The Canadian Electric Vehicle thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

There has been a long EV discussion on the "Lamenting the decline of the car" thread, which became a large tangent that drove the thread somewhat off-topic. So I thought I'd start a new thread in the Canada section specifically for EVs, so the other thread could continue as it was meant, and perhaps the bulk of EV-specific posts could be placed in this thread.

I'll start off the thread with this article:
https://globalnews.ca/news/8443068/e...-suvs-pickups/

The federal government wants to overhaul the rebate program for electric vehicles so that it more closely aligns with the kinds of cars Canadians want to buy, says Transport Minister Omar Alghabra.

The Liberals promised in their election platform to spend another $1.5 billion over the next four years on the Incentives for Zero-Emission Vehicles (iZEV) program, which is one part of a big push to get more electric vehicles on the roads as Canada strives to reach net zero by 2050.

The current program has been immensely popular, but Alghabra is looking at improvements.

Right now, the program restricts the rebates to new vehicles with a maximum base price of $45,000, and a maximum price for models with upgraded features of $55,000.

That will leave out many of the new SUVs and pickup trucks that will start flooding the market next year, including the F-150 Lightning electric pickup that Ford says will start around $58,000.

“The vast majority of vehicles purchased today are SUVs and pickup trucks, and while (zero-emission vehicle) options are becoming available for these segments, many of these will be priced out of the current iZEV program,” Alghabra said in a written statement issued by his office.

While I understand the benefit to the environment of giving the EV market a boost, I have to say that it makes me a little uneasy that the government wants to use tax money to basically help wealthy people buy big SUVs and pickups, even if they are electric-powered, while many people of lesser means are struggling to find a place to live or to keep an old junker of a car running so they can get to work and move their families around.

What do you think?

[MonctonRad]

I think the Liberal government is just being realistic here. If you limit the rebates to vehicles with a base price of less than $45,000, then you are excluding many vehicle options for the consumer. There are many people who are driven to chose a certain size or type of vehicle to purchase. If they can get this vehicle in an EV format, we'll. then that's a bonus.

Some people just want a pick-up, SUV or luxury vehicle. You won't convince these people to choose a Prius just because it's an electric. If however you can get your Ford F150 as an electric, I think many people would do so.

If the governments intent is to get as many people to purchase EVs as possible, then broadening the rebate program is the proper way to go.........

[Hali87]

Maybe expanding it to include used electric vehicles would help? If the main focus is reducing emissions then it would make sense to target pickup trucks and SUVs since they tend to be higher-emission than small cars, and tend to get more use as "work" vehicles. I think there's some value to including some of the larger vehicles in these rebates while also pushing the price points of cheaper electric vehicles down to the point that they're no more expensive for the consumer (or cheaper) than their ICE counterparts. Right now vehicles like the Tesla 3, Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt cost about 1.5-2x as much as a (new) Civic before rebates, so we're not really that far off at this point.

Something that's not really clear to me is how the logistics of owning an electric vehicle would work for residents of buildings that don't have chargers or people who don't have driveways and park on the street. Is it important to be able to charge "at home" or is it practical to fill up occasionally at an off-site charger as one would with fuel?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hali87

Maybe expanding it to include used electric vehicles would help?

The biggest problem with the used market is the lack of supply. Monetary incentives aren't going to help expand supply at all, in the used market.

What would help the used market is mandates on new cars forcing OEMs to sell more EVs in Canada, which will eventually filter down to the used car market. Mandates might help even more than monetary incentives. OEMs, short on supply, are directing EV supplies to jurisdictions with mandates. This is why Europe gets more EVs than North America. And why BC and Quebec get most of the EVs shipped to Canada.

Guilbeault does seem to understand a lot of the issues, better than previous ministers, from what I've seen. He also understands the massive threat to the auto manufacturing sector, being behind on electrification.

Originally Posted by Hali87

Something that's not really clear to me is how the logistics of owning an electric vehicle would work for residents of buildings that don't have chargers or people who don't have driveways and park on the street. Is it important to be able to charge "at home" or is it practical to fill up occasionally at an off-site charger as one would with fuel?

Adoption isn't going to happen uniformly everywhere. House owners, particularly those in suburbs, will have distinct advantages and can electrify sooner. It's going to take some time to figure it out for apartment and condo dwellers. This is why infrastructure subsidies might be more important than subsidizing vehicles, which are seeing prices come down anyway.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think the Liberal government is just being realistic here. If you limit the rebates to vehicles with a base price of less than $45,000, then you are excluding many vehicle options for the consumer. There are many people who are driven to chose a certain size or type of vehicle to purchase. If they can get this vehicle in an EV format, we'll. then that's a bonus.

Some people just want a pick-up, SUV or luxury vehicle. You won't convince these people to choose a Prius just because it's an electric. If however you can get your Ford F150 as an electric, I think many people would do so.

If the governments intent is to get as many people to purchase EVs as possible, then broadening the rebate program is the proper way to go.........

That $45 000 cap is because of the backlash that the Ontario Liberals faced when most of the provincial EV rebates went to $100k Model S buyers a decade ago. It was spun as subsidizing the rich by the Conservatives. The Ford Conservatives went on to not just scrap the rebate, but to rip out chargers installed at GO stations. Culture wars are stupid like that....

The subsidy policies are currently badly designed. They don't scale with purchase price, with a base price requirement that is now at or below the average new car price in Canada. They don't have a phase out deadline, giving an industry a target to stand on its own.

Personally, I think a better policy instead of rebate is just a sales tax exemption for all plug ins for a given time period. With most mainstream analysts predicting purchase price parity in different segments and markets between 2024-2028, they could simply put in a GST/HST exemption through to 2030. Provinces can jump in on their bit of the HST if they want. This is a rebate that scales with purchase price. It doesn't require a list from the government of which models and trims qualify. And it gives industry a deadline.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I think the Liberal government is just being realistic here. If you limit the rebates to vehicles with a base price of less than $45,000, then you are excluding many vehicle options for the consumer. There are many people who are driven to chose a certain size or type of vehicle to purchase. If they can get this vehicle in an EV format, we'll. then that's a bonus.

Some people just want a pick-up, SUV or luxury vehicle. You won't convince these people to choose a Prius just because it's an electric. If however you can get your Ford F150 as an electric, I think many people would do so.

If the governments intent is to get as many people to purchase EVs as possible, then broadening the rebate program is the proper way to go.........

I think the issue is that the rebates tend to be a smaller percentage of the costlier vehicles' overall price ($5k off $50k only 10% while it's 20% off $25k) so a flat rate rebate becomes less and less persuasive the costlier the car. People who can afford those higher prices aren't as likely to be sensitive to those smaller price differences. Yes, electrifying the most gas guzzling vehicles makes sense, but the biggest gas consumers are already going to save so much by going electric, the "stick" option of nudging up the carbon tax is probably more effective for them.

Another issue is the political optics of giving government subsidies to the affluent. These people already stand to benefit disproportionately from advances in technology since they have the upfront cash for things that are more expensive to buy but have lower long-term costs.

The final issue is that it isn't just about getting people to "go electric" but rather encouraging greater sustainability more broadly. An EV is always going to be more efficient than a similar ICE vehicle, but if we're comparing a large luxury EV with a huge battery (and therefore huge embedded carbon footprint) to a small, fairly efficient ICE vehicle - especially a hybrid - then it isn't so clear cut. Even buying and driving smaller EVs is worse for the environment than just driving less, so it isn't clear that actually giving government subsidies to these large vehicles in the name of the environment in the best use of the money. Many of our electronics and appliances have had "energy star" labels on them for years showing the efforts put into reducing power consumption, yet EVs can absorb days worth of a household's typical power consumption in a single charge so their power efficiency is still important.

Sure, some people will always insist on having a large vehicle, but money talks. There will inevitably be some who would buy something smaller with the right incentives, and making the credit simultaneously a "smaller vehicle" incentive along with being an EV incentive might reduce carbon more than a general EVs credit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The final issue is that it isn't just about getting people to "go electric" but rather encouraging greater sustainability more broadly. An EV is always going to be more efficient than a similar ICE vehicle, but if we're comparing a large luxury EV with a huge battery (and therefore huge embedded carbon footprint) to a small, fairly efficient ICE vehicle - especially a hybrid - then it isn't so clear cut. Even buying and driving smaller EVs is worse for the environment than just driving less, so it isn't clear that actually giving government subsidies to these large vehicles in the name of the environment in the best use of the money.

This myth needs to die. Canada's grid is so clean (and getting cleaner) that the emissions payback period is a fraction of the vehicle's lease. Even on a very large vehicle, the payback period is not going to be more than half the vehicles life.

Moreover, what are the chances somebody is moving from a Prius to a Hummer EV? Anybody willing to buy a Hummer EV would probably see an Escalade as the alternative.

I agree that people should drive less. But we know how hard it is getting people to do that. And we don't have decades to convince them to change behaviour and rebuild most of our cities to be more walkable and transit friendly. If they are going to drive, we should do our best to make sure it's in an EV.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I agree that people should drive less. But we know how hard it is getting people to do that. And we don't have decades to convince them to change behaviour and rebuild most of our cities to be more walkable and transit friendly. If they are going to drive, we should do our best to make sure it's in an EV.

I agree with all this.

Also, we are delving into wars between childless downtown condo dwellers and suburban households of five. A larger suburban family will usually always choose a larger vehicle like an SUV for reasons such as Costco runs, hockey practices and family vacations. They just need the extra space. There are reasons why a larger vehicle might be necessary beyond simple personal preference. Suburban families should not be penalized by misguided priorities in the rebate programs.

The goal should be to encourage EV adoption across the board - period.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This myth needs to die. Canada's grid is so clean (and getting cleaner) that the emissions payback period is a fraction of the vehicle's lease. Even on a very large vehicle, the payback period is not going to be more than half the vehicles life.

Moreover, what are the chances somebody is moving from a Prius to a Hummer EV? Anybody willing to buy a Hummer EV would probably see an Escalade as the alternative.

I agree that people should drive less. But we know how hard it is getting people to do that. And we don't have decades to convince them to change behaviour and rebuild most of our cities to be more walkable and transit friendly. If they are going to drive, we should do our best to make sure it's in an EV.

You sound like you're responding to a point I didn't make. I agree that there has been a long circulating myth that EVs aren't better for the environment because of their embedded carbon footprint and that the myth has been dispelled. But part of how the myth got started is that people compared different classes of vehicles such as large, luxury EVs like the model S with small efficient ICE vehicles in order to support the efficiency of ice vehicles. While the takeaway that they were pushing - that EVs aren't really better in general - was wrong, what I think it correctly points out is that vehicle size does matter and is something to be considered when forming policies related to the environment.

If we're pressed for time, we need to use the limited funds as efficiently as possible. My whole argument is to question whether subsidizing large, environmentally damaging vehicles is the best way to do it. For example, for many years the US has something called a "gas guzzler" tax which discouraged people from buying vehicles with poor fuel economy. There's a variety of policy options available so there's no reason not to think carefully and tailor our approach in the way that's most effective.

[theman23]

Scrap rebates. EVs don’t need them. Spend money on charging infrastructure instead so non home owners can realistically buy them.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The goal should be to encourage EV adoption across the board - period.

If that's the case, there are still a variety of options in the policy toolkit to achieve that. Subsidies are a valuable option, but not every goal has to be served by throwing subsidies at everything. And I already mentioned a few reasons why other options might work better in some instances. If a subsidy really is just a utilitarian tool to accomplish a goal, then not directing it at a particular subset of the population isn't a "penalty". And if these large suburban families can already afford to drive a large SUV, they already stand to achieve a huge fuel cost savings by going EV. Much bigger than a condo couple switching from a civic to an model 3 for instance.

[theman23]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If that's the case, there are still a variety of options in the policy toolkit to achieve that. Subsidies are a valuable option, but not every goal has to be served by throwing subsidies at everything. And I already mentioned a few reasons why other options might work better in some instances. If a subsidy really is just a utilitarian tool to accomplish a goal, then not directing it at a particular subset of the population isn't a "penalty". And if these large suburban families can already afford to drive a large SUV, they already stand to achieve a huge savings by going EV. Much bigger than a condo couple switching from a civic to an model 3 for instance.

Yup.

[WhipperSnapper]

I'm feeling quirky.

Make solar installations profitable for homeowners to install. Raise the taxes on gasoline for non commercial vehicles. I think my point is to a broader incentive that also steers people to electric vehicles. I'm not up to date. Ontario had a program that made solar installations profitable and it resulted in acres upon acres of roofs covered in panels within the Toronto area. They may have a program again.

[OldDartmouthMark]

I'm wondering why we're doing the subsidy thing at all, rather than just requiring the carmakers to sell a minimum "X" % of each segment as EVs.

Pros:
- A tangible target percentage of new vehicle sales could be set that must be reached by the automakers without tossing out $ incentives and hoping that customers bite. (i.e. Canada could guarantee a certain percentage of new EVs replacing ICVs.)

- Penalties could be put in place in the form of a tax that is based on how much the target has been missed. This tax could (should) be put towards other 'green' projects (i.e. charging infrastructure, etc.).

- Making it an automaker requirement would switch the cost of incentivizing to the automakers - i.e. they might have to eat some profit on each EV unit sold in order to achieve price parity, but it would not cost the taxpayers a dime. This might further incentivize the companies to step up their EV programs so they could practically reach price parity with ICVs sooner (though I think they are doing this anyway).

Cons:
- Switching the responsibility of incentivizing to the automakers would create a situation where their goal is to only reach the government-mandated target, to minimize their profit loss.

- Governments tend to not want to piss off large industries, for political reasons... so this could be a deal breaker.

- Companies that only sell EVs aren't in the position to take a loss in order to achieve parity with ICV prices, and thus could sustain some damage from a playing field that's not level (although with govt subsidies they would benefit, but at a cost to taxpayers).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You sound like you're responding to a point I didn't make. I agree that there has been a long circulating myth that EVs aren't better for the environment because of their embedded carbon footprint and that the myth has been dispelled. But part of how the myth got started is that people compared different classes of vehicles such as large, luxury EVs like the model S with small efficient ICE vehicles in order to support the efficiency of ice vehicles. While the takeaway that they were pushing - that EVs aren't really better in general - was wrong, what I think it correctly points out is that vehicle size does matter and is something to be considered when forming policies related to the environment.

This is still pushing the same argument though. A Hummer EV running on 100% clean power in Quebec will still have better lifecycle emissions than a Prius. It won't even be close.

Moreover, worrying about vehicle size largely seems like a pointless distraction when the public is already massively upsizing with gas vehicles. A gas F150 is a much bigger threat than an electric F150. If anything, the public seems to tolerate smaller vehicles on the EV side far more. There's more sedans and compacts sold (proportionally) in the EV world than than ICEV world. Putting the burden for reducing vehicle sizes on EVs, will simply see more large gas vehicles sold.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If we're pressed for time, we need to use the limited funds as efficiently as possible. My whole argument is to question whether subsidizing large, environmentally damaging vehicles is the best way to do it. For example, for many years the US has something called a "gas guzzler" tax which discouraged people from buying vehicles with poor fuel economy. There's a variety of policy options available so there's no reason not to think carefully and tailor our approach in the way that's most effective.

The gas guzzler tax was about emissions. Not about vehicle size per se. This isn't a problem with EVs. Especially in a country where most of the power generated has little to no emissions. Also, we have a gas guzzler tax: the carbon tax. Doesn't seem to have stopped people buying Silverados to get groceries from Walmart.

[WhipperSnapper]

I would guess it is because the carmakers have a loud and powerful political voice should producing x number of electric vehicles not be to their benefit.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I'm wondering why we're doing the subsidy thing at all, rather than just requiring the carmakers to sell a minimum "X" % of each segment as EVs.

Not quite each segment, but Guilbeault is suggesting industry wide targets will be legislated. IE. Penalties for any OEM, under the sales target requirement in a given year. Industry wants some consumer support too though. Otherwise, total sales fall. Hence the subsidies.

There's also the EU method of strict fleet wide fuel economy standards measured in gCO2/km:



Personally, I like the European approach. It lets carmakers tailor strategy to strengths. They can electrify higher polluting models. Or they can turn every model into a hybrid to cut emissions. Toyota, for example, can meet requirements, by just selling hybrids exclusively till mid-decade.

For reference, where Canada is:

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is still pushing the same argument though. A Hummer EV running on 100% clean power in Quebec will still have better lifecycle emissions than a Prius. It won't even be close.

I don't think it's part of the same argument at all. The first incorrect argument is that EVs are bad because they aren't an improvement over ICE cars. The second argument is that EVs are a big improvement but not the only thing to consider in terms of sustainability which is not only 100% correct but an important thing to remind people who think the only thing that matters in terms of climate change is buying an EV. Buy an EV, and that's it. All our problems are been solved!

That's actually quite interesting about the lifecycle carbon though. Not too surprising in a region dominated by hydro power I suppose, but I'm still interested in seeing the source.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Moreover, worrying about vehicle size largely seems like a pointless distraction when the public is already massively upsizing with gas vehicles. A gas F150 is a much bigger threat than an electric F150. If anything, the public seems to tolerate smaller vehicles on the EV side far more. There's more sedans and compacts sold (proportionally) in the EV world than than ICEV world. Putting the burden for reducing vehicle sizes on EVs, will simply see more large gas vehicles sold.


The gas guzzler tax was about emissions. Not about vehicle size per se. This isn't a problem with EVs. Especially in a country where most of the power generated has little to no emissions. Also, we have a gas guzzler tax: the carbon tax. Doesn't seem to have stopped people buying Silverados to get groceries from Walmart.

And of course when i say vehicle size, I primarily mean battery size and energy consumption which is correlated with vehicle size, but it's not a direct relationship. However, both are closely correlated with price.

In terms of the carbon tax, sure it doesn't stop people from buying ICE gas guzzles but neither does a subsidy. That's just part of living in a free country where we use incentives and disincentives rather than outright mandates. Some people will be persuaded and many won't. The point is finding the best policy to accomplish the goal.

My position isn't that I'm certain expanded, generalized EV subsidies is a bad policy; It's that others shouldn't be so certain that it's a good one. Until we need some more data I'm personally undecided. It would require a study showing dollars in tax credits spent vs total carbon reduction under the current limited subsidy regime compared to with subsidies expanded.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

My position isn't that I'm certain expanded, generalized EV subsidies is a bad policy; It's that others shouldn't be so certain that it's a good one. Until we need some more data I'm personally undecided. It would require a study showing dollars in tax credits spent vs total carbon reduction under the current limited subsidy regime compared to with subsidies expanded.

The best policy would be a very high carbon tax.
This is obvious in comparing the size and consumption of vehicles driven in jurisdictions where gas is taxed very highly. How many people would drive F150s today, if gas was $2/L for regular?

The only reason we have incentives is because it's entirely politically infeasible for any government to do what is honestly needed. So governments are pursuing a combination of push and pull policies. We're literally in the middle of Europe (where most countries have limited EV incentives and higher carbon pricing) and the US (where the government is pushing massive tax breaks because carbon taxes are entirely politically infeasible).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The best policy would be a very high carbon tax.
This is obvious in comparing the size and consumption of vehicles driven in jurisdictions where gas is taxed very highly. How many people would drive F150s today, if gas was $2/L for regular?

The only reason we have incentives is because it's entirely politically infeasible for any government to do what is honestly needed. So governments are pursuing a combination of push and pull policies. We're literally in the middle of Europe (where most countries have limited EV incentives and higher carbon pricing) and the US (where the government is pushing massive tax breaks because carbon taxes are entirely politically infeasible).

I agree that that would be the most effective policy purely in terms of carbon emissions. However, when I say "best" I also include the mitigation of negative effects such as exasperating inequality. While it's inevitable that with every policy there will be winners and losers, making the status quo more costly as a way to push people to change behaviours is problematic when that change is too costly up-front for some of them. EVs should really be a natural fit for lower income people since EVs have a lower overall cost of ownership. But that higher up-front cost can be a barrier.

That being said, subsidies aren't the only way to address the issue. In Europe, apparently some manufacturers have different programs where people buy an EV without the battery (which still accounts for around 1/2 the cost) and leases the battery. Another option would be different types of government financing that would spread out the cost. Here in NS, the local power company (which is privately owned but heavily regulated) has a program where people can buy and install a heat pump in order to save energy. They benefit from the approx 40% energy savings right away, and pay for the heat pump with 1-2 years of installments on their monthly power bill. Something like that might help for people who can't get a large enough car loan for a pricier EV. This might actually be better than tax incentives since you don't have to wait until you file.