Texas Energy says it won't push TXU debt on transmission side

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

South Carolina Energy Freedom Act lifts net metering caps, reforms PURPA, and overhauls utility planning to boost solar competition, grid resiliency, and consumer choice across the Southeast amid Santee Cooper debt and utility monopoly pressure.

Key Points

A bipartisan reform lifting net metering caps, modernizing PURPA, and updating utility planning to expand solar.

✅ Lifts net metering cap to accelerate rooftop and community solar.

✅ Reforms PURPA contracts to enable fair pricing and transparent procurement.

✅ Modernizes utility IRP and opens markets to competition and customer choice.

The South Carolina House has approved the latest version of the Energy Freedom Act, a bill that overhauls the state’s electricity policies, including lifting the net metering caps and reforming PURPA implementation and utility planning processes in a way that advocates say levels the playing field for solar at all scales.

With Governor Henry McMaster (R) expected to sign the bill shortly, this is a major coup not just for solar in the state, but the region. This is particularly notable given the struggle that solar has had just to gain footing in many parts of the South, which is dominated by powerful utility monopolies and conservative politicians.

Two days ago when the bill passed the Senate we covered the details of the policy, but today we’re going to take a look at the politics of getting the Energy Freedom Act passed, and what this means for other Southern states and “red” states.

Opportunity amid crisis

The first thing to note about this bill is that it comes within a crisis in South Carolina’s electricity sector. This was the first legislative session following state-run utility Santee Cooper’s formal abandonment of a project to build two new reactors at the Virgil C. Sumner nuclear power plant, on which work stopped nearly two years ago.

Santee Cooper still holds $4 billion in construction debt related to the nuclear projects. According to an article in The State, this is costing its customers $5 per month toward the current debt, and this will rise to $13 per month for the next 40 years.

Such costs are particularly unwelcome in South Carolina, which has the highest annual electricity bills in the nation due to a combination of very high electricity usage driven by widespread air conditioning during the hot summers and higher prices per unit of power than other Southern states.

Following this fiasco, Santee Cooper’s CEO has stepped down, and the state government is currently considering selling the utility to a private entity. According to Maggie Clark, southeast state affairs senior manager for Solar Energy Industries Association, all of this set the stage for the bill that passed today.

“South Carolina is in a really ripe state for transformational energy policy in the wake of the VC Sumner nuclear plant cancellation,” Clark told pv magazine. “They were looking for a way forward, and I think this bill really provided them something to champion.”

Renewable energy policy for red states

This major win for solar policy comes in a state where the Republican Party holds majorities in both houses of the state’s legislature and sends bills to a Republican governor.

Broadly speaking, Republican politicians seldom show the level of interest in supporting renewable energy that Democrats do either at the state or national level, and show even less inclination to act to address greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the 100% clean energy mandates that are being implemented in four states and Washington D.C. have only passed with Democratic trifectas, in other words with Republicans controlling neither house of the state legislature nor the governor’s office. (Note: This does not apply to Puerto Rico, which has a different party structure to the rest of the United States)

However, South Carolina shows there are Republican politicians who will support pro-renewable energy policies, and circumstances under which Republican majorities will vote for legislation that aids the adoption of solar. And these specific circumstances speak to both different priorities and ideological differences between the two parties.

SEIA’s Maggie Clark emphasizes that the Energy Freedom Act was about reforming market rules. “This was a way to provide a program that did not provide subsidies or incentives in any way, but to really open the market to competition,” explains Clark. “I think that appealing to conservatives in the South about energy independence and resiliency and ultimately cost savings is the winning message on this issue.”

Such messaging in South Carolina is not an accident. Not only has such messaging been successful in the past, but coalition partner Vote Solar paid for polling to find what messages resounded with the state’s voters, and found that choice and competition were likely to resound.

And all of this happened in the context of what Clark describes as an “extremely well-resourced effort”, with SEIA in particular dedicating national attention and resources to the state – as part of an effort by President and CEO Abigail Hopper to shift attention more towards state-level policy. Maggie Clark is one of two new regional staff who Hopper has hired, and SEIA’s first staff member focused on Southern states.

“Absolutely the South is a prioritized region,” Hopper told pv magazine, noting that three Southern states – the Carolinas and Florida – are among the 12 states that the organization has identified to work on this year. “It became clear that as a region it needed more attention.”

SEIA is not expecting fly-by-night victories, and Hopper attributes the success in South Carolina not only to a broad coalition, but to years of work on the ground in the state.

Nor is SEIA the only organization to grow its presence in the region. Vote Solar now has two full time staff located in the South, whereas two years ago its sole staff member dedicated to the region was located in Washington D.C.

Ideology versus reality in the South

The Energy Freedom Act aligns with conservative ideas about small government and competition, but the American right is not monolithic, nor do political ideas and actions always line up neatly, as other successful policies in other states in the region show

By far the largest deployment of renewable energy in the nation has been in Texas, aside from in California which leads overall. Here a system of renewable energy zones in the sparsely populated but windy and sunny west, north and center of the state feed cities to the east with power from wind and more recently solar.

This was enabled by transmission lines whose cost was socialized among the state’s ratepayers – a tremendous irony given that the state’s politicians would be some of the last in the nation to want to be identified with socializing anything.

Another example is Louisiana, which saw a healthy residential solar market over the last decade due to a 50% state rebate. The policy has expired, but when operating it was exactly the sort of outright subsidy that right-wing media and politicians rail against.

Of course there is also North Carolina, which built the 2nd-largest solar market in the nation on the back of successful state-level implementation of PURPA, a federal law. Finally there is Virginia, where large-scale projects are booming following a 2018 law that found that 5 GW of solar is in the public interest.

Furthermore, while conservatives continually expound the virtues of the free market, the reality of the electricity sector in the “deep red” South is anything but that. The region missed out on the wave of deregulation in the 1990s, and remains dominated by monopoly utilities regulated by the state: a union of big business and big government where competition is non-existent.

This has also meant that the solar which has been deployed in the South is mostly not the kind of rooftop solar that many think of as embodying energy independence, but rather large-scale solar built in farms, fields and forests.

Where to from here?

With such contradictions between stated ideology and practice, it is less clear what makes for successful renewable energy policy in the South. However, opening up markets appears to be working not only in South Carolina, but also in Florida, where third-party solar companies are making inroads after the state’s voters rejected a well-funded and duplicitous utilities’ campaign to kill distributed solar.

SEIA’s Hopper says that she is “aggressively optimistic” about solar in Florida. As utilities have dominated large-solar deployment in the state, even as the state declined federal solar incentives earlier this year, she says that she sees opening up the state’s booming utility-scale solar market to competition as a priority.

Some parts of the region may be harder than others, and it is notable that SEIA has not had as much to say about Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana, which are largely controlled by utility giants Southern Company and Entergy, or the area under the thumb of the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the most anti-solar entities in the power sector.

Abby Hopper says ultimately, demand from customers – both individuals and corporations – is the key to transforming policy. “You replicate these victories by customer demand,” Hopper told pv magazine. “That combination of voices from the customer are what’s going to drive change.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

EU Nuclear Power Dispute strains electricity market reform as Germany resists state aid for French reactors, while Eon urges cooperation to meet the energy transition, low-carbon goals, renewables integration, and cross-border power trade.

Key Points

A policy standoff between Germany and France over nuclear energy's role, state aid, and electricity market reforms.

✅ Germany opposes state aid for existing French nuclear plants.

✅ Eon CEO urges compromise to advance market reform and decarbonization.

✅ Cross-border trade shows reliance on French nuclear amid renewables push.

Germany should stop trying to impose its views on nuclear power on the rest of the EU, the head of one of Europe’s largest utilities has warned, as he stressed its importance in the region’s clean energy transition.

Leonhard Birnbaum, chief executive of German energy provider Eon, said Berlin should accept differences of opinion as he signalled his desire for a compromise with France to break a deadlock amid a nuclear power dispute over energy reforms.

Germany this year shut down its final three nuclear power plants as it followed through on a long-held promise to drop the use of the energy source, effectively turning its back on nuclear for now, while France has made it a priority to modernise its nuclear power plants.

The differences are delaying reforms to the region’s electricity market and legislation designed to meet greenhouse gas emissions targets.

One sticking point is Germany’s refusal to back French moves to allow governments to provide state aid to existing power plants, which could enable Paris to support the French nuclear fleet.

The Eon chief, whose company has 48mn customers across Europe, said it would be “better for everyone” if the two countries could approach the dispute with the mindset that “everyone does their part”, even as Germany has at times weighed a U-turn on the nuclear phaseout in recent debates.

“Neither the French will be able to persuade us to use nuclear power, nor we will be able to persuade them not to. That’s why I think we should take a different approach to the discussion,” he added.

Birnbaum said Germany “would do well to be a bit cautious about trying to impose our way on everyone else”. This approach was unlikely to be “crowned with success”.

“The better solution will not come from opposing each other, but from working together.”

Birnbaum made the comments at a press conference announcing Eon’s second-quarter results.

The company raised its profit outlook, predicting adjusted net income of €2.7bn to €2.9bn, and promised to reduce bills for customers as it hailed “diminishing headwinds” following the energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine.

Birnbaum, whose company owned one of the three German nuclear plants shut down this year, pointed out that French nuclear energy was helping the conversion to a system of renewable energy in Germany at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power just when it needs energy.

This was a reference to Europe’s shared power market that allows countries to buy and sell electricity from one another. 

Germany has been a net importer of French electricity since shutting down its own nuclear plants, which last month prompted the French energy minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher to accuse Berlin of hypocrisy. 

“It’s a contradiction to massively import French nuclear energy while rejecting every piece of EU legislation that recognises the value of nuclear as a low-carbon energy source,” Pannier-Runacher told the German business daily Handelsblatt.

She also criticised Berlin’s drive to use new gas-fired power plants as a “bridge” to its target of being carbon neutral by 2045, even as some German officials contend that nuclear won’t solve the gas issue in the near term, arguing that it created a “credibility problem” for Germany: “Gas is a fossil fuel.”

Berlin officials responded by pointing out that Germany was a net exporter of electricity to France over the winter when its nuclear power stations were struggling to produce because of maintenance problems. 

They added that the country only imported French power because it was cheaper, not because their country was suffering shortages.

Berlin argues that renewable energy is cleaner and safer than nuclear, despite renewable rollout challenges linked to cheap Russian gas and grid expansion, and accuses France of seeking to protect the interests of its nuclear industry.

In Paris, officials see Germany’s resistance to nuclear energy as wrong-headed given the need to fight climate change effectively, and worry it is an attempt to undercut a key aspect of French industrial competitiveness.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Codling Bank Offshore Wind Project will deliver a 1.1 GW offshore wind farm off the Wicklow coast, as EDF Renewables and Fred Olsen Renewables invest billions to support Ireland's CAP 2030 and cut carbon emissions.

Key Points

A 1.1 GW offshore wind farm off Co Wicklow, led by EDF and Fred Olsen, advancing Ireland's CAP 2030 targets.

✅ Up to 1.1 GW capacity; hundreds of turbines off Co Wicklow

✅ EDF Renewables partners with Fred Olsen Renewables

✅ Investment well over €2bn, supporting 70% electricity by 2030

It’s been previously estimated that the entire Codling Bank project, which will eventually see hundreds of wind turbines, such as a huge offshore wind turbine now coming to market, erected about 13km off the Co Wicklow coast, could be worth as much as €100m. The site is set to generate up to 1.1 gigawatts of electricity when it’s eventually operational.

It’s likely to cost well over €2bn to develop, and with new pipelines abroad where Long Island offshore turbine proposals are advancing, scale economies are increasingly relevant.

The other half of the project is owned by Norway’s Fred Olsen Renewables, with tens of millions of euro already reportedly spent on surveys and other works associated with the scheme. Initial development work started in 2003.

Mr Barrett will now continue to focus on his non-Irish renewable projects, at a time when World Bank wind power support is accelerating in developing countries, said Hazel Shore, the company that sold the stake. It added that Johnny Ronan and Conor Ronan, the developer’s brother, will retain an equity interest in the Codling project.

“The Hazel Shore shareholders remain committed to continuing their renewable and forestry businesses,” noted the firm, whose directors include Paddy Teahon, a former secretary of the Department of the Taoiseach and chairman of the National Offshore Wind Association of Ireland.

The French group’s EDF Renewables subsidiary will now partner with the Norwegian firm to develop and build the Codling Bank project, in a sector widely projected to become a $1 trillion business over the coming decades.

EDF pointed out that the acquisition of the Codling Bank stake comes after the government committed to reducing carbon emissions. A Climate Action Plan launched last year will see renewable projects generating 70pc of Ireland’s electricity by 2030, with more than a third of Irish electricity to be green within four years according to recent analysis. Offshore wind is expected to deliver at least 3.5GW of power in support of the objective.

Bruno Bensasson, EDF Group senior executive vice-president of renewable energies and the CEO of EDF Renewables said the French group is “committed to contributing to the Irish government’s renewables goals”.

“This important project clearly strengthens our strong ambition to be a leading global player in the offshore wind industry,” he added. “This is consistent with the CAP 2030 strategy that aims to double EDF’s renewable energy generation by 2030 and increase it to 50GW net.”

Matthieu Hue, the CEO of EDF Renewables UK and Ireland said the firm already has an office in Dublin and is looking for further renewable projects, as New York's biggest offshore wind farm moves ahead, underscoring momentum.

Last November, the ESB teamed up with EDF in Scotland, reflecting how UK offshore wind is powering up, with the Irish utility buying a 50pc stake in the Neart na Gaoithe offshore wind project. The massive wind farm is expected to generate up to 450MW of electricity and will cost about €2.1bn to develop.

EDF said work on that project is “well under way”.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

DOE Office of Fossil Energy safeguards energy security via the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, domestic critical minerals from coal byproducts, and carbon capture to curb CO2, strengthening resiliency amid shocks and supporting U.S. manufacturing and defense.

Key Points

A DOE program advancing energy security through SPR stewardship, critical minerals R&D, and carbon capture.

✅ Manages the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for emergency crude supply

✅ Develops domestic critical minerals from coal and mining byproducts

✅ Deploys carbon capture, utilization, and storage to cut CO2

The global economy has just experienced a period of unique transformation because of COVID-19. The fact that remains constant in this new economic landscape is that our society relies on energy; it’s an integral part of our day-to-day lives, even as U.S. energy use has evolved over time. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, approximately 80 percent of energy consumption in the United States comes from fossil fuels, so having access to a secure and reliable supply of those energy resources is more important than ever for national energy security considerations today. Below are three examples that highlight how our work at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy (FE) helps ensure the Nation’s energy security and resiliency.

(1) Open crude oil reserves to respond to crises

FE has overall program responsibility for carrying out the mission of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the world’s largest supply of emergency crude oil. These federally-owned stocks are stored in massive underground salt caverns along the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico. The SPR is a powerful tool U.S. leaders use to respond to a wide range of crises, including energy crisis impacts on electricity and fuels, involving crude oil disruption or demand loss.  When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, the oil markets crashed and crude oil demand dropped drastically across the world. U.S. oil producers turned to the SPR to store their oil while broader energy dominance constraints were becoming evident in practice. This helped alleviate the pressure on producers to shut in oil production and proved to be a critical asset for American energy and national security.

(2) Use the Nation’s abundant coal reserves to produce valuable materials

Critical materials, including rare earth elements, are a group of chemical elements and materials with unique properties that support manufacturing of most modern technologies. They are essential components for critical defense and homeland security applications, green energy technologies, hybrid and electric vehicles, and high-value electronics. While these materials are not rare, they are hard to separate and expensive to extract. The United States relies heavily on imports from China. To reduce U.S. dependence on foreign sources, FE has a research and development program aimed at producing a domestic supply of critical materials from the Nation’s abundant coal resources and associated byproducts from legacy and current mining operations. Many of the technologies being developed can also be used to separate critical minerals from other mining materials and byproducts. Tapping into these resources has the potential to create new industries and revitalize coal communities and the workforce in coal-producing regions.

(3) Decrease carbon emissions for a cleaner energy future

FE is committed to balancing the Nation’s energy use with the need to protect the environment, and has a comprehensive portfolio of technological solutions that help keep carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions out of the atmosphere. For example, amid high natural gas prices that reinforce the case for clean electricity, the Department has been investing in carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies for over a decade. These technologies capture CO2 emissions from various sources, including coal-fired power plants and manufacturing plants, before they enter the atmosphere. Several of these cutting-edge technologies have been deployed at major demonstration sites, supported by clean energy funding that aims to benefit millions. Three of these projects—Petra Nova, Archer Daniels Midland, and Air Products & Chemicals—have captured and injected over 10.8 million metric tons of CO2. The success of these projects is paving the way toward a cleaner and more sustainable American energy future.

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