Tag Archives: EV

Transportation

7 Most Expensive Electric Cars In The World Include Batmobile Inspired Dark Knight

Leave a comment

While EVs are known mainly as environmentally friendly offerings, this list proves not all things with electric motors on four wheels are created equal.

1a. Automobili Pininfarina B95: $4.7 Million usd/ $6.67 Million cad

Topping the list is the Pininfarina B95, the world’s most expensive electric car at $4.7 million usd. Limited to just 10 units, the B95 blends breathtaking performance with unmatched luxury. With a top speed of 186 mph and acceleration from 0 to 62 mph in under two seconds, it’s as fast as it is exclusive. Crafted for collectors, the B95 epitomizes automotive luxury in the EV era.

1b. Automobili Pininfarina Battista B95 Dark Knight $4.2 Million usd/ $5.94 Million cad

Celebrating 85 years of Batman, this hypercar is meticulously crafted as the ultimate inspiration for Bruce Wayne’s conquest against darkness. The Battista Dark Knight emerges blending superhero mystique with high-performance luxury. Dark Knight transforms the elegant, pure-electric Battista into its most formidable version yet, Furiosa. Featuring never-previously-seen bespoke enhancements and aggressive styling, it showcases the pinnacle of Automobili Pininfarina’s dynamic design and craftsmanship.

Most Expensive Electric Vehicles In the World

2. Aspark Owl: $3.1 Million usd/ $4.4 Million cad

Hailing from the Land of the Rising Sun, the Aspark Owl takes electric speed to another level with a claimed top speed of 260 mph and a 0-60 mph time of 1.72 seconds. Its all-carbon-fiber body minimizes weight while maximizing aerodynamics. Limited to 50 units, the Owl’s exclusivity matches its $3.1 million usd price tag. A recent evolution of the model reached a record-breaking 272 mph, solidifying its place as one of the fastest EVs ever.

Most Expensive Electric Vehicles In the World

3. NIO EP9: $3 Million usd/ $4.25 Million cad

China’s NIO EP9 stands out with its focus on aerodynamics and track performance. With an active rear wing and 5,395 pounds of downforce at 150 mph, the EP9 excels on the racetrack. Its four motors enable a 0-124 mph sprint in just 7.1 seconds, and its innovative battery-swapping system adds convenience. Limited to 50 units, the EP9 costs $3 million usd and showcases NIO’s technical expertise.

Most Expensive Electric Vehicles In the World

4.Lotus Evija: $2.3 Million usd/ $3.25 Million cad

The Lotus Evija aims to redefine what an electric hypercar can achieve, delivering 1,973 horsepower from its four motors. Its lightweight design, with a curb weight of just 3,704 pounds, emphasizes performance, while a range of 250 miles ensures practicality. A special Fittipaldi edition pays homage to Lotus’s racing legacy, featuring even greater power and exclusivity. At $2.3 million, the Evija remains a pinnacle of British engineering.

Most Expensive Electric Vehicles In the World

5. Pininfarina Battista: $2.25 Million usd/ $3.18 Million cad

We mentioned the Batman version above already but the ‘base model’ Automobili Pininfarina’s Battista is an electrified masterpiece, blending exquisite design with awe-inspiring performance. With a combined output of 1,900 horsepower from four motors, the Battista rockets from 0 to 62 mph in just 1.86 seconds. Its 120 kWh battery allows fast charging to 80% in 25 minutes, and its carbon fiber construction optimizes agility. Priced at $2.25 million, this Italian creation is limited to 150 units.

Most Expensive Electric Vehicles In the World

6. Rimac Nevera: $2.2 Million usd/ $3.11 Million cad

Croatia’s Rimac Nevera has rewritten the record books, claiming the title of the world’s fastest EV with a top speed of 258 mph. Its four motors generate 1,813 horsepower, enabling blistering acceleration and exceptional handling. With only 150 units produced, each priced at $2.2 million, the Nevera is a true collector’s item. A special Time Attack variant, priced at over $3 million usd , adds even more exclusivity to an already rare hypercar.

Most Expensive Electric Vehicles In the World

7. Deus Vayanne: $2 Million usd/ $2.83 Million cad

The Deus Vayanne debuted at the 2022 New York Auto Show, boasting a staggering 2,243 horsepower thanks to its tri-motor setup. Designed in Austria, produced in Italy, and electrified in the UK, this hypercar achieves a balance of power and elegance. Its unique infinity-loop-inspired grille complements an interior lined with sustainable materials. With a range of 310 miles and a limited production run of 99 units, the Vayanne offers exclusivity at $2 million.

Most Expensive Electric Vehicles In the World

For the Silo, Verdad Gallardo.

Finance

Strengthening Canada’s Trade Laws to Address Emerging Global Threat

Leave a comment

Key Canadian trade laws do not refer to national security as a factor that allows Canada to counter threats from imports of goods or services. Given the tense geopolitical situation, I propose ways to close this “national security gap.” 

The gap is particularly worrisome in two key import-governing legislation: (1) the Customs Tariff Act and (2) the Export and Import Permits Act.

I will show why the omission of the national security element in these and possibly other statutes needs to be remedied.

National Security & Chinese Exports

The Americans imposed surcharges on Chinese EVs, steel, aluminum, semiconductors and other products in May 2024 in response to heavily subsidized Chinese imports that were said to have breached international trade rules. 

The EU started applying countervailing duties on Chinese EVs in July this year, using a more standard trade remedy process to counter the injurious impact of subsidized imports on the European automotive industry. 

The danger posed by Chinese EVs, steel and aluminum imports, plus these actions by Canada’s major trading partners, led the Canadian government to apply comparable tariff surcharges. The strategic threat posed by China’s state-subsidized exports made for the right response by Canada. 

While existing laws allowed the federal cabinet to take action in this case, it also brought home the fact that there is an absence of any reference to “national security” in some of Canada’s major trade law statutes.

Section 53 – Canada’s Rapid  Response Mechanism

In the United States, Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, along with Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, authorize the president to increase tariffs on imports if the quantity or circumstances surrounding those imports are deemed to threaten national security.1

Section 232 was used by the Trump administration in 2018 to apply surcharges to a range of imports from numerous countries, including Canada. However, these tariffs were ultimately dropped in the face of threats by Canada to retaliate against American goods exported to Canada.

Unlike the US, Canada lacks the legislative means to impose import surcharges on the basis of national security. The closest we have is Section 53 of the Customs Tariff Act, which focuses on the enforcement of Canada’s rights under trade agreements and responses to practices that negatively affect Canadian trade. It was Section 53 that was used in the August decision on Chinese EVs, etc., referred to earlier.

Indeed, there are similarities between Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 and Section 53 of the Customs Tariff Act.But while existing laws allowed the federal cabinet to act in this case, the case brought home the fact that there is an absence of any reference to “national security” in some of Canada’s major trade law statutes.

Governments have shied away from using Section 53 as a policy tool over the years. It was used only once before its present deployment, in response to the Trump administration’s surcharges on Canadian steel and aluminum in 2018 and 2020.2

 The surcharges were ultimately withdrawn when the US tariffs were terminated.Section 53 comes under Division 4 of the Actentitled “Special Measures, Emergency Measures and Safeguards,” giving the government broad powers to apply unilateral tariff measures on the joint recommendation of the ministers of Finance and Global Affairs:

…for the purpose of enforcing Canada’s rights 

under a trade agreement in relation to a country 

or of responding to acts, policies or practices of 

the government of a country that adversely affect, 

or lead directly or indirectly to adverse effects on, 

trade in goods or services of Canada…

There is no requirement for public consultations or input under this provision. Although the government held a round of stakeholder consultations before moving on Chinese imports in August, it was not legally obliged to do so. While the ministerial recommendations must be fact-based and supported by credible data, the law is effective in that nothing inhibits rapid action by the federal cabinet. In this respect, it is a superior tool to Section 232 of the American legislation.3

The critical shortcoming, on the other hand, is that while allowing the government to protect Canadian trade interests in a fairly rapid fashion, Section 53 does not allow action on imports found to be threatening national security, whether it be economic, military or other. There is clearly a need to repair this omission, not only here but in Canada’s other trade laws.

In my view, we need a national security component in Section 53 as the Canadian counterpart to Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act.

Import Controls and National Security

Together with tariff measures, Canada can control imports under the Export and Import Permits Act(EIPA) through the creation of import (and export) control lists designed to achieve particular strategic, security and economic objectives. These lists are established by orders-in-council, 

requiring listed goods and technology to have a permit in order to be imported or exported. These permits are issued by the Trade Controls and Technical Barriers Bureau in Global Affairs Canada (GAC). Without a permit, imports of controlled items are illegal.

While Section 5(1) of EIPA provides for the creation of import control lists covering arms, ammunition and military items, it fails to provide for imports of goods or technology to be controlled for national security reasons. The Act could not have been used, for example, to deal with the effects on national security of imports of Chinese EVs, steel, aluminum or any other goods or technology. EIPA is thus deficient in this regard.

There is a related issue when it comes to export controls. Section 3(1) of EIPA authorizes the establishment of export control lists, among other reasons:

“(a)…to ensure that arms, ammunition, 

implements or munitions of war, etc. … otherwise 

having a strategic nature or value will not be made 

available to any destination where their use might 

be detrimental to the security of Canada.”

The reference to the “security of Canada” under paragraph (a) is the only such reference in the statute and is confined to the security aspects of imports of arms, ammunition, munitions of war, etc. While not as significant as the problems regarding import controls, it is nonetheless a serious omission.

The result is that as EIPA is currently drafted, the federal government lacks the legal authority to create import or export controls designed to protect or safeguard Canadian security. EIPA needs to be amended to add this authority on the part of the government.

Indeed, it may be desirable to re-consider much of the architecture of EIPA from the viewpoint of safeguarding Canada’s security interests on both the export and import side.

Controlling Imports Through Sanctions

Canada’s sanctions laws are found in the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act (JVCFOA), the United Nations Act, and, notably, the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA). Each of these statutes allows the federal cabinet to issue sanctions through regulations 

applicable to specific countries and/or jurisdictions and prohibiting transactions in specific items of goods or technology. None of these laws allow sanctions for matters related to Canadian security.

SEMA is Canada’s most widely used sanctions legislation. Section 4 is the only part of the Act that uses the term “security,” but only in instances when, among other matters:

(b) a grave breach of international peace and 

security has occurred that has resulted in or is likely 

to result in a serious international crisis.

Because of the restrictions on international peace and security, the government lacks the authority to issue sanctions dealing with national security interests.4

For example, Canada’s sanctions on Russia are directed at countering actions that “constitute a grave breach of international peace and security that has resulted or is likely to result in a serious international crisis,” with no reference to Canadian national security interests.

SEMA should be amended to allow prohibitions of any transaction or dealings of any kind where Canada’s national security is at risk.

Trade Remedies and National Security

In accordance with the GATT/WTO Agreement, antidumping and countervailing (AD/CV) duties can be applied to dumped or subsidized imports when a domestic industry is injured or threatened with injury from exactly the same imports as that industry produces. In Canada, these are provided for under the Special Import Measures Act (SIMA).

SIMA actions are driven by complaints filed by domestic producers who make exactly the same or directly competitive products as the imported items. It means, for example, that in the absence of a Canadian industry threatened with injury or actually injured by the same type of Chinese EVs, aluminum or steel imports as those producers make, AD/CV duty remedies would not be available. SIMA makes no reference to national security as a factor in the application of these duties.

In short, because the SIMA process is geared to provide protection to domestic producers and private sector industries, it is inappropriate as a vehicle for dealing with national economic security concerns that range well beyond those private interests.

The same is true in the case of safeguards, another kind of trade action allowed under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement to counter floods of imports that are not dumped or subsidized but, because of their volume, cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of the same product.

In Canada, safeguard measures come under the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, where an inquiry takes place and, if recommended by the Tribunal, are applied under the Customs Tariff Act.

As in the case of dumped or subsidized imports, safeguard measures are designed to protect specific domestic industries and not to deal with overarching national security issues.

Again, because the objective of these remedial measures in international and Canadian trade law is to protect a domestic industry from financial harm due to imports and not to deal with broader questions of national security, the absence of reference to “security” in these various statutes does not seem to be a significant issue.

National Security under International Trade Law

Article XXI of the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT) is the only provision in the entire WTO package that deals with national security. That article (entitled “Security Exceptions”) allows departures from normal trade rules to permit unilateral trade-restrictive measures that a contracting party “considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests…taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations.”

The drafting of GATT Article XXI dates back to the post-World War II Bretton Woods era. What was considered an international emergency at that time was war, regional armed conflict or a global pandemic like the Asian flu of 1918-1920. The same broad view of international emergency conditions was applied when the Uruguay Round negotiations took place (1991-1994) leading to the conclusion of the WTO Agreement.

With recent cataclysmic changes in the world, whatever the WTO-administered multilateral system might prescribe, governments are moving to protect a range of national (and economic) security concerns by means of unilateral measures in ways that were not envisaged when the Bretton Woods architecture was devised in the late 1940s.

For decades, there was little recourse to Article XXI exceptions. However, their use emerged in the last number of years with the unilateral surcharges imposed by Trump. 

The situation is different – and materially different – in the case of Chinese exports, not only EVs, steel or aluminum but also in technologically advanced or other critical items. These are goods that, by abundant evidence, are heavily subsidized, with massive overcapacity, exported to global markets as part of the Chinese government’s strategy to enhance its geopolitical position – facts uncovered in the EV situation through detailed investigations by the EU and the US.5

Thus, aggressive actions by China and possibly other countries in strategically sensitive areas take the issue beyond the WTO ruling in the US-Section 232 case and raise these to the level of an “emergency in international relations.”

In summary, the concept of an international emergency is much changed in today’s digitized, cyber-intensified world, including the aggressive and destabilizing policies of Chinese state capitalism and other bad actors. The application of GATT/WTO rules drafted in 1947 and updated in the 1990s must be adapted to deal with today’s realities if they are to provide governments with meaningful recourse.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Canada has a panoply of criminal, investment, intelligence gathering and other laws that address national security concerns. However, there is a notable absence of the term “national security” in Canada’s core trade law statutes.

This absence is of concern in the Customs Tariff Act and the Export and Import Permits Act, two important statutes that give the government authority to act to counter injurious imports threatening Canada’s national security.

Given the state of world affairs and the challenges Canada faces from aggressive players like China, Russia, Iran and others, the omissions in these statutes need to be remedied. This should be acted on immediately. There is also a lack of reference to national security in Canada’s sanctions legislation, notably the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA), the main Canadian sanctions statute. 

Amendments should be made to make security concerns a ground for imposing sanctions here as well. The findings of EU agencies on Chinese BEV after a detailed investigation support the view that Chinese state capitalism and its centrally planned industrial capacity are geared toward dominating world markets in critical goods, part of that country’s geopolitical strategy. These and other similar governmental actions can be said to meet the “emergency in international relations” threshold under the WTO Agreement. 

Given the state of affairs at the WTO, including the paralysis of its dispute settlement system, amendments to or reinterpretation of the GATT rules are difficult, if not impossible. The result is that governments will be resorting to unilateral application of the Article XXI exclusion in their own national security measures. While the situation may evolve at the WTO, and without diminishing Canada’s support for the multilateral rules-based system, the federal government should bring forth measures to add reference to national security interests in the above statutes.  For the Silo, Lawrence L. Herman/ C.D. Howe Institute.

International Economic Policy Council Members 

Co-Chairs: Marta Morgan, Pierre S. Pettigrew Members: Ari Van Assche Stephen Beatty Stuart Bergman Dan Ciuriak Catherine Cobden John Curtis Robert Dimitrieff Rick Ekstein Carolina Gallo Victor Gomez Peter Hall Lawrence Herman Caroline Hughes Jim Keon Jean-Marc Leclerc Meredith Lilly Michael McAdoo Marcella Munro Jeanette Patell Representative, Amazon Canada Joanne Pitkin Rob Stewart Aaron Sydor Daniel Trefle

1 The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Pub. L. 87–794, 76 Stat. 872, enacted October 11, 1962, codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 7); The Trade Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93–618, 88 Stat. 1978, enacted January 3, 1975, codified at 19 U.S.C. ch. 12).

2 The government announced it was applying these “to encourage a prompt end to the U.S. tariffs, which negatively affect Canadian workers and businesses and threaten to undermine the integrity of the global trading system.” See: “United States Surtax Order (Steel and Aluminum),” Government of Canada, June 28, 2018, https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2018/2018-07-11/html/sordors152-eng.html. 

3 Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act allows the president to impose import restrictions – but these must be based on an investigation and affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce that certain imports threaten to impair US national security.

4 The array of Canada’s sanctions can be found on the GAC website at: https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relations_internationales/sanctions/current-actuelles.aspx?lang=eng. 

5 The EU measures followed a countervailing duty approach, as opposed to direct action in the case of Canada and the US. In its extremely detailed investigation, EU agencies found, on the basis of massive evidence, that:
“ . . . the BEV [battery electric vehicle] industry is thus regarded as a key/strategic industry, whose development is actively pursued by the GOC as a policy objective. The BEV sector is shown to be of paramount importance for the GOC and receives political support for its accelerated development. Including from vital inputs to the end product. On the basis of the policy documents referred to in this section, the Commission concluded that the GOC intervenes in the BEV industry to implement the related policies and interferes with the free play of market forces in the BEV sector, notably by promoting and supporting the sector through various means and key steps in their production and sale.”See: “Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2024/1866,” European Union, July 3, 2024, at para. 253, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_impl/2024/1866/oj

Transportation

Over Half Canadians Opposed To Fed’s Unaffordable 2035 Ban On Gas Powered Cars

Leave a comment
Over Half of Canadians Oppose Fed’s Plan to Ban Sale of Conventional Vehicles by 2035: Poll
An electric vehicle is seen being charged in Ottawa on on July 13, 2022. The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick

More than half of Canadians DO NOT support the federal government’s mandate to require all new cars sold in Canada to be electric by 2035, a recent Ipsos poll finds.

Canadians across the country are “a lot more hesitant to ban conventional cars than their elected representatives in Ottawa are,” said Krystle Wittevrongel, research director at the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI), in a news release on Oct. 3.

“They have legitimate concerns, most notably with the cost of those cars, and federal and provincial politicians should take note.”

The online poll, conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the MEI, surveyed 1,190 Canadians aged 18 and over between Sept. 18 and 22. Among the participants overall, 55 percent said they disagree with Ottawa’s decision to ban the sale of conventional vehicles by 2035 and mandate all new cars be electric or zero-emissions.

“In every region surveyed, a larger number of respondents were against the ban than in favour of it,” MEI said in the news release. According to the poll, the proportion of those against the ban was noticeably higher in Western Canada, at 63 percent, followed by the Atlantic provinces at 58 percent. In Ontario, 51 percent were against, and in Quebec, 48 percent were against.

In all, only 40 percent nationwide agreed with the federal mandate.

‘Lukewarm Attitude’

Just 1 in 10 Canadians own an electric vehicle (EV), the poll said. Among those who don’t, less than one-quarter (24 percent) said their next car would be electric.

Fewer Canadians Willing to Buy Electric Vehicles: Federal Research

ANALYSIS: ‘Bumpy Road’ Ahead as Canada Moves Toward 2035 EV Goals

A research report released by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) in March this year suggests a trend similar to that of the Ipsos poll’s findings. The report indicated that only 36 percent of Canadians had considered buying an EV in 2024—down from 51 percent in 2022.

“Survey results reveal that Canadians hold mixed views on ZEVs [Zero-Emission Vehicles] and continue to have a general lack of knowledge about these vehicles,” said the report by EKOS Research Associate, which was commissioned by NRCan to conduct the online survey of 3,459 Canadians from Jan. 17 to Feb. 7.

The MEI cited a number of key reasons for “this lukewarm attitude” in adopting EVs, including high cost (70 percent), lack of charging infrastructure (66 percent), and reduced performance in Canada’s cold climate (64 percent).

Canada’s shift from gas-powered vehicles to EVs is guided by federal and provincial policies aimed at zero-emission transportation. The federal mandate requires all new light-duty vehicles, which include passenger cars, SUVs, and light trucks, sold by 2035 to be zero-emission—with interim targets of 20 percent by 2026 and 60 percent by 2030.

Some provincial policies, such as those in Quebec, are even stricter, including a planned ban on all gas-powered vehicles and used gas engines by 2035.

‘Unrealistic’

The MEI survey indicated that two-thirds of respondents (66 percent) said the mandate’s timeline is “unrealistic,” with only 26 percent saying Ottawa’s plan is realistic.

In addition, 76 percent of Canadians say the federal government’s environmental impact assessment process used for energy projects takes too long, with only 9 percent taking the opposite view, according to the survey.

A study by the Fraser Institute in March said that achieving Ottawa’s EV goal could increase Canada’s demand for electricity by 15.3 percent and require the equivalent of 10 new mega hydro dams or 13 large natural gas plants to be built within the next 11 years.

“For context, once Canada’s vehicle fleet is fully electric, it will require 10 new mega hydro dams (capable of producing 1,100 megawatts) nationwide, which is the size of British Columbia’s new Site C dam. It took approximately 10 years to plan and pass environmental regulations, and an additional decade to build. To date, Site C is expected to cost $16 billion,” said the think tank in a March 14 news release.

On April 25, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that Canada since 2020 has attracted more than $46 billion cad in investments for projects to manufacture EVs and EV batteries and battery components. A Parliamentary Budget Officer report published July 18 said Ottawa and the provinces have jointly promised $52.5 billion cad in government support from Oct. 8, 2020, to April 25, 2024, which included tax credits, production subsidies, and capital investment for construction and other support.

On July 26, a company slated to build a major rechargeable battery manufacturing plant in Ontario announced that it would halt the project due to declining demand for EVs.

In a news release at the time, Umicore Rechargeable Battery Materials Canada Inc. said it was taking “immediate action” to address a “recent significant slowdown in short- and medium-term EV growth projections affecting its activities.”

For The Silo, Isaac Teo with contribution from the Canadian Press.

Isaac Teo
Transportation

Rethinking Canada Tariffs On China EVs

Leave a comment

Via friends at C.D. Howe Institute. A version of this memo first appeared in the Financial Post.

To: Canadian trade watchers 
From: Ari Van Assche 
Date:  August, 2024
Re: Canada’s Electric Vehicle De-Risking Trilemma 

With the recent wrap-up of Ottawa’s month-long public consultation on levying tariffs on electrical vehicles (EVs) made in China, let’s paraphrase a story Nobel Prize-winner Paul Krugman once used to explain the often under-appreciated benefits of free trade:

Consider a Canadian entrepreneur who starts a new business that uses secret technology to transform Canadian lumber and canola into affordable EVs. She is lauded as a champion of industry for her innovative spirit and commitment to Net Zero. But a suspicious reporter discovers that what she is really doing is exporting Canadian-made lumber and canola and using the proceeds to purchase Chinese-made EVs. Sentiment turns sharply against her. On social media, she is widely denounced as a fraud who is destroying Canadian jobs and threatening national security. Parliament passes a unanimous resolution condemning her.

Going the other direction: China is Canada’s third largest destination for agricultural products.

This story underscores a critical dilemma that should have been central in the public consultations.

Those opposing tariffs argue that trade is a potent yet undervalued tool in our fight against climate change: It provides Canada access to low-emissions technologies at increasingly affordable prices, which is essential for transitioning society away from carbon-intensive energy sources. In contrast, those in favour are concerned about supply security, fearing excessive reliance on our biggest geopolitical rival for low-emissions technologies. They warn against swapping the West’s age-old energy insecurity in oil for insecurity in the supply of critical minerals and EV batteries.

The $70,000 cad Polestar 2 EV produced by Volvo. In 2010, Geely Holding Group a Chinese automotive group bought Volvo.

Copilot AI

“As of now, the Chinese electric vehicle (EV) market is making strides globally, but in Canada, the landscape is still evolving: Tesla Model Y and Polestar 2: While not exclusively Chinese, the Tesla Model Y (which is produced in China) and the Polestar 2 (a subsidiary of Volvo, which has Chinese ownership) are currently the most prominent Chinese-made EVs available in Canada. These models have gained attention due to their performance, range, and brand reputation1.”

I examined some of the national security issues that have surfaced in the discussion surrounding supply chains for low-emissions energy technologies like EV batteries in my recent C.D. Howe Institute report.

After examining the various de-risking policies governments have implemented, including their downsides and unintended consequences, I conclude Ottawa probably should develop de-risking policies.

But it needs to apply them judiciously, prudently and rarely. And it needs to justify them with credible, detailed evidence regarding concerns about supply security and whether domestic industry really would be able to compete if market conditions were fairer. This will be important in upholding Canada’s reputation as a leading proponent of the rules-based multilateral system.

China’s role in the supply chains of low-emissions energy technologies does raise real security concerns. China has established near monopolies in several critical minerals and other components of EV batteries, solar panels and wind turbines. No ready alternatives are produced in other countries. For example, 79 percent of global production capacity of polysilicon, which is key for solar cell production, is in China. The next biggest producers, Germany and the United States, have difficulty competing with China’s high-quality, ultra-cheap polysilicon.

China’s monopolies create chokepoints that could enable its government to manipulate production to pursue its own geopolitical ambitions.

Precedents exist: China blocked rare-earth exports to Japan in 2010 and banned exports of rare-earth processing technology in 2023.

Several countries have started adopting de-risking policies to reduce their reliance on these Chinese chokepoints, usually either onshoring or friendshoring. Canada’s recent Critical Minerals Strategy is typical. It was designed in part to reduce this country’s dependence on foreign-mined and processed critical raw materials by, among other things, allocating $1.5 billion to support Canadian critical minerals projects related to advanced manufacturing, processing and recycling.

But these de-risking policies come at a cost.

Ottawa needs to carefully navigate a “policy trilemma” as it strives to formulate a policy agenda that simultaneously targets three goals: Advancing security, promoting low-emissions energy adoption, and capturing the benefits of trade for consumers and businesses.

Proposed steep tariffs on Chinese EV imports provide a good example of the trilemma.

They may well safeguard security by protecting a domestic production base. But they could discourage the uptake of EVs, which are already experiencing a slowdown in sales. Moreover, such unilateral action against China could escalate geopolitical tensions, thereby generating new risks, including Chinese retaliation. The path to effective de-risking is clearly fraught with trade-offs and requires careful navigation.

There is scant evidence that China is on its way to becoming a near-monopoly in global EV production itself, but it may seek to benefit from its near-monopoly in key inputs. The ultimate question that the government should answer is, therefore, whether the security concerns regarding these chokepoints, and more generally China’s willingness to compete fairly under these conditions, justify the costs and risks of higher tariffs. The burden on Ottawa is to provide concrete evidence to that effect before imposing an inherently costly tariff on Canadians.

Ari Van Assche is a professor of international business at HEC Montréal and Fellow-in-Residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.

Transportation

Porsche Commit Long Term To Gasoline Engines

Leave a comment

Change of Plans

There was a time, not terribly long ago, when it seemed like the automotive industry was on the fast track to total electrification.

Ahead of Their Time

Many of us think of hybrid or all-electric power as a relatively new technology. After all, Porsche just introduced its very first production EV, the Taycan. But in reality, electricity has been around in the automotive world for over a century. And Ferdinand Porsche was one of very first pioneers to embrace this technology. When Porsche was a teenager back in 1893, he installed an electric lighting system in his parents’ house. Even the very first vehicles he designed had electric drives. After toying around with a few different ideas, Porsche designed the world’s first functional hybrid car, the Semper Vivus (Latin for “always alive”), in 1900. But due to its modest power output, heavyweight, and lack of infrastructure, the idea was relegated to the back burner for many years. 

Amid concerns over global warming, governments around the globe began floating regulations that sought to ban ICE vehicles outright – but in recent months, with demand falling behind expected levels of growth, a lot has changed, and now, those same plans are being scaled back.

Up To and Beyond

While Porsche recently revealed that it continues to develop the all-electric version of its Cayenne crossover, it also plans to continue to offer hybrid and combustion engine-powered examples of that same model – “up to and beyond 2030,” in fact.

Keeping the V8

Interestingly, Porsche also noted that the currently, third generation of the Cayenne will be upgraded and will continue to be offered alongside the fourth, all-electric generation model. Engineers will focus on the Cayenne’s ICE powertrains, however, including its twin-turbocharged V8, which it will need to tweak to ensure that it meets increasingly stringent emissions standards.

Still Focused

This is obviously great news for fans of ICE powertrains and the V8 in general, but also note that Porsche remains focused on an electrified future, regardless. “Our product strategy could enable us to deliver more than 80 percent of our new cars fully electrified in 2030 – depending on the demand of our customers and the development of electromobility in the regions of the world.” Oliver Blume CEO Porsche AG.

As such, Porsche plans to continue making gas engines for some time, it seems. 

Finance

Canada Debt Becoming Unmanageable Economists Warn

Leave a comment

With the Canadian government’s high debt-to-GDP ratios, such as a ratio of debt to nominal GDP sitting at 68 percent in March 2023, economists warn that government debt could become unsustainably high if Ottawa fails to reduce spending, increase productivity, and re-establish business confidence.

“We’re not growing our income per capita, which means that we’re not going to get the tax revenues that we need, plus we’re getting a lot of people retiring. So the situation could end up becoming quite unmanageable if we keep our pace that we’re going,” said Jack Mintz, president’s fellow at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

The federal government has run back-to-back budget deficits since the 2008 financial recession, with government spending spiking during the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, Canada’s debt as a percentage of nominal GDP rose from around 51 percent in 2009 to 74 percent by 2021, for example. Nominal refers to the current value for the particular year without taking inflation into account.

The two previous federal budgets have attempted to lower government spending, but the federal government will still post a $40 billion deficit in 2023–24, which they project will shrink to a $20 billion deficit by 2028–29.

The Liberal government’s response to criticism by the opposition that Canada’s debt could lead the country into a financial crisis has been that Canada has among the best debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7.

According to Mr. Mintz, while Canada’s debt situation is not as bad as it once was, it doesn’t mean that it may not impact Canada’s prosperity prospects.

Conrad Black: Budget 2024 Is an Assault on Canadian Investment

ANALYSIS: Higher Income Taxes Not Only for Wealthy in Budget 2024

Mr. Mintz points out that Canada’s debt situation is not nearly as bad as in 1996. The government’s ratio of debt to nominal GDP ratio reached 83 percent that year.

Mr. Mintz also noted that Canada continues to have a triple-A credit rating according to the world’s leading credit agencies, meaning the country’s debt is not yet seen as problematic.

“We’re still viewed as having a much better credit line compared to a number of other countries. … But at some point, the credit agencies might look at that gross debt number and start asking the question, ‘Is it starting to become unsustainable?’” he said.

Lower Productivity Hampering Debt Payments

The federal government’s ability to pay off its debt could be hampered by low productivity, according to Steve Ambler, professor emeritus of economics at Université du Québec à Montréal.

“The thing that worries me in terms of federal government debt is we are currently in a period of extremely low productivity growth and low overall growth,” he said.

In March, the Bank of Canada’s senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers warned that Canada’s poor productivity had reached emergency levels.

Although Statistics Canada said the country’s labour productivity showed a small gain at the end of 2023, that came after six consecutive quarters of productivity decline.

The right honourable Jean Chrétien.

Mr. Ambler said an appropriate way to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio is to keep government spending from increasing while also raising productivity to increase tax revenues. He said this was the strategy of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, whose Liberal government established a budget surplus in three years by growing the economy and keeping government spending stagnant.

To lower Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio, Mr. Ambler said the government should focus on increasing worker productivity, allowing its resource sector to grow, and easing back on discretionary spending.

He also cited a November 2023 C.D. Howe paper showing that business investment per worker in Canada has shrunk relative to the United States since 2015. Investments such as better tools for workers would increase productivity, while productivity growth would in turn create opportunities and competitive threats that spur businesses to invest, the paper said.

“Re-establishing business confidence would be almost the number one priority, especially in the resource sector,” Mr. Ambler said, adding that a future government might also be wise to lower the feds’ “wildly extravagant subsidy programs” for the electric vehicle (EV) sector.

The Liberal government has given tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for EV manufacturing projects in Canada since 2020, saying the factories will eventually create thousands of new jobs.

‘No Cushion’ to Mitigate Debt Issue

Joseph Barbuto, director of research at the Economic Longwave Research Group, has a more pessimistic view of Canada’s debt. He says that while federal debt is at levels similar to the 1990s, the crisis will be “larger” because the government does not have the “fiscal room to mitigate the downturn.”

Mr. Barbuto said that while the Canadian government was able to help alleviate its debt issues in the 1930s and 1990s by lowering its interest rates, it does not have that same luxury in 2024. The Bank of Canada lowered its key policy rate from 1.25 percent to 0.25 percent in 2020, and was forced to raise it to 5 percent by 2023 in response to rising inflation.

“There’s no interest rate cushion on the other side. Interest rates can only fall back to zero,” Mr. Barbuto said, noting that higher interest rates make it more difficult for governments to service their debt.

“The problem with the monetary system is there’s no fiscal discipline that is pushed on governments, unlike [individuals] or corporations,” he said.

“There will be a point where because of the accumulated interest with rising interest rates, eventually it’s going to overwhelm the government and then people will not lend the government any kind of capital.”

Mr. Barbuto also expressed concern over Canada’s private debt-to-GDP ratio. Private debt refers to debt owed by private, non-financial entities such as businesses and households, as opposed to public debt owed by governments and banks. Canada’s ratio of private debt to nominal GDP sat at 217 percent in December 2023 compared to 124 percent in 1995.

Mr. Barbuto said Canada’s private debt-to-GDP ratio is higher than that of Japan’s in the 1990s, and pointed out that the Japanese economy had stagnated after the country’s asset price bubble burst in 1992.

The research director believes the Canadian economy will eventually see a debt crisis and collapse in real estate that will result in austerity measures, a shrinkage in the size of government, and the “creative destruction” of the old political and economic system. He said this would be the continuation of an economic cycle that has repeatedly happened throughout history.

“[It’s] inevitable and necessary. A debt detox or deleveraging is the same thing as a drug detox. Nobody likes it, … but it’s a necessary part of the cycle for it then to go back up,” he said.

For the Silo, Matthew Horwood/Epoch Times.

Transportation

How To Reboot Ottawa’s Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

Leave a comment

The federal government has proposed regulations requiring the sale of a minimum numbers of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) in Canada (20 percent of all light vehicles in 2026, ramping up to 60 percent in 2030 and 100 percent in 2035). The flip side of this requirement is that the sale of internal combustion engine (ICE) light vehicles will be reduced and eventually prohibited in 2035.

  • This ZEV mandate will require an increase in ZEV sales from about 100,000 ZEV light vehicles in 2022 to 300,000 in 2026, 900,000 in 2030 and 1.5 million in 2035.
  • This paper examines whether or not Canadians will be able to buy enough ZEVs (either domestically produced or imported) to meet this ZEV mandate requirement. The findings show that Canada should be able to meet the 2035 100 percent ZEV mandate for about 270,000 passenger cars (only 18 percent of the market) but will be unlikely to meet the 2035 ZEV mandate for the 1,240,000 remaining light vehicles (pickup trucks, vans and SUVs/crossovers) comprising 82 percent of the market.
  • Canada cannot wait until 2035 to realize that the federal ZEV mandate will not be met. The gap between light-vehicle demand and forecasted ZEV light-vehicle supply will cause severe market disruptions. A better approach would be to reject a hardline ZEV mandate and instead to substitute a more flexible Plan B. Plan B should focus more on emissions rather than ZEV targets. For example, permitting some ICE light vehicles to be sold, particularly ones that can use renewable fuels. In addition, permitting plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and hybrids to be included as ZEVs.
  • Finally, the federal government may have to accept that the 100 percent ZEV target is not feasible by 2035, and therefore must include flexibility in the federal ZEV mandate to back away from the 100 percent ZEV target.

A ZEV mandate is government legislation that imposes a requirement on the sellers of light vehicles to sell a certain minimum of ZEVs in a year. (ZEV is used interchangeably with BEV for battery electric vehicle in this paper. PHEVs can also qualify as ZEVs to a limited extent). The theory is that this minimum requirement will give certainty to vehicle sellers that there will be a market for ZEVs, and will therefore give an incentive to companies to construct ZEV manufacturing facilities. In essence, the ZEV mandate assumes that the demand for ZEVs will be there and will displace the demand for ICE light vehicles, and therefore the increase in supply of ZEVs will occur.

The federal government has introduced a ZEV mandate for all of Canada. In December 2022, the federal government issued proposed regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Section 30.3 of these proposed regulations state that all sales of light vehicles (passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans and SUVs/crossovers) must meet the thresholds for ZEV sales in a year shown in the table to the right.

Minimum Percentage of ZEV sales

The flip side to a ZEV mandate is that it imposes a prohibition on the sale of ICE vehicles, plus a penalty for contravening this prohibition. A company selling light vehicles in effect has an ever-shrinking quota for the maximum number of ICE light vehicles that it can sell in a year (none in 2035).

A company creates one credit for each battery electric vehicle (BEV) it sells. A sale of a PHEV with a range of more than 80 kilometres can also create a credit, but this ability is capped at 20 percent from 2028 onward. For example, a company selling 100 percent PHEVs in 2028 would only get credits for 20 percent.

If a company’s sales create fewer credits than required by the ZEV mandate, it can still remain in compliance by using two mechanisms. First, it can buy credits from another ZEV company that has exceeded its ZEV mandate. This mechanism will likely provide hundreds of millions of dollars of extra revenue to companies such as Tesla. An alternative second mechanism would allow the company to create a credit by contributing about $20,000 to specified ZEV activities such as supporting charging infrastructure. This second mechanism is capped at 10 percent of the ZEV mandate for the particular year, and is only available for the years prior to 2031.

For the Silo, Brian Livingston/The C.D. Howe Institute.

The author thanks Benjamin Dachis, Daniel Schwanen, Dave Collyer and anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. The author retains responsibility for any errors and the views expressed.

Sci-Tech

World First- Venturi’s Hyper-Deformable Lunar Wheel Presented At Paris Air Show

Leave a comment
Earlier this week, Venturi Group presented its latest invention at the international Paris Air Show in Le Bourget, France: a hyper-deformable lunar wheel. Venturi Lab designed and manufactured the wheel using materials it created. The Venturi wheel is a world first.


A turning point in the history of the space industry, Venturi has reinvented the wheel. Engineers, chemists and physicists at Venturi Lab in Fribourg, Switzerland have created a unique hyper-deformable lunar wheel. 

The wheel will be used on Venturi Astrolab’s FLEX rover, a vehicle that will be deposited on the Moon in 2026 by Space X’s Starship rocket and initially used to transport and deploy payloads.

In the past, with the exception of the Apollo missions, space exploration vehicles have always been equipped with rigid wheels. The Venturi wheel, however, is highly deformable while remaining long-lasting and robust. From 2026, when the FLEX rover is put into service at the lunar south pole, where extreme temperatures (-90 to -230°C) prevail, the four wheels supporting the two-tonne vehicle (payload included) will warp in order to absorb ground irregularities as the FLEX travels at 20 km/h. The wheels will need to perform over at least 1,000 kilometres and resist strong radiation from the south pole. 

Features of the Venturi wheel include:
– an exceptional diameter of 930 mm
– a complex system of 192 cables that act as spokes
– a tread made flexible by a newly invented material
– an outer rim equipped with springs

This breakthrough technology, based on unique materials, is equal in importance to the arrival of the rubber, and later pneumatic rimmed tyre in the 19th century.

NASA has selected Venturi Astrolab to test and analyse the Venturi wheel at the NASA Glenn Research Center in Cleveland and the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston.

ABOUT VENTURI 
Since 2000, the Venturi Group has specialised in the design and manufacture of high-performance electric vehicles. Whether through world records, expeditions on hostile terrain, the creation of the first electric sports car, the development of innovative vehicles or its involvement in the Formula E World Championship, the Venturi Group embodies and demonstrates all the capabilities of the electric vehicle on 2 or 4 wheels. Since 2021, Venturi Lab is part of the Venturi Group. The company invents, studies, designs and manufactures mobility solutions capable of handling the extreme environmental conditions found on the Moon and Mars. In 2026, Venturi Astrolab’s FLEX rover – for which the Venturi Group will have designed and manufactured innovative technologies resulting from disruptive innovations – will be in operation on the Moon.

ABOUT VENTURI ASTROLAB
Venturi Astrolab, Inc (Astrolab) is on a mission to advance humanity to the next horizon by designing, building and operating a fleet of versatile rovers for all planetary surface needs. Comprised of a highly specialised team of former NASA, SpaceX and JPL engineers, Astrolab is dedicated to providing adaptive mobility solutions essential to life beyond Earth. The team has leading experience in terrestrial and planetary robotics, electric vehicles, human spaceflight and more. Astrolab’s extensive experience and strategic partnerships with a wide range of world-class institutions, including the electric vehicle pioneer Venturi Group, allow for the most reliable, flexible and cost-effective lunar and Mars mobility offerings. The company’s headquarters are located in Hawthorne, California.
Sci-Tech

New Lunar Rover Will Be Largest Ever And Includes Disruptive Innovations

Leave a comment

Recently, H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco visited Venturi Group’s Monegasque headquarters.

photos: Venturi/Bebert
Welcomed by the Group’s President, Gildo Pastor, the Sovereign was invited to take a historic first look at the lunar rover “FLEX”, developed by Venturi Astrolab (USA) in collaboration with Venturi Lab (Switzerland) and Venturi (Monaco).

FLEX will be the largest and most advanced lunar vehicle ever made.

It will be landed on the surface of the Moon by American firm SpaceX in 2026. Fans of Canada’s robotic space arm Canadarm take note: the lunar rover includes its own ‘in house’ designed and built robotic arm.


Since 2000, the Venturi Group has specialized in the design and manufacture of high-performance electric vehicles. Whether through world records, expeditions on hostile terrain, the creation of the first electric sports car, the development of innovative vehicles or its involvement in the Formula E World Championship, the Venturi Group embodies and demonstrates all the capabilities of the electric vehicle on 2 or 4 wheels.


Since 2021, Venturi Lab is part of the Venturi Group. The company invents, studies, designs and manufactures mobility solutions capable of handling the extreme environmental conditions found on the Moon and Mars. In 2026, Venturi Astrolab’s FLEX rover – for which the Venturi Group will have designed and manufactured innovative technologies resulting from disruptive innovations – will be in operation on the Moon. For the Silo, Fabrice Brouwers/Venturi.

ABOUT VENTURI ASTROLAB, INC.
Venturi Astrolab, Inc (Astrolab) is on a mission to advance humanity to the next horizon by designing, building and operating a fleet of versatile rovers for all planetary surface needs. Comprised of a highly specialised team of former NASA, SpaceX and JPL engineers, Astrolab is dedicated to providing adaptive mobility solutions essential to life beyond Earth.

The team has leading experience in terrestrial and planetary robotics, electric vehicles, human spaceflight and more. Astrolab’s extensive experience and strategic partnerships with a wide range of world-class institutions, including the electric vehicle pioneer Venturi Group, allow for the most reliable, flexible and cost-effective lunar and Mars mobility offerings. The company’s headquarters are located in Hawthorne, California.

Earth

Scientists Urge Caution On Underwater Mining

Leave a comment

For years the ‘bad ones’ have poisoned rivers, devastated forests and displaced communities, and now massive companies are rushing to dig up the seabed for precious metals.

MIT: “The ocean’s deep-sea bed is scattered with ancient, potato-sized rocks called “polymetallic nodules” that contain nickel and cobalt — minerals that are in high demand for the manufacturing of batteries, such as for powering electric vehicles and storing renewable energy, and in response to factors such as increasing urbanization. The deep ocean contains vast quantities of mineral-laden nodules, but the impact of mining the ocean floor is both unknown and highly contested.”

Sledge From Sea Mining Operations
Sediment plumes following the wake of this deep sea mining ship.

And yet, only twenty-four people have the regulatory powers to stop this type of plunder in our planet’s most fragile places:  The International Seabed Authority.  You’ve likely never heard of them because this group attracts as little attention as an underwater mine miles offshore.

A few countries have agreed to full or partial bans, and leading scientists have appealed for a freeze on deep sea mining contracts.

Mining companies claim they can mine the seabed safely, but authorities in Namibia, Australia and New Zealand have blocked seabed mining projects.  Scientists point out that many deep water species are being discovered quite regularly, and that the ocean floor can take decades to recover from disturbances such as the creation of sediment plumes from deep sea floor bed mining.

There are limits to how deep Surface ships can reach- but is that enough to protect the deep of our Oceans?
There are technological limits to how deep Surface ships can reach- but is that enough to protect the deep of our Oceans? New technologies and techniques always lead to deeper mining.

Seabed Mining: The 30 People Who Could Decide the Fate of the — Oceans Deeply
New technology allowing for deeper mining and intensified mining: A massive seafloor EV rover.

The International Seabed Authority has already issued licenses for exploratory mining across 1.2 million square kilometers of ocean floor. As mentioned earlier, this regulatory body is almost unknown, and its 24-person Legal and Technical Committee is solely responsible for the detailed scrutiny of proposals and environmental safeguards.

GreenPeace Graphic Deap Seabed Mining

Supplemental:

Deep sea mining: the new resource frontier? (Al-Arabiya)
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2014/11/12/Deep-sea-mining-the-new-resource-frontier-.html

Marine mining: Underwater gold rush sparks fears of ocean catastrophe (The Guardian)
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/02/underwater-gold-rush-marine-mining-fears-ocean-th… 

New Interest in Seafloor Mining Revives Calls for Conservation (National Geographic)
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2013/12/11/new-interest-in-seafloor-mining-revives-calls-for-co… 

Deep sea mining hopes hit by New Zealand decision (Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6edaeea8-b894-11e4-a2fb-00144feab7de.html#axzz3VFC8Wm1y 

Scientists call for temporary halt on new deep sea mining projects (Popular Science)
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6edaeea8-b894-11e4-a2fb-00144feab7de.html#axzz3VFC8Wm1y

Shedding some light on the International Seabed Authority (University of Southampton)
http://moocs.southampton.ac.uk/oceans/2014/03/09/shedding-some-light-on-the-international-seabed-authority/

Transportation

England’s EV Commercial Truck Earns Grants For Urban Deliveries

1 Comment

Tilbury, England. March 2023: British electric vehicle manufacturer Tevva has secured government plug-in truck grant (PITrG) eligibility for its 7.5t battery-electric truck. UK organizations looking to decarbonize operations and future-proof their fleets will benefit from a potential £16,000 ($26,260 CAD) discount, removed from the purchase price by Tevva.  The current maximum Canadian EV amount is $5,000CAD.

To be eligible for the grant, N2 vehicles :trucks that weigh between 5-12 tonnes must have a CO2 emissions figure of at least 50 percent less than the conventional equivalent vehicle that can carry the same capacity and can travel at least 60 miles without any tailpipe emissions at all. (In the UK, a ton = 2,200 pounds and in Canada a ton is metric and = 2,000 pounds.) Tevva’s 7.5t battery-electric truck offers up to 140 miles (227 kilometers) from its 105-kWh battery on a single charge, and is ideal for last-mile and urban delivery fleets. 

Tevva
Battery Electric Truck Technical SpecificationsDownload

The Tevva 7.5t battery-electric truck is the only vehicle from a British manufacturer to qualify for the PITrG, and becomes only the third eligible truck to be listed on the government website. The grant pays for 20 percent of the purchase price, up to a maximum of £16,000 ($26,260 CAD) , reducing Tevva 7.5t battery-electric truck total cost of ownership (TCO),

This news follows hot on the heels of another significant company milestone in January, when Tevva secured European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA) for its 7.5t battery-electric truck. This meant that Tevva could start producing and selling in volume across the UK and Europe and represented the key regulatory step in the development and commercialization of the Tevva business.

Tevva Founder and CEO Asher Bennett said: “We know first-hand that demand for electric trucks is growing at speed, as we have been inundated with requests for our 7.5t battery-electric truck since going into full production last month. Now we are able to offer UK organisations a noticeable discount, thanks to the government grant, which will surely make zero emission trucking even more appealing to fleets.”

Tevva’s 7.5t battery-electric truck will be followed by a 7.5t hydrogen-electric truck, which benefits from a hydrogen range-extender that enhances vehicle range to up to 354 miles (570 km). The hydrogen-electric truck recently completed a 620-mile ‘border run’ between Tevva’s London HQ and the Scottish border at Berwick-on-Tweed – England’s most northernmost town. The return journey saw the truck cover almost 350 miles alone, without needing a single stop for recharging.

Culture

Ontario Building About 500 Electric Vehicle EV Charging Stations- Here’s Where

2 Comments

Ontario is building almost 500 electric vehicle EV charging stations at over 250 convenient locations across the province to help reduce greenhouse gas pollution and fight climate change.

The province is working with 24 public- and private-sector partners to create an unprecedented network of public charging electric vehicle stations in cities, along highways, at workplaces and at various public places across Ontario. This includes over 200 Level 3 and nearly 300 Level 2 charging stations. The entire network will be in service by March 31, 2017.

The province’s $20-million investment under Ontario’s Green Investment Fund will expand charging infrastructure across the province and will help address “range anxiety,” a common concern of consumers regarding the distance electric vehicles can travel compared to traditional vehicles. Building a more robust network of public chargers across Ontario allows electric vehicle owners to plan longer trips knowing that charging stations are as readily available as gas stations. With the new network of stations, electric vehicle drivers will be able to travel confidently from Windsor to Ottawa or from Toronto to North Bay and within and around major urban centres.

The $325-million Green Investment Fund, an initial investment in Ontario’s new five-year Climate Change Action Plan, is already strengthening the economy, creating good jobs and driving innovation while fighting climate change — a strong signal of what Ontarians can expect from the plan and proceeds from the province’s cap and trade program. These investments will help secure a healthy, clean and prosperous low-carbon future and transform the way we live, move, work and adapt to our environment while ensuring strong, sustainable communities.

Investing in climate action is part of the government’s economic plan to build Ontario up and deliver on its number-one priority to grow the economy and create jobs. The four-part plan includes helping more people get and create the jobs of the future by expanding access to high-quality college and university education. The plan is making the largest infrastructure investment in hospitals, schools, roads, bridges and transit in Ontario’s history and is investing in a low-carbon economy driven by innovative, high-growth, export-oriented businesses. The plan is also helping working Ontarians achieve a more secure retirement.

QUOTES

“By investing in charging infrastructure that is fast, reliable and affordable, we are encouraging more Ontarians to purchase electric vehicles, reducing greenhouse gas pollution and keeping our air clean.”

— Steven Del Duca, Minister of Transportation

“Transportation is one of the single biggest contributors to climate change. Supporting more charging stations across the province will help to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by making it more convenient for drivers of electric vehicles to get around.”

— Glen Murray, Minister of the Environment and Climate Change

 

QUICK FACTS

  • An interactive map of the EVCO network of stations will be easily accessible on

Ontario 511. Station location data will also be posted on Ontario’s Open Data Catalogue to allow software developers and other interested parties to use the data in their mobile application or digital product development.

  • Ontario’s Climate Change Action Plan is providing people and businesses with tools and incentives to accelerate the use of clean technology that exists today.
  • A shift to low- and zero-emission vehicles is vital to the fight against climate change and achieving Ontario’s greenhouse gas pollution reduction target of 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
  • Green Investment Fund projects include: more electric vehicle charging stations; energy retrofits for single-family homes and affordable housing; support for Indigenous communities, industry and small and medium-sized businesses, and helping local organizations fight climate change.
  • Greenhouse gases from cars account for more emissions than those from industries such as iron, steel, cement, and chemicals combined.
  • There are nearly 7,000 electric vehicles currently on the road in Ontario.
  • Over 200 applications to the Electric Vehicle Charger Ontario program were received between Dec. 21, 2015 and Feb. 12, 2016, totalling more than $165 million in grant requests.

 

LEARN MORE

 

Ontario’s Electric Vehicle Incentive Program

Ontario 511 Climate Change Action Plan

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

 

 

 

BACKGROUNDER
Ministry of Transportation

 

Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

July 13, 2016

 

The province is investing nearly $20 million from Ontario’s Green Investment Fund to build almost 500 electric vehicle (EV) charging stations at over 250 locations in Ontario by March 31, 2017.

 

City/Town Number of Chargers Location of Chargers
Central Region Level 2: 223

Level 3: 84
Barrie Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 446 Bayfield St.
Beamsville Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 5005 Ontario St.
Beaverton Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 84 Beaverton Ave.
Bolton Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Albion Bolton Community Centre – 150 Queen St. South
Bradford Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 440 Holland St. West
Brampton Level 2: 6

Level 3: 0

 Soccer Centre Recreation Facility – 1495 Sandalwood Pkwy. East

Heart Lake Conservation Area – 10818 Heart Lake Rd.

Claireville Conservation Area – 8180 Hwy 50
Burlington Level 2: 1

Level 3: 2

 IKEA – 1065 Plains Rd. East

Appleby Crossing – 2435 Appleby Line
Caledon Level 2: 3

Level 3: 1

 Albion Hills Conservation Area Chalet – 16500 Regional Rd.

Albion Hills Conservation Area Beach Parking – 16500 Regional Rd.

Glen Haffy Conservation Area – 19245 Airport Rd.

Margaret Dunn Library – 20 Snelcrest Dr.
Collingwood Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 285 First St.

Tim Horton’s – 4 High St.
Elmvale Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 68 Yonge St. South
Fort Erie Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 325 Garrison Rd.

Tim Horton’s – 1167 Garrison Rd.
Goodwood Level 2: 1

Level 3: 0

 Claremont Field Centre – 4290 Westney Rd. North
Hamilton Level 2: 1

Level 3: 2

 Centre on Barton – 1275 Barton St. East

Tim Horton’s – 1470 ON-6

Tim Horton’s – 473 Concession St.
Keswick Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Glenwoods Centre – 443 The Queensway South
Markham Level 2: 10

Level 3: 2

 123 Commerce Valley Dr. West

125 Commerce Valley Dr. West

50 Minthorn Blvd.

140 Allstate Pkwy.

Armadale Crossing – 7690-7770 Markham Rd.

80 Allstate Parkway
Midhurst Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Simcoe County Museum – 1151 Highway 26
Midland Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 16815 ON-12
Milton Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Campbellville Country Court Plaza – 35 Crawford Cres.
Mississauga Level 2: 58

Level 3: 20

 80 Courtneypark Dr.

5800 Explorer Dr.

Meadowvale Corporate Centre – 6880 Financial Dr.

5750 Explorer Dr.

2085 Hurontario St.

4701/4715 Tahoe Blvd.

Indian Line Campground – 7625 Finch Ave. West

Pearson International Airport – 6301 Silver Dart Dr.

Pearson International Airport – 8 Network Rd.

Pearson International Airport – 3111 Convair Dr.

Hilton Mississauga – 6750 Mississusauga Rd.

2630 Skymark Ave.

Novo-nordisk – 2680 Skymark Ave.

Airway Centre – 5935 Airport Rd.

30 Eglinton Ave. West
Newmarket Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 1100 Davic Dr.
Niagara Falls Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 8089 Portage Rd.
Oakville Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 Tim Horton’s – 228 Wyecroft Rd.
Orangeville Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 23 Broadway Ave.
Orillia Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 320 Memorial Ave.

Tim Horton’s – 25 Colborne St. East
Oshawa Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 Best Western Oshawa – 559 Bloor St. West
Pickering Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Petticoat Creek Conservation Area – 1100 Whites Rd.
Richmond Hill Level 2: 9

Level 3: 0

 30 Leek Cres.

38 Leek Cres.

95 Mural St.

1725 16th Ave.

Swan Lake Centre – 1229 Bethesda Sideroad
St Catharines Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 170 4th Ave. South
Stayner Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Clearview Joint Emergency Services Operations Centre – 6993 ON-26
Stouffville Level 2: 1

Level 3: 0

 Bruce’s Mill Conservation Area – 3291 Stouffville Rd.
Toronto Level 2: 121

Level 3: 25

 IKEA Etobicoke – 1475 The Queensway

IKEA North York – 15 Provost Dr.

St. Joseph’s Health Centre – 30 The Queensway

Royal Bank Plaza – 200 Bay St.

University Centre – 383 University Ave.

5775 Yonge St.

Lucliff Place – 700 Bay St.

York Mills Centre – 4325 Yonge St.

MaRS Centre – 661 University Ave.

Yorkville Village – 87 Avenue Rd.

Madison Centre – 4950 Yonge St.

Citibank – 123 Front St.

110 Yonge St.

525 University Ave.

175 Bloor St.

Metro Centre – 200 Wellington St.

Airport Marriott – 901 Dixon Rd.

Maple Leaf Square – 15 York St.

Air Canada Centre – 50 Bay St.

Air Miles Tower – 438 University Ave.

720 Bay St.

655 Bay St.

5001 Yonge St.

Adelaide Place – 181 University Ave.

2075 Kennedy Rd.

Dynamic Funds Tower – 1 Adelaide St. East

Atria – 2235 Sheppard Ave. East

30 Adelaide St. East

Commerce West – 401 and 405 The West Mall

SNC-Lavalin – 304 The East Mall

Burnhamthorpe Square – 10-20 Four Seasons Place

Morneau Shepall – 895 Don Mills Rd.

145 King St. West

150 King St. West

Sun Life Centre – 200 King St. West

Manulife Centre – 55 Bloor St. West

Bloor Islington Place – 3250 Bloor St. West

33 Bloor St. West

Scotiabank Plaza – 40 King St. West

115 Gordon Baker Rd.

Foresters – 789 Don Mills Rd.

277 Wellington St. West

Glen Rouge Conservation Area – 7450 Kingston Rd.

Milliken Crossing – 5631 – 5671 Steeles Ave. East

Black Creek Pioneer Village – 1000 Murray Ross Parkway

Humber River Hospital – 1235 Wilson Ave.
Tottenham Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Tottenham Mall – 55 Queen St. South
Vaughan Level 2: 4

Level 3: 3

 TRCA Head Office – 101 Exchange Ave.

Joint Operations Centre – 2800 Rutherford Rd.

IKEA – 200 Interchange Way
Vineland Station Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 3335 North Service Rd.
Washago Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Washago Carpool Lot – HWY 11/169
Whitby Level 2: 1

Level 3: 0

 Taunton Gardens – 320 Taunton Rd. East
Woodbridge Level 2: 3

Level 3: 0

 Boyd Conservation Area – 8739 Islington Ave.

Kortright Centre – 9550 Pine Valley Dr.
East Region Level 2: 17

Level 3: 49
Arnprior Level 2: 0

Level 3: 3

 Tim Horton’s – 201 Madawaska Blvd.

Metro/Food Basics – 375 Daniel St. South

McDonald’s – 16 Baskin Dr. West
Bancroft Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 234 Hastings St. North
Barrhaven Level 2: 2

Level 3: 0

 Ottawa Park and Ride – 3347 Fallowfield Rd.
Belleville Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 218 Bell Blvd.
Brockville Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 2454 Parkdale Ave.

Tim Horton’s – 77 William St.
Campbellford Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 148 Grand Rd.
Carleton Place Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 144 Franktown Rd.
Casselman Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Metro/Food Basics – 21 Richer Close
Cornwall Level 2: 0

Level 3: 3

 Tim Horton’s – 81 Tollgate Rd. West

McDonald’s – 1301 Brookdale Ave.

St. Hubert – 705 Brookdale Ave.
Deep River Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 33235 Hwy 17
Embrun Level 2: 2

Level 3: 0

 Embrun Arena – 8 Blais St.
Fenelon Falls Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 23 Lindsay St.
Gloucester Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 St. Hubert – 2484 Boulevard St. Joseph
Hawkesbury Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 St. Hubert – 456 County Rd. 17

Tim Horton’s – 418 Main St. East
Johnstown Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Gas Bar – 2618 CR-2
Kanata Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Ottawa Park and Ride – 130 Earl Grey Dr.
Kemptville Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 TSC Stores – 2966 County Rd. 43
Kingston Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 681 Princess St.
Lindsay Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 Lindsay Recreation Complex – 133 Adelaide St. South

Tim Horton’s – 85 Mt Hope St.
Madoc Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 14118 Hwy 62

Tim Horton’s – 14121 ON-7
Manotick Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 989 River Rd.
Napanee Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 478 Centre St. North
Nepean Level 2: 2

Level 3: 0

 Ben Franklin Place – 101 Centrepointe Dr.
Newcastle Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 361 King Ave. East
Ottawa Level 2: 3

Level 3: 8

 McDonald’s – 670 Bronson Ave.

City of Ottawa Fire Administration Building – 1445 Carling Ave.

St. Hubert – 4010 Riverside Dr.

Ottawa Public Parking Lot – 687 Somerset

IKEA – 2685 Iris St.
Pembroke Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 805 Pembroke St. East

Tim Horton’s – 11 Robinson Ln.
Perth Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 35 Dufferin St.
Peterborough Level 2: 7

Level 3: 4

 Tim Horton’s – 1527 Water St.

Lansdowne Place Mall –  645 Lansdowne St.

Norwood Town Hall – 2357 County Rd. 45

King Street Parking Garage –  200 King St.

Memorial Centre Arena – 151 Lansdowne St. West

Riverview Park Zoo – 1230 Water St.

Downtown Lakefield Public Parking – 39 Queen St.
Picton Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Downtown Picton Public Parking – 55 King St.
Port Hope Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 175 Rose Glen Rd. North
Port Perry Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 14500 Simcoe St.
Rockland Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 Metro/Food Basics – 9071 County Rd. 17

Tim Horton’s – 2875 Laporte St.
Northeast Region Level 2: 1

Level 3: 24
Azilda Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 514 Notre Dame St. East
Burk’s Falls Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 27 Commercial Dr.
Elliot Lake Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 269 King’s Hwy 108

Tim Horton’s – 261 ON-108
Espanola Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 701 Centre St.
Gravenhurst Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 1105 Bethuine Dr.

Tim Horton’s – 150 Talisman Dr.
Huntsville Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 44 ON-60
Kapuskasing Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 240 Government Rd.

Tim Horton’s – 8 Government Rd. East
Kirkland Lake Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 155 Government Rd. West

Tim Horton’s – 175 Government Rd. West
New Liskeard Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 883350 Hwy 65 West

Tim Horton’s – 883307 ON-65
North Bay Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 999 McKeown Ave.

Tim Horton’s – 114 Drury St.
Parry Sound Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 118 Bowes St.
Port Severn Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Jag’s Petro Canada – 41 Lone Pine Rd.
Sault Ste. Marie Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 673 Trunk Rd.

Tim Horton’s – 223 Second Line West
Sudbury Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 914 Newgate Ave.
South Porcupine Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 4556 ON-101
Timmins Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 520-522 Algonquin Blvd. East
Wawa Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 92 Mission Rd.
Northwest Region Level 2: 0

Level 3: 7
Dryden Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 520 Government St.

Tim Horton’s – 655 Government St.
Fort Frances Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 831 Kings Highway

Tim Horton’s – 525 Hwy 11 West
Kenora Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 900 Highway 17 East
Thunder Bay Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 770 Memorial Ave.

Tim Horton’s – 121 East Ave.
West Region Level 2: 33

Level 3: 47
Amherstburg Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 The Libro Centre –  3295 Meloche Rd.
Arthur Level 2: 1

Level 3: 2

 Arthur Library and Medical Centre – 110 Charles St. East

Arthur Sports Complex –  158 Domville St.
Brantford Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 73 King George Rd.

Tim Horton’s – 1290 Colborne St. East
Cambridge Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 416 Hespeler Rd.
Cayuga Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 51 Talbot St.
Chatham Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 710 Richmond St.

Tim Horton’s – 33 3rd St.
Clifford Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Clifford Community Complex – 2 Brown St. South
Clinton Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 300 Ontario St.
Drumbo Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Mister Steak Highway Travel Plaza – 80667 Oxford Rd. 29
Essex Level 2: 0

Level 3: 4

 Essex Centre Sports Complex –  60 Fairview Ave. West

Colechester Harbour –  100 Jackson St.
Exeter Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 153 Main St. North
Goderich Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 354 Bayfield Rd.
Guelph Level 2: 1

Level 3: 3

 Social Services Building – 138 Wyndham St. North

Puslinch Library – 29 Brock Rd. South

N Hanlon Park Mall – 218 Silvercreek Pkwy.
Hanover Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 McDonald’s – 800 10th St.

Tim Horton’s – 639 10th St.
Harriston Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 182 Elora St.
Ingersoll Level 2: 2

Level 3: 1

 Downtown Ingersoll Public Parking – 16 King St.
Innisfil Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 940 Innisfil Beach Rd.
Kitchener Level 2: 8

Level 3: 0

 50 Queen St. North

55 King St. West
Leamington Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 214 Talbot St.
London Level 2: 6

Level 3: 1

 Wellington Commons – 1210 Wellington Rd. South

Tim Horton’s – 146 Clarke Rd.

City Centre – 380 Wellington St.
Meaford Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 291 Sykes St. South
Mount Forest Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Mount Forest Sports Complex – 850 Princess St.
Owen Sound Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 1015 10th St. West
Port Colborne Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 429 Main St. West
Port Dover Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 1 St Andrew St.
Port Elgin Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 278 Goderich St.
Sarnia Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 1399 Colborne Rd.
Simcoe Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 77 Queensway East
Southampton Level 2: 1

Level 3: 0

 Saugeen First Nation Gas Bar – 43 Cameron Dr.
Stratford Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 1040 Ontario St.
Strathroy Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 269 Caradoc St. South
Tillsonburg Level 2: 0

Level 3: 2

 Tim Horton’s – 401 Simcoe St.
Wallaceburg Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 848 Dufferin Ave.
Wasaga Beach Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 McDonald’s – 1275 Mosley St.
Waterloo Level 2: 7

Level 3: 0

 Northland Business Centre – 60 Northland Rd.

Waterloo Corporate Campus – 180 Northfield Dr. West / 595 Parkside Dr.
Welland Level 2: 1

Level 3: 1

 Fitch Street Plaza – 200 Fitch St
Wiarton Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 445 Berford St.
Windsor Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 80 Park St. East
Wingham Level 2: 0

Level 3: 1

 Tim Horton’s – 33 Josephine St.
Woodstock Level 2: 2

Level 3: 1

 Quality Inn – 580 Bruin Blvd.

 

Some of the above noted locations may be subject to change prior to March 31, 2017.

 

Level 2 charging stations use a 240 volt system (similar to a clothes dryer plug) and can fully charge a vehicle from zero per cent charge in about four to six hours.

 

Level 3 charging stations (also known as Direct Current Fast Chargers or DCFC) use a 480 volt system and can charge a vehicle to 80 per cent in about 30 minutes.  These stations allow EV drivers to charge their vehicles about eight times faster than Level 2 charging stations, and permit them to travel further than ever before.