logo
Environment group warns against repealing federal electric vehicle mandate

Environment group warns against repealing federal electric vehicle mandate

Global Newsa day ago
An environmental think tank is warning the federal government against repealing its electric vehicle mandate, instead suggesting that politicians should be helping to put more EVs on the road.
In a statement published Friday, Clean Energy Canada gave three recommendations to the federal government to help deliver affordable EVs to Canadians for less than $40,000.
The group, based out of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, said Ottawa should retool its EV mandate by revisiting its near-term targets to help the auto sector 'weather this temporary storm' of slumping EV sales.
'Any additional flexibility added in the regulation should be designed to achieve other EV-related goals, such as delivering more affordable EVs and building out Canada's charging network,' says the statement by executive director Rachel Doran and director of public affairs Joanna Kyriazis.
The plea comes on the heels of auto manufacturing leaders meeting with Prime Minister Mark Carney last week, in which the CEOs repeated their calls for the mandate to be repealed.
Story continues below advertisement
Starting next year, the mandate would require 20 per cent of all new light-duty vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission vehicles. Those also include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The target rises annually to 100 per cent by 2035.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
Recent data from Statistics Canada suggests EVs accounted for 7.53 per cent of all new vehicles sold in April.
Following the meeting, the head of an organization representing Ford Canada, GM Canada and Stellantis said he was 'cautiously optimistic' the government would take action on the mandate.
Clean Energy Canada also called on Ottawa to re-fund the EV incentive program, but to be clearer as to when the program will be phased out.
The government launched the Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles program in 2019, which gave car buyers up to $5,000 toward the cost of an electric vehicle. The program was abruptly suspended back in January when its funding ran out.
It has left many dealerships on the hook for the rebate if they hadn't already sent in their claim before the program ended. The federal government put nearly $3 billion into the program during its lifespan.
'The rebate should start at $5,000 and decline by $1,000 each year, providing consumers and automakers with a well-communicated phaseout that avoids periods of artificially lowered EV sales as buyers await the return of rebates or at least clarity,' Clean Energy Canada says.
Story continues below advertisement
A similar policy is in place in Quebec.
Federal ministers have said in recent months that the government was working toward bringing back consumer incentives on EVs.
Those promises faced criticism from automakers themselves because, without implementing a rebate, EV sales are slumping further, as buyers wait for the rebates to come back.
Clean Energy Canada also called on the federal government to reconsider its approach to cheaper EVs from China, which are subject to a 100 per cent tariff which took effect in October. Ottawa is scheduled to review the measure later this year.
'Allowing in a limited quota of these affordable vehicles while also recognizing EU-approved vehicles … would open Canada's vehicle market to fill important market gaps, drive innovation and ultimately make our auto sector more competitive,' the group says.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated

Canada Standard

time6 hours ago

  • Canada Standard

Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated

It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. Read more: The complicated history of building pipelines in Canada The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.

Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated
Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated

Canada News.Net

time7 hours ago

  • Canada News.Net

Could new pipelines shield Canada from U.S. tariffs? The answer is complicated

It should come as no surprise that United States President Donald Trump's tariff threats have renewed interest in building pipelines that don't rely on access to the American market. Almost four million barrels of crude oil cross the Canada-U.S. border each day, generating revenue of more than $100 billion per year - a quarter of Alberta's GDP. A February survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that half of Canadians believe the federal government isn't doing enough to expand pipeline capacity. Meanwhile, two-thirds said they would back reviving the Energy East project - a cancelled pipeline that would have transported oil from western Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec. But would new pipelines truly insulate Canada from the threat of U.S. tariffs? And how much new pipeline capacity is necessary? Despite the apparent urgency of approving new infrastructure projects, these questions remain surprisingly unexplored. In a recent paper I co-authored with researcher Jotham Peters, which is currently under revision, we applied formal economic modelling techniques to parse through the costs and benefits of new pipelines, and in particular to understand the role of American tariffs in shaping these costs and benefits. In a worst-case scenario where the U.S. follows through on its threat of a 10 per cent tariff on Canadian oil exports, Canadian producers could lose as much as $14 billion in annual revenue - roughly a 10 per cent decrease. Simply put, Canada's existing pipeline network severely limits access to markets other than the U.S., and as a consequence oil producers bear the full brunt of American tariffs. But what if Northern Gateway and Energy East - two previously cancelled pipelines that would have brought Canadian oil to tidewater - had been built? If Northern Gateway and Energy East were operational in 2025, Canada would be more resilient, but not completely immune, to U.S. tariffs. Instead of a $14 billion loss, tariffs would reduce annual revenue by $9 billion. Ultimately, the combined capacity of Northern Gateway and Energy East, which would be 1.625 million barrels per day, pales in comparison to the four million barrels per day of existing pipeline capacity connecting Canadian producers with American refineries. Closing this gap would require an expansion of east-west pipeline capacity far beyond the cancelled pipelines of the last decade. So have the recent shifts in U.S. trade policy fundamentally altered the economic case in favour of new east-west pipelines? As with most economic analyses, the answer is complicated. On the one hand, any progress that mitigates the significant cost of U.S. tariffs are likely dollars well spent. Building new pipelines strengthens the bargaining power of Canadian producers, which carries an additional benefit of potentially increasing the return on each barrel sold to our southern neighbour. There's also a long-term capacity issue. Existing pipelines may reach their limit by 2035. In the absence of new pipelines, any new production after 2035 would either need to be transported by rail at a higher cost, or left in the ground. On the other hand, if the U.S. never follows through on tariffs on energy exports - or if future administrations do not share Trump's affinity for chaotic trade policy - Canada could end up right back where it started when these projects were cancelled. All pipelines carry some economic benefit, but such benefits were not enough in 2016 and 2017 to warrant the construction of the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines. The elephant in the room is whether a significant expansion in pipeline capacity could realistically be achieved at reasonable cost. Recent evidence suggests it could be a challenge. The Trans Mountain expansion project, for instance, was initially estimated to cost $5.4 billion in 2013. By the time it was completed in 2024, the final price tag had ballooned to $34 billion - a cost overrun of 380 per cent when accounting for inflation. The Coastal GasLink pipeline, which transports natural gas, faced similar issues. It was initially projected to cost $4 billion in 2012 and was completed in 2023 at a final cost of $14.5 billion, with an inflation-adjusted overrun of 180 per cent. While some of these costs were circumstantial - a major flood affected Trans Mountain, for example - increased efficiency in pipeline construction is necessary for the economic benefits of new pipelines to be realized, regardless of U.S. trade policy. While our research explores the economic impact of new pipelines in the face of U.S. tariffs, we acknowledge there are other issues that need to be considered. Chief among them is ensuring Canada meets its constitutional obligation to consult First Nations on decisions, like natural resources projects, that affect their communities and territories. Although this lies beyond our area of expertise, it will inevitably be an important element of consideration for any new pipeline developments. The environmental impacts of new pipelines are another key concern. These impacts range from local exposure to oil spills to upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with oil production. While these varying and complex impacts are also beyond the scope of our current work, future research should focus on quantifying the potential environmental impacts of new pipelines. Our research cannot say whether any new pipeline project is good, bad or in Canada's national interest. But we can help Canadians reach an informed decision about how changes in U.S. trade policy may or may not alter the economic case for new pipelines in this country. While Canada would undoubtedly be in a stronger position to respond to U.S. tariffs were Northern Gateway and Energy East operational in 2025, it would still find itself significantly exposed to Trump's tariff threats. Fully removing this exposure would require not one but seven pipelines equivalent to Northern Gateway. Whether that's a goal worth pursuing is a broader question - one we hope our research can help Canadians and policymakers reach on their own.

Edmonton mayoral candidate weighs in on infill debate
Edmonton mayoral candidate weighs in on infill debate

Global News

time7 hours ago

  • Global News

Edmonton mayoral candidate weighs in on infill debate

Another mayoral candidate is weighing in on how infill housing she be handled in Edmonton. Tony Caterina, a former city councillor, said Monday that he believes the way the city is handling infill housing is not working. He said he thinks the city's current bylaw on such developments should be killed, and the city should go back to how it was handling these developments a year and a half ago. 'Dig down a little deeper, and go through neighbourhood by neighbourhood (and ask), 'Is this appropriate for what you see around you?'' Caterina said. 'This is not appropriate at all. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'In many places infill is a good thing, but with this blanket bylaw, it's not just infill, it's infill on steroids.' City council is currently considering capping midblock row housing at a maximum of six units rather than eight. A public hearing started Wednesday and was extended into Friday. Story continues below advertisement City council has now heard from all the speakers and will be asking questions to administration on Tuesday. Caterina said typically when city council is approaching an election like it is this fall, it pushes hot-button issues on to the next council. 'These are big decisions, and for this council to try and push all this through as quickly as possible, before we get a new council and a new mayor, I think this is the wrong thing to do,' he said. 'I think this is going to be the No. 1 issue for this election. It has surpassed high taxes and over-the-top spending.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store