It’s an aggressive target, especially considering that only 8.9% of registered vehicles in Canada were ZEVs in 2022. But it should prevent 430 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, moving the country closer to net-zero.

To reach those goals, the government will need a vast network of researchers, engineers and technicians, all with the flexibility and ambition to undertake this work. They’re going to need students.

Across the country, university students are researching all aspects of ZEVs, from improving battery life and strengthening the electrical grid the cars will rely on, to how best to incentivize Canadian drivers to get behind the wheels of their own ZEVs. There are the University of British Columbia and the University of Victoria, producing new batteries with smelting by-products rather than relying on virgin metals. Two researchers at Dalhousie University have joined an exclusive partnership with the car manufacturer Tesla, working to improve the lifespan and performance of its batteries. And recently, Project Arrow, the first fully made-in-Canada electric car, made its debut at the Canadian International AutoShow in Toronto. The car prototype was designed by students at Carleton University and built at Ontario Tech University, utilizing students’ skills the whole way.

The federal targets “give everyone a deadline to start implementing their solutions,” says Nilou Keshmiri, project manager of the McMaster EcoCAR Challenge team. “Even if it’s slightly aggressive, it’s definitely possible. And it’s necessary.” Keshmiri is leading a team of 180 students and faculty advisors in a competition to modify and improve a fully electric Cadillac. McMaster is one of two Canadian universities participating in the four-year challenge, with benchmarks and goals every month to keep teams on track. The first year, Keshmiri says, the focus is on modelling and simulations, as the team decides how they’ll begin to modify the car in year two. “We’re trying to come up with new technologies or software optimization techniques that are not in common practice in industry as of now. And as we’re in school, we have more flexibility to try these things out,” she says.

Of course, there’s more to cutting emissions than just getting Canadians to buy ZEVs. Once all those cars are in garages across the country, how do we ensure our cities are ready for them? Omid Ardakanian’s team at the University of Alberta is figuring that out, looking into grid-friendly charging, also known as congestion control. If everyone plugs in their cars at the same time, it could overload the capacity of the transformers and power lines. Cities are looking to replace this infrastructure but will have to do it over time because of the immense cost. Ardakanian’s team is looking at ways the power grids can vary the rate of charging based on how many people are tapping into the grid at the same time.

“Some of these technologies already exist,” Ardakanian says. Variable-rate chargers are becoming more common. “We have a very small number of chargers today, and a lot of people are thinking about buying a charger and installing it in their garage, and they’ll have a choice. And if they know that [variable-rate charging] will be a thing, they could make an informed decision.”

Even if it’s slightly aggressive, it’s definitely possible. And it’s necessary.

 

– Nilou Keshmiri, project manager of the McMaster EcoCAR Challenge team

 

Ardakanian’s team is also looking at multi-directional charging. Right now, your ZEV draws power from a charger – but what if your car could also power your house or appliances? “During extreme weather events, natural disasters or just because there’s a contingency on the grid,” Ardakanian explains, “if you have your car with a charged battery, you can use your car.” It’s known as a virtual power plant, where there are decentralized, small power-storage systems in the form of car batteries all across the country. Tesla is experimenting with the idea, working to help consumers rethink how their cars can function. And the Dutch city of Utrecht has installed more than 800 bidirectional chargers that let EV drivers sell electricity back into the grid.

Bringing drivers on board is a crucial step, and one that university research is especially primed to help with, says Tim Burrows, a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Electric Vehicle Society. As the adoption curve of hybrid and electric vehicles ramps up exponentially, drivers will be looking to take their cars on longer trips, so they’ll need consistent and powerful charges on their cars. It’s long been an issue for car manufacturers, but Burrows posits that “for certain aspects of technological development, universities are in a unique position. They’re not necessarily funded for profit, and they have some luxury to do research that a private-industry researcher probably can’t afford to do,” he says. “We need both our learning institutions and private industry working on this challenge.”

Ardakanian agrees and says it comes down to timelines. “University-level research is very important, because we work on things that may not be immediately relevant to the industry – medium-term to long-term projects.” The projects are a risky cost for many smaller car companies and a drain on resources for many larger ones. But universities have both the time and a regularly refreshed pool of talent to tackle them.

If we do not have this research, all the cool things that could happen 10 years or 20 years from now, they won’t.

 

– Omid Ardakanian, University of Alberta assistant professor

To date, the federal government has pushed hundreds of millions of dollars to universities working on EV research. In the past five years, they say they’ve paid out $1 billion in total funding to build up Canada’s EV market, with some of that money going to research at post-secondary institutions. They’ve funded charging stations on campuses and supported research on things like ensuring that vehicle stability mechanisms (like anti-lock brakes and traction control) work within electric systems. However, in order to maintain a well of engineers and technicians, some say the federal government needs to step up its support.

Narayan Kar and Madeline McQueen, with the University of Windsor’s Centre for Hybrid Automotive Research and Green Energy, have been calling for funding for university-level EV research and development that’s “proportional” with the government’s funding of ZEV manufacturing facilities.

“A federal investment to support a pan-Canadian, academia-industry research consortium will complement the government and industry investments on the manufacturing side, and set our country on the path to significant opportunities for EV innovation in the future,” Kar and McQueen wrote in The Hill Times. They add that without this funding, there will not be a large enough workforce for future projects, like the recently announced Stellantis EV research facility and LG battery plant in Windsor, which will need 3,000 skilled workers.

At the University of Alberta, Ardakanian’s own research is funded from a pool of about $8 million from the federal government, which he says is crucial.

“If we do not have this research, all the cool things that could happen 10 years or 20 years from now, they won’t.”

The post Canada will need students’ help to reach its aggressive EV targets appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Around North America (and soon the United Kingdom), a growing number of provincial and state governments have started requiring carmakers to meet annually increasing zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) sales targets.

In Canada, the federal government has indicated it intends to introduce such a regulation – called a Clean Car Standard – with the hope of phasing out the sale of new gasoline cars by 2035. Meanwhile, car industry lobbyists have been pushing back. The auto industry likes to talk a good game about its recent ZEV investments, usually with the implication that regulating them isn’t necessary. Car industry lobbyists argue that, rather than regulating, Canada can achieve the same results by increasing the federal purchase incentive for ZEVs to $15,000 from $5,000. 

We decided to put their proposal to the test in a new report Environmental Defence and Équiterre worked on with the Sustainable Transportation Action Research Team at Simon Fraser University (SFU). The expert team at SFU modelled it, and even when the subsidies were offered all the way up to 2035, ZEVs only reach 65% of new car sales – massively missing the 100% sales target for that year. It’s higher than business as usual, which will only get us to 39% by 2035 – but it just isn’t enough.

The automaker’s recommendation to triple incentives up to 2035 would also cost the federal government more than $54 billion, while the proposed regulation costs virtually nothing. With a Clean Car Standard, the cost of transitioning to electric vehicles is instead shifted onto the auto industry, resulting in a slight decline in profits compared to business as usual.

This should give you a hint as to why automakers are so vocally opposed to this proposal. The auto industry has a financial stake in slowing the transition to electric vehicles, because it makes more money by selling gasoline-fuelled cars.

Our analysis also reveals something far more sinister. Automakers actually capture a significant portion of the value from ZEV purchase incentives by hiking prices. That is, instead of passing the full value of the incentive onto the consumer, they increase the price markup on their electric vehicles to pad profits and slow ZEV adoption.

Furthermore, we found that of the $54 billion cost to taxpayers from a more generous subsidy, automakers would be able to pocket $10 billion through widening their profit margins on these vehicles, a process recently coined as “greedflation.” Here’s the kicker. They actually use a portion of these funds to reduce prices for gasoline-fuelled cars instead, and this is one of the reasons why the incentives approach fails to meet sales targets.

Championing increased incentives is a great way for automakers to appear to be climate champions while lobbying against regulations that would actually make them clean up their act.

The regulation also delivers more affordable electric vehicles – without subsidizing the auto industry. We found that a Clean Car Standard can lead to more than a 20% reduction in electric vehicle prices for the average consumer. This is because automakers would have to bring affordable models to the market and manufacture at scale to meet ZEV sales targets, instead of their current focus on producing a low volume of high-priced luxury models. 

The Clean Car Standard results in Canada hitting every sales target outlined in the federal government’s emissions reduction plan, cumulatively reducing carbon emissions by 135 million tonnes by 2035. To put that into perspective, that is equivalent to 57.5 billion litres of gasoline not burned – enough to fill 23,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.  

Automakers have a responsibility to address the role they play in contributing to climate disaster. The first step is requiring them to live up to their own green pledges and deliver more affordable electric vehicles to Canadians, even if it means slightly less for their bottom lines. By shaving the price of a ZEV down by 20% while helping Canadians escape from high gas prices, it’s clear that a Clean Car Standard is both a win for the climate and consumers’ pocketbooks.

The post Putting car industry lobbyists’ ZEV claims to the test appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In the 1960s, a scientist named Ruth Reck working at General Motors found in her research that emissions from car tailpipes were causing global heating and would result in dire consequences for the planet. Reck presented her findings on climate change to three top executives at GM’s corporate headquarters, two of whom would later become CEO. 

They ignored her. 

Even after knowing the threat of climate change, they refused to alter their business plans or lobbying strategies – because it could affect their bottom lines. Decades later, it seems that car corporations haven’t changed much. The one difference now is they like to pretend they care about the climate.

Listening to car industry lobbyists these days, you’d think you were listening to electric vehicle evangelists. They’ll say the real reason Canada is lagging behind other countries in EV adoption is a demand deficiency caused by the lack of consumer education, purchase incentives and charging infrastructure.

Please ignore the man behind the curtain. 

If Canada had a lack of consumer demand for EVs, we wouldn’t see buyer waiting lists that are up to three years long. Despite 83% of consumers willing to test drive an EV and 51% willing to buy one, most dealerships (55%) don’t have a single EV in stock. Increasing purchase incentives in this low-supply environment – a demand subsidy – would simply grow these wait lists and potentially inflate prices. 

While the availability of charging is a real problem – and we should be doing more to build out a robust network – it’s wrong to suggest that it’s the primary barrier holding back EV adoption. Studies have shown that boosting public charging to even universally available levels – making charging as convenient as gassing up – would move the dial for EV new market share by only 1.5%. It’s an important part of the policy solution but not an actual replacement for stronger policies – as car companies like to suggest. 

There’s a problem with lack of consumer education on the benefits of EVs? Don’t tell that to the advertising departments of major car companies. Nearly 80% of all car ads are for gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks, which are approximately 20% less fuel efficient than regular cars. Car companies are the second-largest investor in digital advertising in Canada, just behind retail – spending $1.6 billion in 2019. This advertising power is part of the story of why these fuel-inefficient vehicles have risen from half of new car sales to eight out of every 10 new car sales over the last decade. This trend explains why Canada has the most polluting vehicle fleet in the world.

What’s really going on here?

While car companies like to brag about how many new EV models they’re bringing to market, they produce very low volumes of them. That’s because EVs have smaller margins compared to gas guzzlers – so they make less money selling them. Car companies will be able to make a significant amount of money on EVs only if they scale production, achieve lower production costs from “economies of scale” and can offer more competitive prices. But that will cost billions of dollars. 

Why do that, when you can just keep making more money from existing investments in manufacturing gas guzzlers? They’re in the business of making money – and the money is good. North America’s “big three” automakers – Ford, Stellantis and GM – collectively made $41.5 billion (Canadian) in operating profits last year. 

Automakers are trying to fight against the federal government’s plan to bring in regulations that will enforce Canada’s EV sales targets, and effectively ban the sale of gasoline-powered cars by 2035, because they stand to lose money that they’d otherwise make profiting from the pollution. In order to meet sales targets, they’d be forced to reinvest the profits they make from these gas guzzlers into expanding EV production and offer clean cars at more affordable prices.

Which is why they’re spending so much time and effort trying to deflect blame onto Canadian consumers. The auto industry would like us all to think that Canada’s slow EV adoption rate is your fault, rather than how they make, market and price their cars. 

Let’s not fall for it. 

The post Despite what auto industry says, consumers aren’t to blame for poor EV sales appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In late June, the environment ministers of the 27 European states agreed to reduce the allowable CO2 emissions of new vehicles in 2035 to zero – putting an end to engines running on gasoline, diesel or natural gas. Effectively, the new standard will be electric vehicles – with the EU deferring until 2026 a decision on whether to phase out combustion/electric hybrids by 2035.

The agreement quashed a request for more time by some automakers, which revealed a growing split in the automobile and broader mobility sectors. In mid-May, Volvo and Ford Europe joined a broad coalition of companies, including  Zurich Insurance Group, in urging the EU to take action. “Policies put in place in the next few years will decide whether the world has a fighting chance to curb climate change,” said the letter signed by 28 companies. “To enable all cars and vans on the road to reach zero emissions by 2050, the last car with any combustion engine, including hybrids, should be sold no later than 2035.” 

Other car brands have pledged to sell only electric cars in Europe by the end of the next decade but had sought to avoid a firm 2035 deadline. Renault chief executive Luca de Meo said the shift to electric could take a long time: “The choice of going all electric for everyone and everywhere is not that obvious.” And the powerful European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) questioned whether sufficient charging infrastructure could be built in time. 

The industry letter, co-ordinated by Brussels-based green-mobility lobbyists Transport & Environment, says that passenger cars and light commercial vehicles account for 15% of Europe’s CO2 emissions and that electric vehicles will be a key pillar in the fight against climate change: “Every fifth car sold across the EU in 2021 had a plug.” 

Other signatories to the open letter include heavyweights such as Uber, Pfizer, SAP, Sanofi, Tesco, Unilever and even Toronto battery-recycling start-up Li-Cycle. Volvo Cars, which had already committed to stop selling gas and diesel models in Europe by 2035, said the EU’s 2035 law “would not only be in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, which require 100% zero tailpipe emission vehicle sales in Europe by 2035, but it’s just the right thing to do.” 

The ACEA disagreed with the ministers’ decision, arguing that “any long-term regulation going beyond this decade is premature at this early stage.” In response, Volvo Cars said it would leave the association – following the lead of the fourth-largest carmaker, Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler), which announced in June it would quit the ACEA to focus on its own “fact-based approach” to the future of mobility. 

But there aren’t just two sides to this story. Environmental lobby group Greenpeace denounced the ministers’ action, saying 2035 is too late to limit global heating to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C target. “Europe desperately needs to decarbonize transportation, but ministers missed a golden opportunity.”

For their part, the letter’s signatories predicted that the clarity of the 2035 deadline would accelerate the growth and innovation the EV market needs: “This will set in motion an urgently needed systemic transformation and make Europe a global leader in a key industry for a net-zero future.” 

Meanwhile, California regulators are also working toward a 2035 ban on new fossil-fuel vehicles. If approved later this year, the regulations would likely be adopted by more than a dozen other states, including New York and New Jersey, which have previously embraced California’s clean-car rules. 

Canada’s federal government says it will be bringing in a sales mandate to ensure 100% of new light-duty vehicle sales will be zero-emission vehicles by 2035.

The post Volvo, Chrysler maker swerve away from lobby group over EU electric car mandate appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Where we’re at today in relation to our targets:  

Canada has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45% below 2005 levels by 2030. Total emissions in 2019, the most recent year for which an official inventory exists, were at or slightly below 2005 levels. So for practical purposes, the 40 to 45% reduction target applies to today’s level of emissions. But for transportation, emissions are up over 2005 levels, and meeting our target will require a steeper decline than for other sectors.  

Total emissions from all modes of transportation in 2019 were 14% above 2005 levels. More than two-thirds of the energy use and emissions in the transportation sector are from the exhaust pipes of cars and trucks, and in 2019 these emissions were up 18% over 2005 levels. It will take a 50% reduction from current levels to meet our target. 

The hitch:  

Every fossil-powered car or truck purchased today makes it that much more difficult and expensive to achieve a 50% reduction in road transportation emissions by 2030. Cars and trucks last for eight to 12 years, and sometimes much longer. The vehicles that are being sold in Canada today will be on the road in 2030, and more than 95% of them are powered by fossil fuels.  

What to watch:  

That’s why tracking the annual market share of electric or other zero-emission vehicles is a key indicator of how effectively we are responding to the climate emergency. For personal vehicles, meeting our 2030 target might still be possible but would require that the electric vehicle (EV) share of new sales ramp up from its current level of less than 5% to 50% within five short years, reaching 100% by 2030. For medium and heavy trucks, the transition is not as far along. 

There are other strategies that can have an impact between now and 2030, including increased fuel-efficiency standards for combustion vehicles, investment in and encouragement of shared mobility, public transit and active transportation, increased use of “ultra-light” EVs for local trips, and greater use of telepresence technologies that can reduce the number and length of vehicle trips. 

Proposed Earth Index indicators: 

• % of sales of personal vehicles that are non-emitting: 50% by 2026 and 100% by 2030 
• % of sales of medium and heavy trucks that are non-emitting: 50% by 2030 
• % of vehicles that are non-emitting by 2030: 50% of personal vehicles and 15% of trucks 

The decarbonization of the transport sector will be capital intensive, although prices will decline as the implementation rate increases. The incremental costs of the vehicles and the home and public charging infrastructure over the next critical 10 years will be in the range of $120 billion. Annual emission reductions in 2030 will exceed 73 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. 

The challenge of getting the carbon out of the transport sector, and doing it quickly, epitomizes the “wicked” nature of the climate emergency. The technology is available, but putting it in place in time to avert climate catastrophe will come with the disruption that inevitably accompanies grand transitions. There will be stranded assets and there will be winners and losers, but it is a disruption we can and must embrace if we are to succeed in building a healthier and more sustainable economy. 

Ralph Torrie is Corporate Knights’ director of research. 

The post We need to rev up the green vehicle wave appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Fortunately, the auto industry already sells ZEVS. Unfortunately, the auto industry keeps convincing governments that an ambitious transition to ZEVs is impossible. This sad situation might change in Canada, but only if our politicians are as climate sincere as they claimed in the recent federal election. During the campaign, all major parties, including the Conservatives, made ambitious ZEV sales commitments.

The most obvious policy is the ZEV mandate, a requirement that automakers achieve minimum percentage ZEV sales in specific years. Québec and British Columbia already have ZEV mandates. But the minority Liberal government must adopt it nationwide to fulfil its election promise of 50 per cent sales by 2030 and 100 per cent by 2035.

The ZEV mandate has great potential as a transformative climate policy, but only if government fully applies it. Too often, I’ve heard industry reps and even public servants describe the ZEV mandate as a market-following policy, one that consolidates the gradual shift in consumer preferences toward ZEVs.

In fact, the ZEV mandate can and should be driving the market transformation. It does this by requiring a minimum percentage of ZEV sales and charging financial penalties to auto sellers that don’t comply. With this policy, there is no reason why Canada cannot achieve 50% or even 75% ZEV sales by 2030 — a target Norway reached this year.

Luxury car buyers can help pay for ZEVs

I’ve heard auto industry representatives claim that an aggressive ZEV mandate is impossible in Canada because consumers don’t demand enough ZEVs and even if they did automakers could not shift production fast enough. But if the penalty is sufficient — say $20,000 for each gasoline vehicle sale that puts the seller into non-compliance — auto sellers will be incentivized to adopt a marketing strategy that accelerates growth in ZEV sales. How could they do this?

They could lower the higher purchase price of ZEVs with a subsidy from their more expensive vehicles. Vehicle sellers charge higher mark-ups on vehicles for which an increase in price won’t have as big an impact on sales — namely, consumers of expensive vehicles are less price sensitive.

For example, under the ZEV mandate, the purchaser of a $75,000 gasoline-fueled Porsche might pay $3,000 extra to help lower the price of ZEVs. They probably won’t notice since all sellers of expensive vehicles would have to do this.

Auto industry reps say that government subsidies for ZEV buyers need to increase to reach ZEV targets. This is incorrect. The ZEV mandate can function without any government subsidies.

Indeed, it seems fairer that the subsidies to lower the purchase price of ZEVs come from the purchasers of expensive vehicles, most of whom burn climate-disruptive gasoline. Why should regular taxpayers, some of whom may not own a car, be tagged with most of the cost of accelerating ZEV sales?

Incentivize marketing of ZEVs

A strong ZEV mandate also incentivizes vehicle sellers to aggressively market ZEVs — this should have started a decade ago. Watch a sports event today on TV and there’s a barrage of ads portraying young adults enjoying nature in their nature-destroying gasoline vehicle.

If vehicle sellers lose money when they sell gasoline cars, you’ll quickly see a shift to advertising that only promotes ZEVs. Doesn’t this make sense in a climate emergency?

Yet another industry argument is that we mustn’t be too far ahead of other jurisdictions. They’ve done so well with this argument that I’ve even heard a public servant claim an aggressive ZEV mandate would increase the price of electric vehicles.

This is backwards. If we’re in front of other jurisdictions with a strong ZEV mandate, this will induce manufacturers to rapidly shift production to ZEVs. And this will have a policy spillover effect, as citizens in other jurisdictions ask why their politicians haven’t yet implemented a ZEV mandate.

If our strong ZEV mandate shows the auto industry where the puck is going, just watch how quickly the production and marketing strategies change. To validate the climate-sincerity they promised during the election, our federally elected politicians must act immediately.

Mark Jaccard is a professor at the School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post The climate emergency warrants a strong mandate on zero-emission vehicles from the federal government appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Attempts to reduce transportation-related emissions have proven to be especially vexing, given that passenger (“light-duty”) vehicle trips account for approximately 30% of a city’s total carbon footprint – and cities account for approximately 70% of national emissions. Canadian consumers’ penchant for larger/heavy (less fuel-efficient) vehicles isn’t helping: SUVs and pickup trucks account for 70% of new vehicle sales in Canada

Another troubling but often-overlooked fact: CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions related to the manufacturing phase of a vehicle are responsible for a sizable portion of a vehicle’s life-cycle emissions. So while greener cars are part of the solution, we also need fewer cars to be made and sold.

So how do we catalyze a faster tipping point for decarbonizing passenger vehicle transportation? Governments must introduce policies that will shift consumer behaviour. These policies should be aimed at three objectives: promoting zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), expanding shared-mobility service, and fostering commuters’ embrace of multimodal forms of low-carbon transportation ­– the nexus being the greening of all public transportation infrastructure.

Shared-mobility services ­– commonly referred to as “transportation as a service” (TaaS) – are not limited to taxis and ride-hailing services. Car-sharing services, including Evo and Communauto in Canada, have proven to be popular, and successful, in urban markets where supportive city policies exist – a must for such services to be viable. Aside from car-sharing’s affordability, it also has a smaller carbon footprint, particularly when compared to ride-hailing services like Uber. Many people are surprised to learn that more than half of ride-hailing’s VKTs (vehicle kilometres travelled) are without any passengers in the vehicle. These “deadhead” trips mean that ride-hailing produces up to 69% more emissions than the trips it displaces, according to a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Public debate over the challenges of electric vehicles often centres on the lack of charging stations. First and foremost, new policies should be aimed at dispelling consumers’ range anxiety associated with ZEVs. But while the “supply of charging” needs to be addressed in short order, attention should also be paid to initiatives that foster “demand for charging” by promoting the expansion of ZEV-based, shared-mobility services in lieu of private vehicle ownership.

ZEV car-sharing has a number of advantages beyond its low carbon footprint: electrifying car-sharing has the inherent benefit of allowing drivers to “try before you buy,” which in turn can generate word-of-mouth buzz about the appeal of the ZEV driving experience – and best case, with car-sharing’s convenience related to parking (free and preferred locations), might just seduce a would-be ZEV buyer to become a ZEV car-sharing user instead.

Perhaps car-sharing’s most powerful “climate virtues” relate to the second-order (knock-on) effects. Multiple studies indicate that car-sharing yields a handful of desirable behavioural changes. First, there’s the “suppression effect”: ­it encourages car-share members to avoid purchasing vehicles altogether. A highly regarded University of California, Berkeley Future of Mobility White Paper indicates that each car-share vehicle displaces approximately 10 privately owned vehicles – and the emissions produced in their manufacturing along with them. Increasing the use of electric vehicles in TaaS fleets is like “super-sizing” the climate benefits, compared with privately owned ZEVs.

Another effect, and likely the most impactful behavioural change climate-wise, is that car-share users tend to adopt multimodal forms of commuting – meaning that a given commuter trip might be a combination of car-sharing with other low-carbon modes of mobility, such as public transit, walking or cycling.

Finally, another benefit of car-sharing’s affordability is it would make EV access more equitable. Car-sharing is less expensive than taxis (by more than 50%) and ride-hailing (30% to 50% cheaper).  Making ZEVs available to lower-income households via car-sharing also gives them access to the health benefits of a non-polluting vehicle, as well as the cutting-edge safety features that are standard with many ZEV models.

The synergies of coupling the climate virtues of car-sharing with electric vehicles’ low carbon footprint, offers great potential to realize a “green tipping point” for transportation, on a much-advanced timeline.

What federal policies could catalyze that event?

1. Apply Vancouver’s Climate Emergency Action Plan to Toronto and Montreal to achieve 50% ZEV of total vehicle kilometres travelled by 2030 (originally 2040) – reducing annual baseline emissions of 20 megatonnes (Mt) in 2019 to 10 Mt by 2030.

2. Offer a federal $10,000 “ZEV fleet incentive” rebate (double the existing $5,000 under the iZEV program) for 20,000 electric light-duty vehicles, specific to private TaaS operators who own/lease their fleet vehicles ($200 million) and remove the cap of 10 ZEV rebates per year. In turn, provinces, like B.C., should be encouraged to offer a similar fleet-specific ZEV rebate for TaaS (doubling the existing iZEV rebate to $6000), which would be more in line with Quebec’s generous rebate of $8,000.

3. Set up a loan guarantee program of 80% of ZEV loan/lease value, backstopped by a federal guarantee.

ZEV-based car-sharing is climate smart ­– not to mention easy on the pocketbook. Given the narrow time frame that society has to act, can we really afford to wait?

David Punch is the founder of Vancouver-based Sky Energy Capital.

Appendices: View associated tables & charts

The post Electrifying car-sharing could spark green tipping point appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Some heavy-hauler truckers spend upwards of $75,000 just on diesel, while the average Canadian driving an F-150 pickup 20,000 kilometres gets dinged for $2,000 at the pump. Imagine cutting those fuel bills by 75%, without the range anxiety many Canadians currently have around electric vehicles or long waits for the vehicle to juice up.

The Government of Canada is steadfast in its belief that electrification is key to decarbonizing our transportation sector and transitioning to a low-carbon future, but it’s moving at a snail’s pace. The federal government announced, through the 2019 budget, $130 million over five years to develop a network of higher-voltage ZEV charging and refuelling stations in the places where Canadians live, work and play. Support is also available to develop strategic projects for electric vehicle and hydrogen infrastructure for corporate fleets, last-mile delivery fleets and mass transit.

It should all help meet growing charging and refuelling demand, but it’s a fraction of what’s needed to roll out a coast-to-coast-to-coast ultra-fast charging infrastructure. ATCO estimates that we could install 500 stations across the length of the Trans-Canada Highway, each with 10 ultra-fast five-minute chargers for cars and two ultra-fast chargers for heavy-haul trucks for $3.45 billion – and possibly cheaper, if new power sources don’t have to be installed at each station.

The 5,000 ultra-fast car chargers would cost approximately $550 million and the 1,000 truck chargers $150 million, with the power generation installs running up to an additional $2.75 billion if new power is required at each station.*

Last year the federal government set a seemingly ambitious target of ZEV sales reaching 10% of light-duty vehicles sales per year by 2025, 30% by 2030 and 100% by 2040. If we’re going to meet those targets, Canada needs to put the development of an ultra-fast Trans-Canada charging network in top gear.

*Costs are based on consultation with industry experts.

The post Souping up the Trans-Canada highway with ultra-fast EV chargers appeared first on Corporate Knights.