Volvo Trucks to launch complete range of electric trucks in Europe in 2021

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

Ford Oakville Electric Vehicle Complex will anchor EV production in Ontario, adding a battery plant, retooling lines, and assembly capacity for passenger models targeting the North American market and Canada's zero-emission mandates.

Key Points

A retooled Ontario hub for passenger EV production, featuring on-site battery assembly and modernized lines.

✅ Retooling begins Q2 2024; EV production slated for 2025.

✅ New 407,000 sq ft battery plant for pack assembly.

✅ First full-line passenger EV production in Canada.

Ford Motor Co. has revealed some details of its plan to spend $1.8 billion on its Oakville Assembly Complex to turn it into an electric vehicle production hub, a government-backed Oakville EV deal, in the latest commitment by an automaker transitioning towards an electric future.

The automaker said Tuesday that it will start retooling the Ontario complex in the second quarter of 2024, bolstering Ontario's EV jobs boom, and begin producing electric vehicles in 2025.

The transformation of the Oakville site, to be renamed the Oakville Electric Vehicle Complex, will include a new 407,000 square-foot battery plant, similar to Honda's Ontario battery investment efforts, where parts produced at Ford's U.S. operations will be assembled into battery packs.

General Motors is already producing electric delivery vans in Canada, and its Ontario EV plant plans continue to expand, but Ford says this is the first time a full-line automaker has announced plans to produce passenger EVs in Canada for the North American market.

GM said in February it plans to build motors for electric vehicles at its St. Catharines, Ont. propulsion plant, aligning with the Niagara Region battery investment now underway. The motors will go into its BrightDrop electric delivery vans, which it produces in part at its Ingersoll, Ont. plant, as well as its electric pickup trucks, producing enough at the plant for 400,000 vehicles a year.

Ford's announcement is the latest commitment by an automaker transitioning towards an electric future, part of Canada's EV assembly push that is accelerating.

"Canada and the Oakville complex will play a vital role in our Ford Plus transformation," said chief executive Jim Farley in a statement.

The company has committed to invest over US$50 billion in electric vehicles globally and has a target of producing two million EVs a year by the end of 2026 as part of its Ford Plus growth plan, reflecting an EV market inflection point worldwide.

Ford didn't specify in the release which models it planned to build at the Oakville complex, which currently produces the Ford Edge and Lincoln Nautilus.

The company's spending plans were first announced in 2020 as part of union negotiations, with workers seeking long-term production commitments and the Detroit Three automakers eventually agreeing to invest in Canadian operations in concert with spending agreements with the Ontario and federal governments.

The two governments agreed to provide $295 million each in funding to secure the Ford investment.

"The partnership between Ford and Canada helps to position us as a global leader in the EV supply chain for decades to come," said Industry Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne in Ford's news release.

Funding help comes as the federal government moves to require that at least 20 percent of new vehicles sold in Canada will be zero-emission by 2026, at least 60 per cent by 2030, and 100 per cent by 2035.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Clean Electricity Standard drives Biden's infrastructure, grid decarbonization, and utility mandates, leveraging EPA regulation, renewables, nuclear, and carbon capture via reconciliation to reach 80% clean power by 2030 amid partisan Congress.

Key Points

A federal mandate to reach 80% clean U.S. power by 2030 using incentives and EPA rules to speed grid decarbonization.

✅ Targets 80% clean electricity by 2030 via Congress or reconciliation

✅ Mix of renewables, nuclear, gas with carbon capture allowed

✅ Backup levers: EPA rules, incentives, utility planning shifts

The true measure of President Biden’s climate ambition may be the clean electricity standard he tucked into his massive $2.2 trillion infrastructure spending plan.

Its goal is striking: 80% clean power in the United States by 2030.

The details, however, are vague. And so is Biden’s plan B if it fails—an uncertainty that’s worrisome to both activists and academics. The lack of a clear backup plan underscores the importance of passing a clean electricity standard, they say.

If the clean electricity standard doesn’t survive Congress, it will put pressure on the need to drive climate policy through targeted spending, said John Larsen, a power system analyst with the Rhodium Group, an economic consulting firm.

“I don’t think the game is lost at all if a clean electricity standard doesn’t get through in this round,” Larsen said. “But there’s a difference between not passing a clean electricity standard and passing the right spending package.”

In his few months in office, Biden has outlined plans to bring the United States back into the international Paris climate accord, pause oil and gas leasing on public lands, boost the electric vehicle market, and target clean energy investments in vulnerable communities, including plans to revitalize coal communities across the country, most affected by climate change.

But those are largely executive orders and spending proposals—even as early assessments show mixed results from climate law—and unlikely to last beyond his administration if the next president favors fossil fuel usage over climate policy. The clean electricity standard, which would decarbonize 80% of the electrical grid by 2030, is different.

It transforms Biden’s climate vision from a goal into a mandate. Passing it through Congress makes it that much harder for a future administration to undo. If Biden is in office for two terms, the United States would see a rate of decarbonization unparalleled in its history that would set a new bar for most of the world’s biggest economies.

But for now, the clean electricity standard faces an uncertain path through Congress and steep odds to getting enacted. That means there’s a good chance the administration will need a plan B, observers said.

Exactly what kind of climate spending can pass Congress is the very question the White House and congressional Democrats will be working on in the next few months, including upgrades to an aging power grid that affect renewables and EVs, as the infrastructure bill proceeds through Congress.

Negotiations are fraught already. Congress is almost evenly split between a party that wants to curtail the use of fossil fuels and another that wants to grow them, and even high energy prices have not necessarily triggered a green transition in the marketplace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said last week that “100% of my focus is on stopping this new administration.” He made similar comments at the start of the Obama administration and blocked climate policy from getting through Congress. He also said last week that no Republican senators would vote for Biden’s infrastructure spending plan.

A clean electricity standard has been referred to as the “backbone” of Biden’s climate policy—a way to ensure his policies to decarbonize the economy outlast a future president who would seek to roll back his climate work. Advocates say hitting that benchmark is an essential milestone in getting to a carbon-free grid by 2035. Much of President Obama’s climate policy, crafted largely through regulations and executive orders, proved vulnerable to President Trump’s rollbacks.

Biden appears to have learned from those lessons and wants to chart a new course to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. He’s using his majority in the House and Senate to lock in whatever he can before the 2022 midterms, when Democrats are expected to lose the House.

To pass a clean electricity standard, virtually every Democrat must be on board, and even then, the only chance of success is to pass a bill through the budget reconciliation process that can carry a clean electricity standard. Some Senate Democrats have recently hinted that they were willing to split the bill into pieces to get it through, while others are concerned that although this approach might win some GOP support on traditional infrastructure such as roads and bridges, it would isolate the climate provisions that make up more than half of the bill.

The most durable scenario for rapid electricity-sector decarbonization is to lock in a bipartisan clean electricity standard into legislation with 60 votes in the Senate, said Mike O’Boyle, the director of electricity policy for Energy Innovation. Because that’s highly unlikely—if not impossible—there are other paths that could get the United States to the 80% goal within the next decade.

“The next best approach is to either, or in combination, pursue EPA regulation of power plant pollution from existing and new power plants as well as to take a reconciliation-based approach to a clean electricity standard where you’re basically spending federal dollars to provide incentives to drive clean electricity deployment as opposed to a mandate per se,” he said.

Either way, O’Boyle said the introduction of the clean electricity standard sets a new bar for the federal government that likely would drive industry response even if it doesn’t get enacted. He compared it to the Clean Power Plan, Obama’s initiative to limit power plant emissions. Even though the plan never came to fruition, because of a Clean Power Plan rollback, it left a legacy that continues years later and wasn’t negated by a president who prioritized fossil fuels over the climate, he said.

“It never got enacted, but it still created a titanic shift in the way utilities plan their systems and proactively reposition themselves for future carbon regulation of their electricity systems,” O’Boyle said. “I think any action by the Biden administration or by Congress through reconciliation would have a similar catalytic function over the next couple years.”

Some don’t think a clean electricity standard has a doomed future. Right now, its provisions are vague. But they can be filled in in a way that doesn’t alienate Republicans or states more hesitant toward climate policy, said Sally Benson, an engineering professor at Stanford University and an expert on low-carbon energy systems. The United States is overdue for a federal mandate that lasts through multiple administrations. The only way to ensure that happens is to get Republican support.

She said that might be possible by making the clean electricity standard more flexible. Mandate the goals, she said, not how states get there. Going 100% renewable is not going to sell in some states or with some lawmakers, she added. For some regions, flexibility will mean keeping nuclear plants open. For others, it would mean using natural gas with carbon capture, Benson said.

While it might not meet the standards some progressives seek to end all fossil fuel usage, it would have a better chance of getting enacted and remaining in place through multiple presidents, she said. In fact, a clean electricity standard would provide a chance for carbon capture, which has been at the center of Republican climate policy proposals. Benson said carbon capture is not economical now, but the mandate of a standard could encourage investments that would drive the sector forward more rapidly.

“If it’s a plan that people see as shutting the door to nuclear or to natural gas plus carbon capture, I think we will face a lot of pushback,” she said. “Make it an inclusive plan with a specific goal of getting to zero emissions and there’s not one way to do it, meaning all renewables—I think that’s the thing that could garner a lot of industrial support to make progress.”

In addition to industry, Biden’s proposed clean electricity standard would drive states to do more, said Larsen of the Rhodium Group. Several states already have their own version of a clean energy standard and have driven much of the national progress on carbon emissions reduction in the last four years, he said. Biden has set a new benchmark that some states, including those with some of the biggest economies in the United States, would now likely exceed, he said.

“It is rare for the federal government to get out in front of leading states in clean energy policy,” he said. “This is not usually how climate policy diffusion works from the state level to the federal level; usually it’s states go ahead and the federal government adopts something that’s less ambitious.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

UK Transport Policy Overhaul signals bans on petrol and diesel cars, rail franchising reform, 15-minute cities, and active travel, tackling congestion, emissions, microplastics, urban sprawl, and public health with systemic, multimodal planning.

Key Points

A shift toward EVs, rail reform, and 15-minute cities to reduce emissions, congestion, and health risks.

✅ Phase-out of petrol and diesel car sales by 2030

✅ National rail franchising replaced with integrated operations

✅ Urban design: 15-minute cities, cycling, and active travel

Could it be true? That this government will bring all sales of petrol and diesel cars to an end by 2030, even as a 2035 EV mandate in Canada is derided by critics? That it will cancel all rail franchises and replace them with a system that might actually work? Could the UK, for the first time since the internal combustion engine was invented, really be contemplating a rational transport policy? Hold your horses.

Before deconstructing it, let’s mark this moment. Both announcements might be a decade or two overdue, but we should bank them as they’re essential steps towards a habitable nation.

We don’t yet know exactly what they mean, as the government has delayed its full transport announcement until later this autumn. But so far, nothing that surrounds these positive proposals makes any sense, and the so-called EV revolution often proves illusory in practice.

If the government has a vision for transport, it appears to be plug and play. We’ll keep our existing transport system, but change the kinds of vehicles and train companies that use it. But when you have a system in which structural failure is embedded, nothing short of structural change will significantly improve it.

A switch to electric cars will reduce pollution, though the benefits depend on the power mix; in Canada, Canada’s grid was 18% fossil-fuelled in 2019, for example. It won’t eliminate it, as a high proportion of the microscopic particles thrown into the air by cars, which are highly damaging to our health, arise from tyres grating on the surface of the road. Tyre wear is also by far the biggest source of microplastics pouring into our rivers and the sea. And when tyres, regardless of the engine that moves them, come to the end of their lives, we still have no means of properly recycling them.

Cars are an environmental hazard long before they leave the showroom. One estimate suggests that the carbon emissions produced in building each one equate to driving it for 150,000km. The rise in electric vehicle sales has created a rush for minerals such as lithium and copper, with devastating impacts on beautiful places. If the aim is greatly to reduce the number of vehicles on the road, and replace those that remain with battery-operated models, alongside EV battery recycling efforts, then they will be part of the solution. But if, as a forecast by the National Grid proposes, the current fleet is replaced by 35m electric cars, a University of Toronto study warns they are not a silver bullet, and we’ll simply create another environmental disaster.

Switching power sources does nothing to address the vast amount of space the car demands, which could otherwise be used for greens, parks, playgrounds and homes. It doesn’t stop cars from carving up community and turning streets into thoroughfares and outdoor life into a mortal hazard. Electric vehicles don’t solve congestion, or the extreme lack of physical activity that contributes to our poor health.

So far, the government seems to have no interest in systemic change. It still plans to spend £27bn on building even more roads, presumably to accommodate all those new electric cars. An analysis by Transport for Quality of Life suggests that this road-building will cancel out 80% of the carbon savings from a switch to electric over the next 12 years. But everywhere, even in the government’s feted garden villages and garden towns, new developments are being built around the car.

Rail policy is just as irrational, even though lessons from large electric bus fleets offer cleaner mass transit options. The construction of HS2, now projected to cost £106bn, has accelerated in the past few months, destroying precious wild places along the way, though its weak business case has almost certainly been destroyed by coronavirus.

If one thing changes permanently as a result of the pandemic, it is likely to be travel. Many people will never return to the office. The great potential of remote technologies, so long untapped, is at last being realised. Having experienced quieter cities with cleaner air, few people wish to return to the filthy past.

Like several of the world’s major cities, our capital is being remodelled in response, though why electric buses haven’t taken over remains a live question. The London mayor – recognising that, while fewer passengers can use public transport, a switch to cars would cause gridlock and lethal pollution – has set aside road space for cycling and walking. Greater Manchester hopes to build 1,800 miles of protected pedestrian and bicycle routes.

Cycling to work is described by some doctors as “the miracle pill”, massively reducing the chances of early death: if you want to save the NHS, get on your bike. But support from central government is weak and contradictory, and involves a fraction of the money it is spending on new roads. The major impediment to a cycling revolution is the danger of being hit by a car.

Even a switch to bicycles (including electric bikes and scooters) is only part of the answer. Fundamentally, this is not a vehicle problem but an urban design problem. Or rather, it is an urban design problem created by our favoured vehicle. Cars have made everything bigger and further away. Paris, under its mayor Anne Hidalgo, is seeking to reverse this trend, by creating a “15-minute city”, in which districts that have been treated by transport planners as mere portals to somewhere else become self-sufficient communities – each with their own shops, parks, schools and workplaces, within a 15-minute walk of everyone’s home.

This, I believe, is the radical shift that all towns and cities need. It would transform our sense of belonging, our community life, our health and our prospects of local employment, while greatly reducing pollution, noise and danger. Transport has always been about much more than transport. The way we travel helps to determine the way we live. And at the moment, locked in our metal boxes, we do not live well.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Canada Solar Capacity Outlook 2022-2050 projects 500 MW new PV in 2022 and 35 GW by 2050, driven by renewables policy, grid parity, NREL analysis, IEA-PVPS data, and competitive utility-scale photovoltaic costs.

Key Points

An evidence-based forecast of Canadian PV additions to 35 GW by 2050, reflecting policy, costs, and grid parity trends.

✅ 500 MW PV expected in 2022; cumulative capacity near 5 GW

✅ NREL outlook sees 35 GW by 2050 on cost competitiveness

✅ Policy shifts, ITCs, coal retirements accelerate solar uptake

Canada is set to install 500 MW of new solar in 2022, bringing its total capacity to about 5 GW, according to data from Canmet Energy, even as the Netherlands outpaces Canada in solar power generation. The country is expected to hit 35 GW of total solar capacity by 2050.

Canada’s cumulative solar capacity is set to hit 5 GW by the end of this year, according to figures from the federal government’s Canmet Energy lab. The country is expected to add around 500 MW of new solar capacity, from 944 MW last year, according to the International Energy Agency Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme (IEA-PVPS), which recently published a report on PV applications in Canada, even as solar demand lags in Canada.

“If we look at the recent averages, Canada has installed around 500 MW annually. I expect in 2022 it will be at least 500 MW,” said Yves Poissant, research manager at Canmet Energy. “Last year it was 944 MW, mainly because of a 465 MW centralized PV power plant installed in Alberta, where the Prairie Provinces are expected to lead national renewable growth.”

The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) studied renewables integration and concluded that Canada’s cumulative solar capacity will increase sevenfold to 35 GW by 2050, driven by cost competitiveness and that zero-emissions by 2035 is achievable according to complementary studies.

Canada now produces 80% of its electricity from power sources other than oil. Hydroelectricity leads the mix at 60%, followed by nuclear at 15%, wind at 7%, gas and coal at 7%, and PV at just 1%. While the government aims to increase the share of green electricity to 90% by 2030 and 100% by 2050, zero-emission electricity by 2035 is considered practical and profitable, yet it has not set any specific goals for PV. Each Canadian province and territory is left to determine its own targets.

“Without comprehensive pan-Canadian policy framework with annual capacity targets, PV installation in the coming years will likely continue to be highly variable across the provinces and territories, especially after Ontario scrapped a clean energy program, which scaled back growth projections. Further policies mechanisms are needed to allow PV to reach its full potential,” the IEA-PVPS said.

Popular content
Canada recently introduced investment tax credits for renewables to compete with the United States, but it is still far from being a solar powerhouse, with some experts calling it a solar laggard today. That said, the landscape has started to change in the past five years.

“Some laws have been put in place to retire coal plants by 2025. That led to new opportunities to install capacity,” said Poissant. “We expect the newly installed capacity will consist mostly of wind, but also solar.”

The cost of solar has become more competitive and the residential sector is now close to grid parity, according to Poissant. For utility-scale projects, old hydroelectric dams are still considerably cheaper than solar, but newly built installations are now more expensive than solar.

“Starting 2030, solar PV will be cost competitive compared to wind,” Poissant said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy 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