Massachusetts Issues Energy Storage Solicitation Offering $10M

Canada EV Incentives drive adoption toward the 2035 zero-emission target, with rebates, federal and provincial programs boosting affordability amid concerns over charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and battery life, according to a BNN Bloomberg-Leger survey.

Key Points

Canada EV incentives are rebates and tax credits reducing EV costs to accelerate zero-emission vehicle adoption nationwide.

✅ Federal and provincial rebates reduce EV purchase prices

✅ Incentives offset range, battery, and charging concerns

✅ Larger incentives correlate with higher adoption rates

If the federal government wants to meet its ambitious EV goals of having all cars and passenger trucks sold in Canada be zero emissions by 2035, it’s going to have to do something about the cost of these vehicles.

A new survey from BNN Bloomberg and RATESDOTCA has found that cost is the number one reason stopping Canadians from buying an electric car.

The survey, which was conducted by Leger Marketing earlier this month, asked 1,511 Canadians if they were planning to purchase a new electric vehicle in the near future. It found that just over one in four, or 26 per cent of Canadians, are planning to do so, with Atlantic Canada lagging other regions. On the other hand, 19 per cent of Canadians are planning to buy a gas/diesel/hybrid card for their next purchase. 

Those who aren’t planning on buying an EV were asked what the biggest reason for their decision was. By far, it was the price of these vehicles: 31 per cent of this group cited cost as the main reason for not electrifying their ride. Another 59 per cent of respondents cited it as a concern, but not the main one. Other reasons for not wanting to buy an electric vehicle included lack of infrastructure (18 per cent), range concerns (16 per cent), and battery life and replacement (13 per cent), and some report EV shortages and wait times too.

What’s interesting is that it’s clear that government incentives for EVs are the most powerful tool right now to drive adoption, though some argue subsidies are a bad idea for Canada. When asked if further government incentives would convince them to buy an electric vehicle, 78 per cent of those surveyed said yes.

That’s right. If more governments increased the incentives offered for buying electric vehicles, reaching the goal of only selling zero emission vehicles in Canada by 2035 would no longer be a pipe dream, despite 2035 mandate skepticism from some.

At the moment, only Quebec and B.C. offer government incentives to buy an electric vehicle, even as B.C. charging bottlenecks are predicted. The federal government offers up to a $5,000 incentive, with restrictions including a limit on the total price of the vehicle, and has signaled EV sales regulations are forthcoming. Ontario previously offered a rebate of up to $14,000, however, the popular program was cancelled when the Progress Conservative government was elected in 2018.

The cancellation led to a plunge in new electric vehicle sales in Ontario, falling more than 55 per cent in the first six months of 2019 when compared to the same time period in the previous year, according to Electric Mobility Canada.

It’s no surprise that the larger the incentive, the more Canadians will be swayed to buy an electric car. Perhaps what’s surprising is that the incentive doesn’t even have to be as large as the previous Ontario rebate was. The survey found that seven per cent of Canadians would buy an electric vehicle if they got an incentive ranging anywhere from $5,001-$7,250. A full 35 per cent said a $12,500 or higher incentive would convince them.

The majority of Canadians surveyed said they use their vehicles for leisure or commuting to work. Leisure uses include running errands and seeing friends and family, of which 43 per cent of respondents said was the primary way they used their vehicle. Meanwhile, 36 per cent said they primarily used their car to commute to work.

The survey also found that incentives were more effective at convincing younger people to buy an electric vehicle. Eighty-three per cent of those under the age of 55 could be swayed by new incentives. But for those over 55, only 66 per cent said they would change their mind. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Biden Impact on Canadian Energy Exports highlights shifts in trade policy, tariffs, carbon pricing, and Keystone XL, with implications for aluminum, softwood lumber, electricity trade, fracking limits, and small modular nuclear reactors.

Key Points

How Biden-era trade, climate rules, and tariffs may reshape Canadian energy and exports.

✅ Reduced tariff volatility and friendlier trade policy toward allies

✅ Climate alignment: carbon pricing, clean power, cross-border electricity

✅ Potential gains for oil, gas, aluminum, and softwood lumber exporters

There is little doubt among industry associations, the Conference Board of Canada and C.D. Howe Institute that a Joe Biden White House will be better for Canadian resource and energy exporters – even Alberta’s beleaguered oil industry, despite Biden’s promise to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

The consensus among industry observers in the lead-up to the November 3 U.S. presidential election was that a re-elected Donald Trump would become even more pugnacious on trade and protectionism, putting electricity exports at risk for Canadian utilities, which would be bad for Canadian exporters. The Justin Trudeau government would likely come under increased pressure to lower Canadian business taxes to compete with Trump’s low-tax climate.

“A Joe Biden victory would likely lead to higher taxes for both corporations and wealthy Americans to help pay down the gigantic fiscal deficit that is currently running at plus-US$5 trillion,” the conference board concluded in a recent analysis.

On trade and tariffs, the conference board said: “Many but not all of these ongoing trade disputes would wither away under a Joe Biden administration. He would likely run a broad trade policy favouring strategic allies like Canada.

While Canadian industries like forestry and aluminum smelting benefited from strong demand and prices in the U.S. under Trump, the forced renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement failed end tariffs and duties on things like softwood lumber and aluminum ingots, even as Canadians backed tariffs on energy and minerals during the dispute.

The uncertainty over trade issues, and Trump’s tax cuts, which made Canada’s tax regime less competitive, have contributed to a period of low business investment in Canada during Trump's presidency.

“For Canada, we’ve seen a period, since this administration has been in power, where investment has eroded steadily,” conference board chief economist Pedro Antunes said. “We are not doing well at all, in terms of private capital investment in Canada.”

Alberta’s oil industry has been hit particularly hard, with a slew of divestments by big energy giants, and cancellations of major projects, like the $20 billion Frontier oilsands project, scrubbed by Teck Resources.

While domestic policies and global market forces are partly to blame for falling investments in Canada’s oil and gas sector, up until the pandemic hit, investment in oil and gas increased significantly in the U.S., while declining in Canada, during Trump’s first term.

Biden is also expected to level the playing field with respect to climate change policies. Canadian industries pay carbon taxes and face regulations that their counterparts in the U.S. don’t. That has disadvantaged energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries like mines and pulp mills in Canada.

“With Biden in office, Canada will once again have a partner at the federal level in the states in the transition to a decarbonized economy,” said Josha MacNab, national policy director for the Pembina Institute.

Biden’s policies might also favour importing aluminum, cross-laminated timber, fuel cells and other lower-carbon products and commodities from Canada.

At least one observer believes that Canada’s oil and gas sector might benefit more from a Biden White House, despite Biden’s pledge to kill the Keystone XL pipeline.

“I think Joe Biden could be very good for Alberta,” Christopher Sands, director of the Wilson International Center’s Canada Institute, said in a recent discussion hosted by the C.D. Howe Institute.

Sands added that the presidential permit Biden has promised to tear up on the Keystone XL pipeline project is a construction permit, not an operating permit.

“The segment of that pipeline that crosses the U.S.-Canada border, which is the only place that the presidential permit applies, has been built,” Sands said. “So I think that’s somewhat of an empty threat.”

He added that, if Biden bans fracking on federal lands, as he has promised, and implements other restrictions that make it more costly for American oil and gas producers, it might increase the demand for Canadian oil and gas in the U.S. The demand would be highest in the U.S. Midwest, which depends largely on Marcellus Shale production, notably in Pennsylvania, and Western Canada for its oil and gas.

One of the Canadian industries directly affected by the Trump administration was aluminum smelting, which is relevant for B.C. because Rio Tinto plc’s Kitimat smelter exports aluminum to the U.S.

Jean Simard, president of the Aluminum Association of Canada, said one of Trump’s legacies was the reactivation of a little-used mechanism – Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – to hit Canada and other countries, notably China, with import tariffs.

The 10 per cent tariffs on aluminum cost Canadian aluminum producers US$15 million in the month of August alone, Simard said.

The Trump administration eventually exempted Canadian aluminum exports from the tariffs, then reintroduced them, and then, one week before the election, exempted them again.

These on-again, off-again tariff threats create tremendous uncertainty, not just for Canadian producers, but also for U.S. buyers. That kind of uncertainty is likely to ease under a Biden presidency.

Simard said Biden’s track record suggests he is well-disposed towards Canada and less confrontational with allies and trade partners in general, and some in Washington have called for a stronger U.S.-Canada energy partnership as well.

Meanwhile, softwood lumber tariffs have been imposed by Democrats and Republicans alike. But there are compelling reasons for ending the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber war.

Home renovation and repair in the United States has done surprisingly well during the pandemic.

As a result of sawmill curtailments in the U.S. due to pandemic restrictions and high demand for lumber in the U.S. housing sector, North American lumbers prices broke records this summer, soaring as high as US$900 per thousand board feet.

“It shows that there’s very strong demand for our product,” said Susan Yurkovich, president of the Council of Forest Industries.

Ultimately, the duties Canadian lumber exporters pay are passed on to U.S. consumers.

Sands said Biden’s climate action pledges, including a clean electricity standard, could increase opportunities for trading electricity between Canada in the U.S., as the U.S. increasingly looks to Canada for green power, and could also be good for Canadian nuclear power technology.

Strong climate change policies necessarily result in an increased demand for low-carbon electricity, and advancing clean grids, which Canada has in abundance, thanks to both hydro and nuclear power.

“[Biden] does share the desire to act on climate change, but unlike some of his fellow party members who are more signed on to a Green New Deal, he’s open to pragmatic solutions that might get the job done quickly and efficiently,” Sands said.

“This is a huge opportunity for small, modular nuclear reactors, and Atomic Energy Canada has some great designs. There’s a real opportunity for a nuclear revival.” 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

IEA World Energy Outlook 2020 highlights solar power as the cheapest electricity, projects faster renewables growth, models net-zero pathways, assesses COVID-19 impacts, oil and gas demand, and policy scenarios including STEPS, SDS, and NZE2050.

Key Points

A flagship IEA report analyzing energy trends, COVID-19 impacts, renewables growth, and pathways to net-zero in 2050.

✅ Solar now the cheapest electricity in most major markets

✅ Scenarios: STEPS, SDS, NZE2050, plus delayed recovery case

✅ Oil and gas demand uncertain; CO2 peak needs stronger policy

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

That is according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2020. The 464-page outlook, published today by the IEA, also outlines the “extraordinarily turbulent” impact of coronavirus and the “highly uncertain” future of global energy use and progress in the global energy transition over the next two decades.

Reflecting this uncertainty, this year’s version of the highly influential annual outlook offers four “pathways” to 2040, all of which see a major rise in renewables across markets. The IEA’s main scenario has 43% more solar output by 2040 than it expected in 2018, partly due to detailed new analysis showing that solar power is 20-50% cheaper than thought.

Despite a more rapid rise for renewables and a “structural” decline for coal, the IEA says it is too soon to declare a peak in global oil use, unless there is stronger climate action. Similarly, it says demand for gas could rise 30% by 2040, unless the policy response to global warming steps up.

This means that, while global CO2 emissions have effectively peaked flatlining in 2019 according to the IEA, they are “far from the immediate peak and decline” needed to stabilise the climate. The IEA says achieving net-zero emissions will require “unprecedented” efforts from every part of the global economy, not just the power sector.

For the first time, the IEA includes detailed modeling of a 1.5C pathway that reaches global net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. It says individual behaviour change, such as working from home “three days a week”, would play an “essential” role in reaching this new “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050).

Future scenarios
The IEA’s annual World Energy Outlook (WEO) arrives every autumn and contains some of the most detailed and heavily scrutinised analysis of the global energy system. Over hundreds of densely packed pages, it draws on thousands of datapoints and the IEA’s World Energy Model.

The outlook includes several different scenarios, to reflect uncertainty over the many decisions that will affect the future path of the global economy, as well as the route taken out of the coronavirus crisis during the “critical” next decade. The WEO also aims to inform policymakers by showing how their plans would need to change if they want to shift onto a more sustainable path, including creating the right clean electricity investment incentives to accelerate progress.

This year it omits the “current policies scenario” (CPS), which usually “provides a baseline…by outlining a future in which no new policies are added to those already in place”. This is because “[i]t is difficult to imagine this ‘business as-usual’ approach prevailing in today’s circumstances”.

Those circumstances are the unprecedented fallout from the coronavirus pandemic, which remains highly uncertain as to its depth and duration. The crisis is expected to cause a dramatic decline in global energy demand in 2020, with oil demand also dropping sharply as fossil fuels took the biggest hit.

The main WEO pathway is again the “stated policies scenario” (STEPS, formerly NPS). This shows the impact of government pledges to go beyond the current policy baseline. Crucially, however, the IEA makes its own assessment of whether governments are credibly following through on their targets.

The report explains:

“The STEPS is designed to take a detailed and dispassionate look at the policies that are either in place or announced in different parts of the energy sector. It takes into account long-term energy and climate targets only to the extent that they are backed up by specific policies and measures. In doing so, it holds up a mirror to the plans of today’s policy makers and illustrates their consequences, without second-guessing how these plans might change in future.”

The outlook then shows how plans would need to change to plot a more sustainable path, highlighting efforts to replace fossil fuels with electricity in time to meet climate goals. It says its “sustainable development scenario” (SDS) is “fully aligned” with the Paris target of holding warming “well-below 2C…and pursuing efforts to limit [it] to 1.5C”. (This interpretation is disputed.)

The SDS sees CO2 emissions reach net-zero by 2070 and gives a 50% chance of holding warming to 1.65C, with the potential to stay below 1.5C if negative emissions are used at scale.

The IEA has not previously set out a detailed pathway to staying below 1.5C with 50% probability, with last year’s outlook only offering background analysis and some broad paragraphs of narrative.

For the first time this year, the WEO has “detailed modelling” of a “net-zero emissions by 2050 case” (NZE2050). This shows what would need to happen for CO2 emissions to fall to 45% below 2010 levels by 2030 on the way to net-zero by 2050, with a 50% chance of meeting the 1.5C limit, with countries such as Canada's net-zero electricity needs in focus to get there.

The final pathway in this year’s outlook is a “delayed recovery scenario” (DRS), which shows what might happen if the coronavirus pandemic lingers and the global economy takes longer to recover, with knock-on reductions in the growth of GDP and energy demand.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Electric Vehicles deliver longer range, faster charging, and broader price options, with incentives and lease deals reducing costs; evaluate performance, home charging, road trip needs, and vehicle types like SUVs, pickups, and vans.

Key Points

Electric vehicles are battery-powered cars that cut costs, boost performance, and charge at home or at fast stations.

✅ Longer range and faster charging reduce range anxiety

✅ Lower operating costs vs gas: fuel, maintenance, incentives

✅ Home Level 2 charging recommended; plan for road trips

Electric cars now drive farther, charge faster and come in nearly every price range. But when GMC began promoting its Hummer EV pickup truck to be released this year, it became even clearer that electric cars are primed to go mainstream for many buyers.

Once the domain of environmentalists, then early adopters, electric vehicles may soon have even truck bros kicking the gasoline habit, though sales are still behind gas cars in many markets.

With many models now available or coming soon — and arriving ahead of schedule for several automakers — including a knockoff of the lovable Volkswagen Microbus — you may be wondering if it’s finally time to buy or lease one.

Here are the essential questions to answer before you do.

(Full disclosure: I’m a convert myself after six years and 70,000 gas-free miles.)

1. Can you afford an electric car?
Electric vehicles tend to be pricy to buy but can be more affordable to lease. Finding federal, state and local government incentives can also reduce sticker shock. And, even if the monthly payment is higher than a comparable gas car, operating costs are lower.

Gas vehicles cost an average of $3,356 per year to fuel, tax and insure, while electric cost just $2,722, according to a study by Self Financial, and Consumer Reports finds EVs save money in the long run too. Find out how much you can save with the Department of Energy calculator.

2. How far do you need to drive on a single charge?
Although almost 60 percent of all car trips in America were less than 6 miles in 2017, according to the Department of Energy, the phrase “range anxiety” scared many would-be early adopters.

Teslas became popular in part because they offered 250 miles of range. But the range of many electric vehicles between charges is now over 200 miles; even the modestly priced Chevrolet Bolt can travel 259 miles on a single charge.

Still, electric vehicles have a “road trip problem,” according to Josh Sadlier, director of content strategy for car site Edmunds.com. “If you like road trips, you almost have to have two cars — one for around town and one for longer trips,” he says.

3. Where will you charge it?
If you live in an apartment without a charging station, this could be a deal breaker.

The number of public chargers increased by 60 percent worldwide in 2019, according to the International Energy Agency. While these stations — some of which are free — are more available, most electric vehicle owners install a home station for faster charging.

Electric vehicles can be charged by plugging into a common 120-volt household outlet, but it’s slow, and understanding charging costs can help you plan home use. To speed up charging, many electric vehicle owners wind up buying a 240-volt charging station and having an electrician install it for a total cost of $1,200, according to the home remodeling website Fixr.

4. What will you use the car for?
While there are a few luxury electric SUVs on the market, most electric vehicles are smaller sedans or hatchbacks with limited cargo capacity. However, the coming wave of electric cars are more versatile, and many experts expect that within a decade these options will be commonplace, including vans, such as the Microbus, and trucks, such as an electric version of the popular Ford F-150 pickup.

5. Do you enjoy performance?
This is where electric vehicles really shine. According to automotive experts, electric cars beat their gas counterparts in these ways:

Immediate response with great low-end acceleration, particularly in the 0-30 mph range.
Sure-footed handling due to the heavy battery mounted under the car, giving it a low center of gravity.
No “shift shock” from changing gears in a conventional gas car’s transmission.
Little noise except from the wind and tires.

Other factors
Once you consider the big questions, here are other reasons to make an electric car your next choice:

Reduced environmental guilt. There is a persistent myth that electric vehicles simply move the emissions from the tailpipe to the power generating station. Yes, producing electricity produces emissions, but many electric vehicle owners charge at night when much of the electricity would otherwise be unused. According to research published by the BBC and evidence that they are better for the planet in many scenarios electric cars reduce emissions by an average of 70 percent, depending on where people live.

Less time refueling. It takes only seconds to plug in at home, and the electric vehicle will recharge while you’re doing other things. No more searching for gas stations and standing by as your tank gulps down gasoline.

No oil changes. Dealers like a constant stream of drivers coming in for oil changes so they can upsell other services. Electric vehicles have fewer moving parts and require fewer trips to the dealership for maintenance.

Carpool lanes and other perks. Check your state regulations to see if an electric vehicle gets you access to the carpool lane, free parking or other special advantages.

Enjoy the technology. Yes, electric vehicles are more expensive, but they also tend to offer top-of-the-line comfort, safety features and technology compared with their gas counterparts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

EVI-Pro Lite EV Load Forecasting helps utilities model EV charging infrastructure, grid load shapes, and resilient energy systems, factoring home, workplace, and public charging behavior to inform planning, capacity upgrades, and flexible demand strategies.

Key Points

A NREL tool projecting EV charging demand and load shapes to help utilities plan the grid and right-size infrastructure.

✅ Visualizes weekday/weekend EV load by charger type.

✅ Tests home, workplace, and public charging access scenarios.

✅ Supports utility planning, demand flexibility, and capacity upgrades.

As electric vehicles (EVs) continue to grow in popularity, utilities and community planners are increasingly focused on building resilient energy systems that can support the added electric load from EV charging, including a possible EV-driven demand increase across the grid.

But forecasting the best ways to adapt to increased EV charging can be a difficult task as EV adoption will challenge state power grids in diverse ways. Planners need to consider when consumers charge, how fast they charge, and where they charge, among other factors.

To support that effort, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have expanded the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projection (EVI-Pro) Lite tool with more analytic capabilities. EVI-Pro Lite is a simplified version of EVI-Pro, the more complex, original version of the tool developed by NREL and the California Energy Commission to inform detailed infrastructure requirements to support a growing EV fleet in California, where EVs bolster grid stability through coordinated planning.

EVI-Pro Lite’s estimated weekday electric load by charger type for El Paso, Texas, assuming a fleet of 10,000 plug-in electric vehicles, an average of 35 daily miles traveled, and 50% access to home charging, among other variables, as well as potential roles for vehicle-to-grid power in future scenarios. The order of the legend items matches the order of the series stacked in the chart.

Previously, the tool was limited to letting users estimate how many chargers and what kind of chargers a city, region, or state may need to support an influx of EVs. In the added online application, those same users can take it a step further to predict how that added EV charging will impact electricity demand, or load shapes, in their area at any given time and inform grid coordination for EV flexibility strategies.

“EV charging is going to look different across the country, depending on the prevalence of EVs, access to home charging, and the kind of chargers most used,” said Eric Wood, an NREL researcher who led model development. “Our expansion gives stakeholders—especially small- to medium-size electric utilities and co-ops—an easy way to analyze key factors for developing a flexible energy strategy that can respond to what’s happening on the ground.”

Tools to forecast EV loads have existed for some time, but Wood said that EVI-Pro Lite appeals to a wider audience, including planners tracking EVs' impact on utilities in many markets. The tool is a user-friendly, free online application that displays a clear graphic of daily projected electric loads from EV charging for regions across the country.

After selecting a U.S. metropolitan area and entering the number of EVs in the light-duty fleet, users can change a range of variables to see how they affect electricity demand on a typical weekday or weekend. Reducing access to home charging by half, for example, results in higher electric loads earlier in the day, although energy storage and mobile charging can help moderate peaks in some cases. That is because under such a scenario, EV owners might rely more on public or workplace charging instead of plugging in at home later in the evening or at night.

“Our goal with the lite version of EVI-Pro is to make estimating loads across thousands of scenarios fast and intuitive,” Wood said. “And if utilities or stakeholders want to take that analysis even deeper, our team at NREL can fill that gap through partnership agreements, too. The full version of EVI-Pro can be tailored to develop detailed studies for individual planners, agencies, or utilities.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Renewable Energy Outlook highlights IEA forecasts of slower capacity growth as Ontario cancels LRP auctions; wind, solar, and hydro expand amid carbon pricing, coal phase-out, Alberta tenders, and falling costs despite natural gas competition.

Key Points

The Canada Renewable Energy Outlook distills IEA projections and policies behind wind, solar, and hydro growth to 2022.

✅ IEA trims Canada renewables growth to 9 GW by 2022

✅ Ontario LRP cuts and Quebec tenders reduce near-term additions

✅ Wind, solar, hydro expand amid carbon pricing and coal phase-out

A new report expects growth in Canadian renewable energy capacity to slow in the next five years compared to earlier projections, a decrease that comes after Ontario scrapped a contentious clean energy program aimed at boosting wind and solar supplies.

The International Energy Agency’s annual outlook for renewable energy, released Wednesday, projects Canada’s renewable capacity to grow by nine gigawatts between 2017 and 2022, down from last year’s report that projected capacity would grow by 13GW.

The influential Paris-based agency said its recent outlook for Canadian renewables was “less optimistic” than its 2016 projection due to “recent changes in auctions schemes in Ontario and Quebec.”

PROGRAM CUTS

In mid-2016 the Ontario government suspended the second phase of its Large Renewable Procurement (LPR) program, axing $3.8 billion in planned renewable energy contracts. And Quebec cancelled tenders for several clean energy projects, which also led the agency to trim its forecasts, the report said.

Ontario cut the LRP program amid anger over rising electricity bills, which critics said was at least partly due to the rapid expansion of wind power supplies across the province.

Experts said the rise in costs was also partly due to major one-time costs to maintain aging infrastructure, particularly the $12.8-billion refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear plant located east of Toronto. The province also has plans to renovate the nearby Pickering nuclear plant in coming years.

The IEA report comes as Ottawa aims to drastically cut carbon emissions, largely by expanding renewable energy capacity. The provinces, including the Prairie provinces, have meanwhile been looking to pare back emissions by phasing out coal and implementing a carbon tax.

While Ontario’s decision to scrap the LRP program is a minor setback in the near-term, analysts say that tightening environmental policy in Canada and elsewhere will regardless continue to drive rapid growth in renewable energy supplies like wind power and solar.

Even the threat of cheap supplies of natural gas, a major competitor to renewable supplies, is unlikely to keep wind and solar supplies off the market, despite lagging solar demand in some regions, as costs continue to fall.

“It’s not just this (Ontario) renewables program, it’s the carbon pricing program, the coal phase out, a whole plethora of programs that are squeezing natural gas margins,” said Dave Sawyer, an economist at EnviroEconomics in Ottawa.

RENEWABLE ENERGY CAPACITY

Canada’s renewable energy capacity is still expected to grow at a robust 10 per cent per year, the report said, and is expected to supply 69 per cent of overall power generation in the country by 2022.

The IEA, however, expects the growth in hydro power capacity to “slow significantly” beyond 2022, after a raft of new hydro projects come online.

Canadian hydro power capacity is projected to grow 2.2GW in the next five years, mostly due to the commissioning of the Keeyask plant in Manitoba the Muskrat Falls dam in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Romaine 3 and 4 stations in Quebec, in a sector where Canada ranks in the top 10 for hydropower jobs nationwide.

Solar capacity in Canada is expected to grow by 2GW to 4.7GW in 2022, approaching the 5 GW milestone in the near term, mostly due to feed-in-tariff programs in Ontario and renewable energy tenders currently underway in Alberta.

Globally, China and India lead renewable capacity growth projections. China alone is expected to be responsible for 40 per cent of renewable capacity growth in the next five years, while India will double its renewable electricity capacity by 2022. The world is collectively expected to grow renewable electricity capacity by 43 per cent between 2017 and 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News