Power customers in British Columbia, Quebec have faced fees for refusing the installation of smart meters

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

COVID-19 Impact on Global Oil Demand 2020 signals an IEA forecast of declining consumption as travel restrictions curb transport fuels, disrupt energy markets, and shift OPEC and non-OPEC supply dynamics amid economic slowdown.

Key Points

IEA sees first demand drop since 2009 as COVID-19 curbs travel, weakening transport fuels and unsettling energy markets.

✅ IEA base case: 2020 demand at 99.9 mb/d, down 90 kb/d from 2019.

✅ Travel restrictions hit transport fuels; China drives the decline.

✅ Scenarios: low -730 kb/d; high +480 kb/d in 2020.

Global oil demand is expected to decline in 2020 as the impact of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) spreads around the world, constricting travel and broader economic activity, according to the International Energy Agency’s latest oil market forecast.

The situation remains fluid, creating an extraordinary degree of uncertainty over what the full global impact of the virus will be. In the IEA’s central base case, even as global CO2 emissions flatlined in 2019 according to the IEA, demand this year drops for the first time since 2009 because of the deep contraction in oil consumption in China, and major disruptions to global travel and trade.

“The coronavirus crisis is affecting a wide range of energy markets – including coal-fired electricity generation, gas and renewables – but its impact on oil markets is particularly severe because it is stopping people and goods from moving around, dealing a heavy blow to demand for transport fuels,” said Dr Fatih Birol, the IEA’s Executive Director. “This is especially true in China, the largest energy consumer in the world, which accounted for more than 80% of global oil demand growth last year. While the repercussions of the virus are spreading to other parts of the world, what happens in China will have major implications for global energy and oil markets.”

The IEA now sees global oil demand at 99.9 million barrels a day in 2020, down around 90,000 barrels a day from 2019. This is a sharp downgrade from the IEA’s forecast in February, which predicted global oil demand would grow by 825,000 barrels a day in 2020.

The short-term outlook for the oil market will ultimately depend on how quickly governments move to contain the coronavirus outbreak, how successful their efforts are, and what lingering impact the global health crisis has on economic activity.

To account for the extreme uncertainty facing energy markets, the IEA has developed two other scenarios for how global oil demand could evolve this year. In a more pessimistic low case, global measures fail to contain the virus, and global demand falls by 730,000 barrels a day in 2020. In a more optimistic high case, the virus is contained quickly around the world, and global demand grows by 480,000 barrels a day.

“We are following the situation extremely closely and will provide regular updates to our forecasts as the picture becomes clearer,” Dr Birol said. “The impact of the coronavirus on oil markets may be temporary. But the longer-term challenges facing the world’s suppliers are not going to go away, especially those heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues. As the IEA has repeatedly said, these producer countries need more dynamic and diversified economies in order to navigate the multiple uncertainties that we see today.”

The IEA also published its medium-term outlook examining the key issues in global demand, supply, refining and trade to 2025, as well as the trajectory of the global energy transition now shaping markets. Following a contraction in 2020 and an expected sharp rebound in 2021, yearly growth in global oil demand is set to slow as consumption of transport fuels grows more slowly and as national net-zero pathways, with Canada needing more electricity to reach net-zero influencing power demand, according to the report. Between 2019 and 2025, global oil demand is expected to grow at an average annual rate of just below 1 million barrels a day. Over the period as whole, demand rises by a total of 5.7 million barrels a day, with China and India accounting for about half of the growth.

At the same time, the world’s oil production capacity is expected to rise by 5.9 million barrels a day, with more than three-quarters of it coming from non-OPEC producers, the report forecasts. But production growth in the United States and other non-OPEC countries is set to lose momentum after 2022, amid shifts in Wall Street's energy strategy linked to policy signals, allowing OPEC producers from the Middle East to turn the taps back up to help keep the global oil market in balance.

The medium-term market report, Oil 2020, also considers the impact of clean energy transitions on oil market trends. Demand growth for gasoline and diesel between 2019 and 2025 is forecast to weaken as countries around the world implement policies to improve efficiency and cut carbon dioxide emissions – and as solar power becomes the cheapest electricity in many markets and electric vehicles increase in popularity. The impact of energy transitions on oil supply remains unclear, with many companies prioritising short-cycle projects for the coming years.

“The coronavirus crisis is adding to the uncertainties the global oil industry faces as it contemplates new investments and business strategies,” Dr Birol said. “The pressures on companies are changing, with European oil majors turning electric to diversify. They need to show that they can deliver not just the energy that economies rely on, but also the emissions reductions that the world needs to help tackle our climate challenge.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Canada Three-Layer Mask Recommendation advises non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter layer and tightly woven cotton, aligned with WHO guidance, to curb COVID-19 aerosols indoors through better fit, coverage, and public health compliance.

Key Points

PHAC advises three-layer non-medical masks with a polypropylene filter to improve indoor COVID-19 protection.

✅ Two fabric layers plus a non-woven polypropylene filter

✅ Ensure snug fit: cover nose, mouth, chin without gaps

✅ Aligns with WHO guidance for aerosols and droplets

The Public Health Agency of Canada is now recommending Canadians choose three-layer non-medical masks with a filter layer to prevent the spread of COVID-19, even as an IEA report projects higher electricity needs for net-zero, as they prepare to spend more time indoors over the winter.

Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam made the recommendation during her bi-weekly pandemic briefing in Ottawa Tuesday, as officials also track electricity grid security amid critical infrastructure concerns.

"To improve the level of protection that can be provided by non-medical masks or face coverings, we are recommending that you consider a three-layer nonmedical mask," she said.

Trust MedProtect For All Your Mask Protection

www.medprotect.ca/collections/protective-masks

According to recently updated guidelines, two layers of the mask should be made of a tightly woven fabric, such as cotton or linen, and the middle layer should be a filter-type fabric, such as non-woven polypropylene fabric, as Canada explores post-COVID manufacturing capacity for PPE.

"We're not necessarily saying just throw out everything that you have," Tam told reporters, suggesting adding a filter can help with protection.

The Public Health website now includes instructions for making three-layer masks, while national goals like Canada's 2050 net-zero target continue to shape recovery efforts.

The World Health Organization has recommended three layers for non-medical masks since June, and experts note that cleaning up Canada's electricity is critical to broader climate resilience. When pressed about the sudden change for Canada, Tam said the research has evolved.

"This is an additional recommendation just to add another layer of protection. The science of masks has really accelerated during this particular pandemic. So we're just learning again as we go," she said.

"I do think that because it's winter, because we're all going inside, we're learning more about droplets and aerosols, and how indoor comfort systems from heating to air conditioning costs can influence behaviors."

She also urged Canadians to wear well-fitted masks that cover the nose, mouth and chin without gaping, as the federal government advances emissions and EV sales regulations alongside public health guidance.

Trust MedProtect For All Your Mask Protection

www.medprotect.ca/collections/protective-masks

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Climate Change Consensus and Disinformation highlights the 97% peer-reviewed agreement on human-caused warming, IPCC warnings, and how fossil fuel lobbying, misinformation, and astroturf tactics echo tobacco denial to mislead media and voters.

Key Points

Explains the 97% scientific consensus and the disinformation that obscures IPCC findings and misleads the public.

✅ 97% peer-reviewed consensus on human-caused climate change

✅ Fossil fuel funding drives denial and media misinformation

✅ IPCC and major scientific bodies confirm severe impacts

Orson Johnson says there is no scientific consensus on climate change. He’s wrong. A 2015 study by Drexel University’s Robert Brulle found that nearly $1 billion per year is being spent to support climate change denial. Electric utilities, fossil fuel and transportation sectors outspent environmental and renewable energy sectors by more than 10-to-1, undermining efforts to achieve net-zero electricity emissions globally. It is virtually the same strategy that tobacco companies used to deny the dangers of tobacco smoke, spending hundreds of millions of dollars to delay recognition of harm from tobacco smoke for decades, and today Trump's oil policies can similarly influence Wall Street's energy strategy. These are the same debunked sources Johnson quotes in his commentary.

The authors of six independent peer-reviewed papers on the consensus for human-caused climate change examined “the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies,” according to an abstract in Environmental Research Letters, and public support for action is strong, with most Americans willing to contribute financially to climate solutions. Of the 30,000 scientists (people with a bachelor’s degree or higher in science) Johnson cites, only 39 specialized in climate science.

A new study by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change draws on momentum from the Katowice climate summit to warn that “The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”

California’s Office of Planning and Research says: “Every major scientific organization in the United States with relevant expertise has confirmed the IPCC’s conclusion, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The list of international scientific organizations affirming the worldwide consensus on climate change is even longer.”

Former President Obama argued that decarbonization is irreversible as the clean-energy transition accelerates.

This issue is a symptom of an even larger problem. Recently, Facebook announced it would continue to allow political ads that contain obvious lies. America’s corporate news media has been following the same policy for years. Printing stories and commentary with information that is clearly not true or where data has been cherry-picked to strongly imply a lie, such as claims that Ottawa is making electricity more expensive for Albertans, sets up a false equivalence fallacy in which two incompatible arguments appear to be logically equivalent when, in fact, they are not.

Conservatives focus exclusively on progressive income taxes to argue that rich people pay a disproportionate share of taxes while ignoring that they take a disproportionate share of income, and federal income taxes account for less than half of taxes collected, with almost all of the other taxes being heavily regressive. Critics of single-payer healthcare disregard that almost every other developed country on earth has been using single-payer for decades to provide better care with universal coverage at roughly half the cost. Other examples abound, including recent policy milestones like the historic U.S. climate deal that nevertheless become targets of misinformation. We live in a society where truth is no longer truth, reality is supplanted by alternative facts and where crippling polarization is driven by the inability to agree on basic facts.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Indonesia Coal Production Cuts reflect weaker China demand, COVID-19 impacts, falling HBA reference prices, and DMO sales to PLN, pressuring thermal coal output, miner budgets, and investment plans under the 2020 RKAB.

Key Points

Planned 2020 coal output reductions from China demand slump, lower HBA prices, and DMO constraints impacting miners.

✅ China demand drop reduces exports and thermal coal shipments.

✅ HBA reference price decline pressures margins and cash flow.

✅ DMO sales to PLN limit revenue; investment plans may slow.

The Energy and Mineral Resources (ESDM) Ministry is considering lowering the coal production target this year as demand from China has shown a significant decline, with China power demand drops reported, since the start of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in the country late last year, a senior ministry official has said.

The ministry’s coal and mineral director general Bambang Gatot Ariyono said in Jakarta on March 12 that the decline in the demand had also caused a sharp drop in coal prices on the world market, and China's plan to reduce coal power has further weighed on sentiment, which could cause the country’s miners to reduce their production.

The 2020 minerals and coal mining program and budget (RKAB) has set a current production goal of 550 million tons of coal, a 10 percent increase from last year’s target. As of March 6, 94.7 million tons of coal had been mined in the country in the year.

“With the existing demand, revision to this year’s production is almost certain,” he said, adding that the drop in demand had also caused a decline in coal prices.

Indonesia’s thermal coal reference price (HBA) fell by 26 percent year-on-year to US$67.08 per metric ton in March, according to a Standards & Poor press release on March 5.  At home, the coal price is also unattractive for local producers. Under the domestic market obligation (DMO) policy, miners are required to sell a quarter of their production to state-owned electricity company PLN at a government-set price, even as imported coal volumes rise in some markets. This year’s coal reference price is $70 per metric ton, far below the internal prices before the coronavirus outbreak hit China.

The ministry’s expert staff member Irwandy Arif said China had reduced its coal demand by 200,000 tons so far, as six of its coal-fired power plants had suspended operation due to the significant drop in electricity demand. Many factories in the country were closed as the government tried to halt the spread of the new coronavirus, which caused the decline in energy demand and created electric power woes for international supply chains.

“At present, all mines in Indonesia are still operating normally, while India is rationing coal supplies amid surging electricity demand. But we have to see what will happen in June,” he said.

The ministry predicted that the low demand would also result in a decline in coal mining investment, as clean energy investment has slipped across many developing nations.

The ministry set a $7.6 billion investment target for the mining sector this year, up from $6.17 billion last year, even as Israel reduces coal use in its power sector, which may influence regional demand. The year’s total investment realization was $192 million as of March 6, or around 2.5 percent of the annual target. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

US Electricity Price Surge drives bills as BLS data show 15.8 percent jump; natural gas and coal costs escalate amid energy crisis, NYISO warns of wholesale prices and winter futures near $200 per MWh.

Key Points

A sharp rise in power bills driven by higher natural gas and coal costs and tighter wholesale markets.

✅ BLS reports electricity bills up 15.8% year over year

✅ Natural gas bills up 33% as fuel costs soar

✅ NYISO flags winter wholesale prices near $200/MWh

Electricity bills for US consumers jumped the most since 1981, gaining 15.8% from the same period a year ago, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and residential bills rose 5% in 2022 across the U.S.

Natural gas bills, which crept back up last month after dipping in July, surged 33% from the same month last year, labor data released Tuesday showed, as electricity and natural gas pricing dynamics continue to ripple through markets. Broader energy costs slipped for a second consecutive month because of lower gasoline and fuel oil prices. Even with that drop, total energy costs were still about 24% above August 2021 levels.

Electricity costs are relentlessly climbing because prices for the two biggest power-plant fuels -- natural gas and coal -- have surged in the last year as the US economy rebounds from the pandemic and as Russia’s war in Ukraine triggers an energy crisis in Europe, where German electricity prices nearly doubled over a year. Another factor is the hot and humid summer across most of the lower 48 states drove households and businesses to crank up air conditioners. Americans likely used a record amount of power in the third quarter, according to US Energy Information Administration projections, even as U.S. power demand is seen sliding 1% in 2023 on milder weather.

New York’s state grid operator warned of a “sharp rise in wholesale electric costs expected this winter” with spiking global demand for fossil fuels, lagging supply and instability from Russia’s war in Ukraine driving up oil and gas prices, with multiple energy-crisis impacts on U.S. electricity and gas still unfolding, according to a Tuesday report. Geopolitical factors are ultimately reflected in wholesale electricity prices and supply charges to consumer bills, the New York Independent System Operator said, and as utilities direct more spending to delivery rather than production.

Electricity price futures for this winter have increased fourfold from last year, and potential deep-freeze disruptions to the energy sector could add volatility, with prices averaging near $200 a megawatt-hour, the grid operator said. That has been driven by natural gas futures for the upcoming winter, which are more than double current prices to nearly $20 per million British thermal units.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News