FINANCIAL POST COLUMN: The shocking gap in Ottawa’s EV plan — lack of due dilligence

What would happen to your electricity bill if all your neighbours started driving electric vehicles (EVs)? This is not a hypothetical question. The federal government’s plan is for Canadians to be driving EVs en masse in a little more than a decade. Ottawa has banned the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles as of 2035 and the government has committed tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in grants and incentives to the makers of EV batteries.

You’d think anyone writing such a plan would understand it’s crucial to know what the coming flood of EVs will do to Canadians’ electricity bills. But research by SecondStreet.org suggests no one does know the answer — or has even addressed the question in a serious way. After we filed Freedom of Information requests nationwide, governments generally responded that they simply don’t know.

To be sure, it’s good that consumers have EVs as a transportation option. Competition is good for consumers. But it’s one thing for Canadians to have the option of buying electric cars, it’s quite another for the government to mandate such vehicles.

In addition to the serious implications of having Canadians’ choices regarding such important transportation choices taken from them and instead made for them by the federal government, mandating EVs comes with significant consequences for electricity grids.

EVs use lots of electricity. According to Energy Minute, an organization that follows energy issues closely, an electric car increases a home’s electricity usage by “25-35 per cent.” Consider that many households have more than one vehicle and it’s easy to see how a wave of EVs will require large amounts of power. Where will it all come from?

Part of the answer is to charge electric vehicles at night when demand is lower and electric utilities have more power available. Analysis provided to SecondStreet.org from electricity providers across Canada show they’re counting on consumers doing just that. But many utilities conceded more capacity will be needed and they’re looking at “renewables” as one option. The obvious problem with renewables, of course, is that wind and solar struggle when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun shining — which it doesn’t do at night.

To make matters even more challenging, the federal government is pushing provincial governments to stop using natural gas and oil for power generation. That won’t affect provinces like Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia much as they rely heavily on hydro power. But Alberta, Saskatchewan and. to a lesser extent, Ontario depend more on natural gas for power and certainly will be affected.

The Canadian Climate Institute expects that regulatory changes and the push for electric vehicles mean electrical grids will need twice as much power generation capacity by 2050. The electricity infrastructure that took more than 100 years to build will need to double in less than 30 years.

In addition to having to generate more power, distribution grids across Canada will require upgrades. That means the power lines to your street and home and the transformers in your neighbourhood. On many Canadian streets the existing electrical infrastructure simply can’t handle a large increase in demand. SecondStreet.org obtained a report from SaskPower, Saskatchewan’s power utility, that found a cluster of 22 homes could only handle 11 electric cars before outages would occur.

In a document SecondStreet.org obtained from Manitoba Hydro, the utility noted that upgrades to accommodate electric vehicles will lead to higher rates, which will especially affect low-income Canadians because electrical costs represent a larger share of their household budgets. The utility also noted that all ratepayers will be affected — so even if you don’t own an electric vehicle, you will still be paying for those that do.

In sum, though some utilities recognize that rates will rise in order to support EVs, none knows exactly what the effect will be as they spend billions to upgrade their systems in preparation for EVs. It obviously would be better if utilities did have these figures but let’s not forget: this isn’t their idea — it’s Ottawa’s. Before the federal government went barrelling down the EV highway it should have calculated the implications of its decision — province by province — and shared its findings with the public.

Until proper due diligence has been conducted, the only reasonable option is to pause both the ban on gas-powered vehicles and the push for EVs. Only when Canadians know how Ottawa’s plan affects their wallets will they be in a position to judge it properly.

Colin Craig is the president of think tank SecondStreet.org.

This column was originally published on December 7, 2023.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.