Nevada's Hoover Dam, where production dropped by 25%.

Drought has long been a major concern for hydroelectricity producers, and they plan their operations with this risk in mind. Manitoba's record drought in 1940-41, for example, is a benchmark for Manitoba Hydro's operational planning to ensure sufficient electricity supply even in extreme low-water conditions.

Climate change, however, is increasing the frequency of such rare events, highlighting the need for more robust backup systems such as new turbine investments to enhance reliability. Blake Shaffer, an associate professor of economics at the University of Calgary specializing in electricity markets, emphasized the importance of hydroelectric systems incorporating the worsening drought forecasts due to climate change into their energy production planning.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Baltic States EU Grid Synchronization strengthens energy independence and electricity security, ending IPS/UPS reliance. Backed by interconnectors like LitPol Link, NordBalt, and Estlink, it aligns with NATO interests and safeguards against subsea infrastructure threats.

Key Points

A shift by Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to join the EU grid, boosting energy security and reducing Russian leverage.

✅ Synchronized with EU grid on Feb 9, 2025 after islanding tests.

✅ New interconnectors: LitPol Link, NordBalt, Estlink upgrades.

✅ Reduces IPS/UPS risks; bolsters NATO and critical infrastructure.

In a landmark move towards greater energy independence and European integration, the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have officially disconnected from Russia's electricity grid, a path also seen in Ukraine's rapid grid link to the European system. This decisive action, completed in February 2025, not only ends decades of reliance on Russian energy but also enhances the region's energy security and aligns with broader geopolitical shifts.

Historical Context and Strategic Shift

Historically, the Baltic states were integrated into the Russian-controlled IPS/UPS power grid, a legacy of their Soviet past. However, in recent years, these nations have sought to extricate themselves from Russian influence, aiming to synchronize their power systems with the European Union (EU) grid. This transition gained urgency following Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and further intensified after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, as demonstrated by Russian strikes on Ukraine's grid that underscored energy vulnerability.

The Disconnection Process

The process culminated on February 8, 2025, when Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania severed their electrical ties with Russia. For approximately 24 hours, the Baltic states operated in isolation, conducting rigorous tests to ensure system stability and resilience, echoing winter grid protection efforts seen elsewhere. On February 9, they successfully synchronized with the EU's continental power grid, marking a historic shift towards European energy integration.

Geopolitical and Security Implications

This transition holds significant geopolitical weight. By disconnecting from Russia's power grid, the Baltic states reduce potential leverage that Russia could exert through energy supplies. The move also aligns with NATO's strategic interests, enhancing the security of critical infrastructure in the region, amid concerns about Russian hacking of US utilities that highlight cyber risks.

Economic and Technical Challenges

The shift was not without challenges. The Baltic states had to invest heavily in infrastructure to ensure compatibility with the EU grid and navigate regional market pressures such as a Nordic grid blockade affecting transmission capacity. This included constructing new interconnectors and upgrading existing facilities. For instance, the LitPol Link between Lithuania and Poland, the NordBalt cable connecting Lithuania and Sweden, and the Estlink between Estonia and Finland were crucial in facilitating this transition.

Impact on Kaliningrad

The disconnection has left Russia's Kaliningrad exclave isolated from the Russian power grid, relying solely on imports from Lithuania. While Russia claims to have measures in place to maintain power stability in the region, the long-term implications remain uncertain.

Ongoing Security Concerns

The Baltic Sea region has experienced heightened security concerns, particularly regarding subsea cables and pipelines. Increased incidents of damage to these infrastructures have raised alarms about potential sabotage, including a Finland cable damage investigation into a suspected Russian-linked vessel. Authorities continue to investigate these incidents, emphasizing the need for robust protection of critical energy infrastructure.

The successful disconnection and synchronization represent a significant step in the Baltic states' journey towards full integration with European energy markets. This move is expected to enhance energy security, promote economic growth, and solidify geopolitical ties with the EU and NATO. As the region continues to modernize its energy infrastructure, ongoing vigilance against security threats will be paramount, as recent missile and drone attacks on Kyiv's grid demonstrate.

The Baltic states' decision to disconnect from Russia's power grid and synchronize with the European energy system is a pivotal moment in their post-Soviet transformation. This transition not only signifies a break from historical dependencies but also reinforces their commitment to European integration and collective security. As these nations continue to navigate complex geopolitical landscapes, their strides towards energy independence serve as a testament to their resilience and strategic vision.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Ontario Nuclear Power Costs highlight LCOE, capex, refurbishment outlays, and waste management, compared with renewables, grid reliability, and emissions targets, informing Australia and Peter Dutton on feasibility, timelines, and electricity prices.

Key Points

They include high capex and LCOE from refurbishments and waste, offset by reliable, low-emission baseload.

✅ Refurbishment and maintenance drive lifecycle and LCOE variability.

✅ High capex and long timelines affect consumer electricity prices.

✅ Low emissions, but waste and safety compliance add costs.

Australian opposition leader Peter Dutton recently lauded Canada’s use of nuclear power as a model for Australia’s energy future. His praise comes as part of a broader push to incorporate nuclear energy into Australia’s energy strategy, which he argues could help address the country's energy needs and climate goals. However, the question arises: Is Ontario’s experience with nuclear power as cost-effective as Dutton suggests?

Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power strategy highlights a belief that nuclear energy could provide a stable, low-emission alternative to fossil fuels. He has pointed to Ontario’s substantial reliance on nuclear power, and the province’s exploration of new large-scale nuclear projects, as an example of how such an energy mix might benefit Australia. The province’s energy grid, which integrates a significant amount of nuclear power, is often cited as evidence that nuclear energy can be a viable component of a diversified energy portfolio.

The appeal of nuclear power lies in its ability to generate large amounts of electricity with minimal greenhouse gas emissions. This characteristic aligns with Australia’s climate goals, which emphasize reducing carbon emissions to combat climate change. Dutton’s advocacy for nuclear energy is based on the premise that it can offer a reliable and low-emission option compared to the fluctuating availability of renewable sources like wind and solar.

However, while Dutton’s enthusiasm for the Canadian model reflects its perceived successes, including recent concerns about Ontario’s grid getting dirtier amid supply changes, a closer look at Ontario’s nuclear energy costs raises questions about the financial feasibility of adopting a similar strategy in Australia. Despite the benefits of low emissions, the economic aspects of nuclear power remain complex and multifaceted.

In Ontario, the cost of nuclear power has been a topic of considerable debate. While the province benefits from a stable supply of electricity due to its nuclear plants, studies warn of a growing electricity supply gap in coming years. Ontario’s experience reveals that nuclear power involves significant capital expenditures, including the costs of building reactors, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring safety standards. These expenses can be substantial and often translate into higher electricity prices for consumers.

The cost of maintaining existing nuclear reactors in Ontario has been a particular concern. Many of these reactors are aging and require costly upgrades and maintenance to continue operating safely and efficiently. These expenses can add to the overall cost of nuclear power, impacting the affordability of electricity for consumers.

Moreover, the development of new nuclear projects, as seen with Bruce C project exploration in Ontario, involves lengthy and expensive construction processes. Building new reactors can take over a decade and requires significant investment. The high initial costs associated with these projects can be a barrier to their economic viability, especially when compared to the rapidly decreasing costs of renewable energy technologies.

In contrast, the cost of renewable energy has been falling steadily, even as debates over nuclear power’s trajectory in Europe continue, making it a more attractive option for many jurisdictions. Solar and wind power, while variable and dependent on weather conditions, have seen dramatic reductions in installation and operational costs. These lower costs can make renewables more competitive compared to nuclear energy, particularly when considering the long-term financial implications.

Dutton’s praise for Ontario’s nuclear power model also overlooks some of the environmental and logistical challenges associated with nuclear energy. While nuclear power generates low emissions during operation, it produces radioactive waste that requires long-term storage solutions. The management of nuclear waste poses significant environmental and safety concerns, as well as additional costs for safe storage and disposal.

Additionally, the potential risks associated with nuclear power, including the possibility of accidents, contribute to the complexity of its adoption. The safety and environmental regulations surrounding nuclear energy are stringent and require continuous oversight, adding to the overall cost of maintaining nuclear facilities.

As Australia contemplates integrating nuclear power into its energy mix, it is crucial to weigh these financial and environmental considerations. While the Canadian model provides valuable insights, the unique context of Australia’s energy landscape, including its existing infrastructure, energy needs, and the costs of scrapping coal-fired electricity in comparable jurisdictions, must be taken into account.

In summary, while Peter Dutton’s endorsement of Canada’s nuclear power model reflects a belief in its potential benefits for Australia’s energy strategy, the cost-effectiveness of Ontario’s nuclear power experience is more nuanced than it may appear. The high capital and maintenance costs associated with nuclear energy, combined with the challenges of managing radioactive waste and ensuring safety, present significant considerations. As Australia evaluates its energy future, a comprehensive analysis of both the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power will be essential to making informed decisions about its role in the country’s energy strategy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Ontario CEAP Program provides one-time electricity bill relief for residential consumers via local utilities, supports low-income households, aligns with COVID-19 recovery rates, and complements time-of-use pricing options and the winter disconnection ban.

Key Points

A one-time electricity bill credit for eligible Ontario households affected by COVID-19, available via local utilities.

✅ Apply through your local distribution company or utility

✅ One-time credit for overdue electricity bills from COVID-19

✅ Complements TOU options, OER, and winter disconnection ban

Applications for the CEAP program for Ontario residential consumers has opened. Residential customers across the province can now apply for funding through their local distribution company/utility.

On June 1st, our government announced a suite of initiatives to support Ontario’s electricity consumers amid changes for electricity consumers during the pandemic, including a $9 million investment to support low-income Ontarians through the COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program (CEAP). CEAP will provide a one-time payment to Ontarians who are struggling to pay down overdue electricity bills incurred during the COVID-19 outbreak.

These initiatives include:

• $9 million for the COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program (CEAP) to support consumers struggling to pay their energy bills during the pandemic. CEAP will provide one-time payments to consumers to help pay down any electricity bill debt incurred over the COVID19 period. Applications will be available through local utilities in the upcoming months;
• $8 million for the COVID-19 Energy Assistance Program for Small Business (CEAP-SB) to provide support to businesses struggling with bill payments as a result of the outbreak; and
• An extension of the Ontario Energy Board’s winter disconnection ban until July 31, 2020 to ensure no one is disconnected from their natural gas or electricity service during these uncertain times.

More information about applications for the CEAP for Small Business will be coming later this summer, as electricity rates are about to change across Ontario for many customers.

In addition, the government recently announced that it will continue the suspension of time-of-use (TOU) electricity rates and, starting on June 1, 2020, customers will be billed based on a new fixed COVID-19 hydro rate of 12.8 cents per kilowatt hour. The COVID-19 Recovery Rate, which some warned in analysis could lead to higher hydro bills will be in place until October 31, 2020.

Later in the pandemic, Ontario set electricity rates at the off-peak price until February 7 to provide additional relief.

“Starting November 1, 2020, our government has announced Ontario electricity consumers will have the option to choose between time-of-use and tiered electricity pricing plan, following the Ontario Energy Board’s new rate plan prices and support thresholds announcement. We are proud to soon offer Ontarians the ability to choose an electricity plan that best suits for their lifestyle,” said Jim McDonell, MPP for Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

The government will continue to subsidize electricity bills by 31.8 per cent through the Ontario Electricity Rebate.

The government is providing approximately $5.6 billion in 2020-21 as part of its existing electricity cost relief programs and conservation initiatives such as the Peak Perks program to help ensure more affordable electricity bills for eligible residential, farm and small business consumers.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy 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