Canada’s Zero-Emission Vehicles Mandate Is A Costly Political Ruse

In June 2021, three Ministers of the Crown announced that “…the Government of Canada is setting a mandatory target for all new light-duty cars and passenger trucks sales to be zero-emission by 2035…”

This announcement came conveniently right before calling a federal election and was reaffirmed by the Prime Minister in a post-election (he won) mandate letter to the responsible minister.

Because the Ministers confirmed that the transportation sector accounts for about one-quarter of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, one would reasonably suspect—as many in the mainstream press did—that those emissions would plummet inversely to the rise in sales of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs).

It would be further quite reasonable to expect that 100% zero-emission vehicles would have significant repercussions in two of the country’s most important industries: building internal combustion engines and producing the fuel for them.

That supposedly reasonable logic is incorrect. If implemented, the zero-emissions mandate will restrict choices in vehicle selection, dramatically increase the cost of a new vehicle, and transfer tax dollars from those who cannot afford a new vehicle to those who can.

It will not achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty cars and passenger trucks. Gasoline stations will still be needed, and the manufacturing of internal combustion engines will continue.

To qualify in Canada as a zero-emission vehicle there is no requirement to have zero emissions all the time. The vehicle only needs to have the potential for zero emissions.

There is no minimum distance of zero-emission driving that needs to be physically achieved to qualify as a ZEV. There is no banning of the internal combustion engine, only the requirement of the ability to operate without it.

Theoretically, you could charge up your plug-in gasoline/battery hybrid vehicle, drive 27 km (17 miles) until the battery is dead, and then drive on gasoline for the life of the car. For this, the Canadian Federal Government will give you $2,500 cash because you now own a zero-emission vehicle.

Or you could plug in the battery every night and drive the first 27 km each day on battery power. Only if you stopped to recharge the battery every 27 km would it achieve zero emissions.

The vehicle above with a 27 km battery range is a Subaru Crosstrek Hybrid AWD. It falls into a class of vehicles called plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV).

They store electricity from the grid in a battery (plug-in), have a backup gasoline internal combustion engine to charge the battery while driving (hybrid), and are propelled by electric motors (electric vehicles).

There are currently 26 models of PHEVs for sale in Canada, with an average electric-only range of 40 km (25 miles).

The old-style hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), like the original Toyota Prius, also have an internal combustion engine to charge a battery that powers an electric drive train, but they do not qualify as ZEVs as they cannot store electricity sourced from the grid.

The second class of vehicle that qualifies in Canada as a ZEV is the hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle. It is similar to a PHEV except for a hydrogen fuel cell substitute for the internal combustion engine in charging the storage battery.

I doubt these will sell in Canada, as I proposed in a previously published article Are Hydrogen Fuel Cells ‘Mind-Boggling Stupid?’. A bigger obstacle is that no significant retail hydrogen infrastructure exists in Canada.

The third class of zero-emission vehicles in Canada is the battery electric vehicle (BEV). These vehicles run exclusively on electricity sourced from the grid and regenerative electricity from the vehicle’s braking system.

They have zero vehicle tailpipe emissions; they don’t even have a tailpipe. They also don’t have a backup mode of power if the battery fails.

The Chevrolet Bolt is a good example; it gets 416 km (259 miles) on a single charge and qualifies for a $5,000 government purchase incentive.

Deloitte just released their 2022 Global Automotive Consumer Study of which a key finding was that only 5% of Americans listed the BEV as the preferred powertrain for their next vehicle.

I suspect the Canadian preference for BEVs will be even lower due to safety issues. Of the 16 BEVs available in Canada, the average range between charges is 375 km (230 miles). That’s in the summer.

Canada is not a typical country. Relative to its vastness, it remains sparsely inhabited because of its sub-Arctic and Arctic climates.

Winter survival gear includes a dependable vehicle, and this becomes a life-or-death choice when traveling empty distances between population centers. Long-distance driving at -30°C (-22°F) in the extended darkness of a winter day is not uncommon. It’s very typical.

Lithium-ion batteries, the battery of choice for most BEVs, have a reduced driving range in cold conditions.

Batteries containerize a chemical reaction that slows down and reduces the battery capacity as the temperature drops. BEVs use the same braking system as PHEVs and HEVs to capture the energy and recharge the battery; that system stops also working in the extreme cold.

As the battery capacity drops due to temperature, more electrical power is needed for cabin heat and headlights for longer periods of darkness.

The American Automobile Association (AAA) tested BEV cars at -7°C (20°F) and reported the driving range diminished by 41%.

Consumer Reports magazine did a test during a cold snap at -18°C (0°F) and recommended for winter driving conditions that the published rating be cut in half.

For most Canadians, -18°C is good skiing and outdoor hockey weather, and occasionally it’s the temperature for our Grey Cup football championship game.

For Canadians, -18°C means life continues as normal, but the driving range of the average BEV should be cut in half to about 185 km (115 miles).

That’s not going to get you to the ski hill and back, to the kids’ hockey game the next town over, or through a busy Saturday with friends and errands.

Charging a BEV at your destination might not be an alternative, as the charging time at -25°C (-13°F) is 63% slower than at +25°C (77°F). Again, the chemical reactions slow down at low temperatures.

Lithium-ion batteries have greatly reduced capacities in the cold, but Canadians don’t. Battery electric vehicles sales in Canada will be limited to people who don’t drive very far in winter and who have the patience for longer recharging times. BEVs are not a good fit for most Canadians; it’s a safety issue.

Canada’s Federal Government is desperate to tell the world that we have mandated zero emissions from our light-duty cars and passenger trucks.

They have given us three options: mind-bogglingly stupid hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles; battery-electric vehicles that in the deadest of winter are disposed to strand you somewhere between a cold and a dark place; or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle which is an expensive short distance battery-assist to traditional internal combustion engine cars.

While actual zero emissions will not be realized by the mandatory sales target of 100% zero-emissions vehicles, some environmental good could be achieved if the Canadian government took a more honest approach.

In contrast to the wide-open spaces that some Canadians traverse each day, others commute short distances in urban areas.

Nitrous oxides from internal combustion engines of those commuter vehicles contribute to the yellow-tinged photochemical smog (Los Angeles-type smog) that is unhealthy.

Canadians would be better served with the following program:

• Mandate PHEVs or BEVs in urban areas with genuine medical concerns related to smog. The mandate should come with cash incentives to help offset the costs. This is a health issue, not a climate change issue.
• Build a charging infrastructure in the large metropolitan areas where the EV owners would live, not everywhere where the government hopes they will be used. This is a fiscal sanity issue.
• Require BEV manufacturers to test and publish sub-Arctic cold temperature driving ranges and charging times. This is a safety issue.
• For the rest of us who drive longer and/or remoter roads, who don’t live in areas with a medically hazardous smog problem, the internal combustion engine on its own is just fine. This is a free-market issue.

Even with the caveat that zero emissions are only potentially zero emissions, achieving the 100% zero-emission sales mandate is a long way off.

The latest available statistics from 2019 indicate ZEVs accounted for 2.9% of vehicle sales in Canada. Of these ZEV sales, almost half were in the province of Quebec, where there is an even larger supplemental incentive of $4,000 for PHEVs and $8,000 for BEVs.

Quebecers purchased about 6% of their vehicles in 2019 as ZEVs, twice the national average, because their total incentives are more than twice the national average.

At this level, achieving 100% of national sales of two million vehicles could easily exceed $20 billion in subsidies every year. That would still result in the cost of a ZEV being a deterrent.

A Toyota RAV4 PHEV is $16,000 more expensive than the base RAV4 internal combustion engine model and the combined Federal-Quebec incentive would be only $6,500.

While it’s true that ZEVs have a role to play in clearing the air of smog over our major metropolitan areas, the Zero-Emissions Mandate being pursued by the Government of Canada is another political climate change deception Canada cannot afford.

Ron Barmby (www.ronaldbarmby.ca) is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree, whose 40+ year career in the energy sector has taken him to over 40 countries on five continents. He recently published “Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria” (Amazon, Barnes & Noble) to explain in understandable terms the science of how both natural and human-caused global warming work.