In April, the B.C government decided to maintain its EV supply regulations, while calibrating their ambition to align with the federal government’s (forthcoming) tailpipe emission regulations. As I said at the time, “Spiking prices at the gas pump reinforce the affordability and climate solutions win-win offered by EVs, and the importance of ensuring that British Columbians can readily choose to buy and charge an EV.” The most recent gasoline price spike is a stark reminder of our exposure to wild price swings triggered by events beyond both our borders and control. This is a feature, not a bug, of our reliance on oil. No matter how much Canada produces, or how many pipelines we have into B.C., prices will be set by geopolitics.
The best way to protect ourselves from this volatility and frequent high prices is to reduce our reliance on gasoline. For those who want or need to drive a car, this used to mean considering a more efficient gas car, or even a conventional hybrid. Now there’s a far better alternative to save on fuel costs: EVs.
With an AI-assist, I’ve compiled the numbers from 2020 through 2026, and they are stark. Over that period the average cost to drive a kilometre in an EV was just over two cents a kilometre, compared to over 15 cents for a gas vehicle. That’s a greater than seven-fold savings. Beyond the cost savings, the graphic also makes clear how much easier it is to plan and manage a household budget when your fuel costs are stable. Again, the volatility of gasoline prices is a feature, not a bug.
As numerous analyses have shown, when factoring in the higher upfront cost of buying an EV drivers in B.C still come out ahead when they choose electric over gas, given the far lower fuel and maintenance costs. And yes, not everybody buys a new car—but pretty much every new car is a future used car, and B.C’s early leadership in EV adoption is showing up in a thriving used car market.
Here’s another consideration, when you charge up an EV in B.C more of what you pay ends up staying in the province compared to filling up a gas car. Using data from 2024 (the most recent data available in full), we find that 75 to 85 percent of what’s paid in EV charging stays in B.C (and that’s in a drought year when BC Hydro was importing more power than usual). In contrast, when you fill up at the gas pump 55 to 65 percent leaves the province. If adjusted to remove the provincial carbon tax—which was eliminated in 2025—that increases to 60 to 70 percent leaving the province.
Lower fuel costs means more money in your pocket.
Using electricity instead of gasoline means more money stays in our province.
Environmental virtue or not, EVs are simply the better choice.
This post was originally published in Business in Vancouver with co-author Mark Zacharias.
Premier David Eby wants B.C. to be a clean energy superpower. Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix wants the province to be more like Norway, exporting more conventional energy while using more clean electricity at home. Both point to clean electricity as the backbone of faster economic growth, as envisioned in the province’s Look West Economic Strategy.
So it was downright baffling to see the Province and BC Hydro roll-out Powering Growth, Fueling Opportunity—billed as “a comprehensive plan to power growth, strengthen communities and support long-term economic development”—that only plans for 50 per cent growth in the province’s electricity system by 2050.
In the last election, the BC NDP’s platform committed to doubling electricity supply by 2050, echoing their government’s 2024 clean energy strategy, which noted, “While 2050 is more than two decades away, BC must and is beginning to plan today for a future where electricity use doubles by 2050 and overtakes fossil fuels as the largest energy source in the province.”
The 50 per cent growth plan is drawn from BC Hydro’s most recent Integrated Resource Plan’s (IRP) Reference Case scenario, the most likely future for electricity demand and, hence, supply requirements. While this may seem like a reasonable approach, it’s important to understand that this regulatory document is inherently conservative, borne from an understandable desire to avoid overbuilding the system and driving up power bills.
But as BC Hydro acknowledges in its IRP the risk of under-building is greater than the risk of over-building. Nonetheless, their 50 per cent growth plan is premised upon assumptions about economic growth and electrification that fall well short of the government’s ambitions.
In a new assessment of jurisdictions’ preparedness for growing industrial demand, the gap between the electricity requirements linked to 50 per cent of industrial projects in the connection queue (acknowledging not all will proceed) and the demand projections included in electricity plans was measured. Of the hydro-led systems assessed—B.C., Washington, Norway and Quebec—BC Hydro’s plan had the largest planning gap, at 110 per cent. Norway, meanwhile, had a gap of just 10 per cent, and Quebec’s was less than 10 per cent.
This should be cause for concern in the Premier’s office. A potential shortage of electricity puts the government’s economic ambition at risk, with future shortfalls of electricity serving as a potential brake on investment growth.
A similar story plays out with respect to electrification of homes and businesses—with heat pumps—and transportation, from transit to trucking to personal vehicles. B.C is far behind Norway when it comes to electrification, measured as the contribution electricity makes to meeting energy demand. In Norway, electricity is the largest source of energy, meeting 47 per cent of energy demand. In B.C., electricity is tied for third at 18 per cent (with biomass), behind refined petroleum products and natural gas (at 34 and 31 per cent, respectively). While electrification is often framed as a climate solution, the current energy price shock serves as a stark reminder of the energy security and affordability benefits of reduced reliance on oil and gas.
To fulfill the province’s economic and electrification ambitions we need to produce a lot more electricity and electrify much more of our energy use—for both, it’s on the order of a doubling from today. That matches the ambition of Prime Minister Carney’s Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy.
With a 98 per cent clean electricity grid, surging power demand, and a resource sector poised to boom, B.C. ought to be the first province to work in lock-step with the federal government to translate this strategy into action, leveraging the federal government’s triple-A balance sheet to help with the cost of doing so.
Failing to plan, is planning to fail. Demand can materialize much faster than new supply and transmission can meet it—the only way to avoid an electricity shortfall acting as binding constraint on economic and electrification growth is to plan and build aggressively and proactively.
A course correction is needed to put the province on a path to doubling electricity supply and doubling electrification to unlock economic growth, household affordability, and climate benefits for all British Columbians.
Mark Zacharias is a fellow at the Centre for Global Studies and Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions at the University of Victoria. Dan Woynillowicz is the principal of Polaris Strategy + Insight.
In January, Prime Minister Carney gave a speech in Davos that went viral with its stark honesty about a rupture in the world order. From the campaign trail to his first year in office, Carney has consistently described the challenges Canadians face as a hinge moment for the country, a turning point requiring dramatic change.
And that was before the American-Israeli war with Iran and ensuing closure of the Strait of Hormuz sparked a global energy shock described by Fatih Birol, head of the International Energy Agency, as “worse than 1973, 1979 and 2002 together.”
In Europe and, especially, Asia, surging prices for gasoline, diesel and natural gas have spurred governments to question how best to ensure their nations’ energy security. While they pursue near-term options to secure scarce supplies of oil and gas and insulate consumers from exorbitant prices, they are also arriving at a similar conclusion about how best to durably protect their citizens and economies from inevitable future shocks: scaling domestic clean electricity supply and meeting a growing share of their energy needs with electrification.
This isn’t a revolutionary concept, in fact markets have been moving in this direction for the past decade. Motivated by climate action, which got the spotlight, and energy security alike, investment has been pouring in. Last year, for every $1 invested globally in fossil fuel production, $2 was invested in clean energy and electrification. For energy importers, especially, the business case is simple: increase domestic electricity production, use more electricity to meet a greater share of energy needs, reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports and exposure to price shocks.
While Canada has plenty of domestic oil and gas resources, we are still exposed to the economic harms that accompany price shocks. Today, we feel this most acutely at the pumps, with surging gasoline and diesel prices. These high prices will pass through the economy and be felt elsewhere, especially at grocery stores. While natural gas prices are more insulated from price trends beyond our borders, growing LNG exports will increase our exposure in the future.
Which brings us to Prime Minister Carney’s eagerly anticipated Powering Canada Strong: A National Strategy for an Electrified Canadian Economy. A change in context and leadership means this isn’t climate strategy shaping energy outcomes, but rather energy strategy shaping multiple priority outcomes: energy security, economic competitiveness, affordability, sovereignty and, yes, critical progress towards a safer climate.
The strategy sets the right ambition—doubling electricity supply by 2050 and accelerating electrification across the economy. While the latter wasn’t quantified, the Spring Economic Update offers a hint at the scale of the opportunity, noting that “Currently accounting for about 20 per cent of total final energy use, electricity’s share is projected to double in the decades ahead as industries electrify and new technologies scale.”
While it doesn’t get the same profile (or generate headlines) the strategy recognizes that “because the cheapest electricity is the power never used, energy efficiency and grid modernisation are some of the most effective ways to address affordability.” If we combine the inherent efficiency benefits of electrification with additional energy efficiency efforts, we can readily double energy productivity and stretch the value of our electrons further.
Double electricity supply. Double electrification. And double energy productivity.
It’s a compelling opportunity that will deliver a range of real and tangible benefits to Canadians from coast-to-coast-to-coast, while future-proofing our economic growth.
That covers the “what” and the “why,” but of course any hope of success depends on the “how?” To that end, the Prime Minister laid out four pillars that will guide the strategy:
Build the infrastructure needed to double Canada’s electricity generation
Connect Canada’s fragmented grids East-West-North through new and expanded transmission lines
Train, attract, and retain the talent needed to build the grid of the future
Make more of the technologies and components powering our grid here at home
Build. Connect. Train. Make.
It’s a simple formulation that has the benefit of being the right formulation. These are the things we’ll need to do well to succeed.
The emphasis on growing production within the electrification supply chain stands out as novel and could prove to be the sleeper opportunity that delivers outsized and unexpected value to Canada and our trading partners. Not only does the supply chain risk becoming a bottleneck for the buildout, but it also presents a significant economic and export opportunity given global trends towards electrification.
Described as the “electro-tech stack,” it spans inputs (minerals, energy), materials and components (refining, cathodes, equipment), systems (generation, grids, electrified end-uses), control (software, AI, optimization), capital and deployment. China dominates mass manufacturing, so there’s little sense in Canada trying to become a low-cost mass manufacturer. But there are niches where Canada possesses comparative advantage and growth potential, notably clean inputs, bottleneck grid equipment, and system intelligence.
Canada’s electricity supply chain potential
Beyond meeting our own needs, building our capacity in these sectors positions Canada to help meet the needs of our trading partners, who are embarking on similarly ambitious electricity buildout and electrification efforts. According to a recent analysis by the Transition Accelerator, Canadian companies are already finding success in doing so. Exports in clean energy supply chains grew 21% faster than all other exports over the last five years, and Canada’s market share of these exports is growing. This success can be turbo-charged with industrial policy targeting those segments of the supply chain where we have strong comparative advantage.
Delivering on the full range of benefits elucidated in Powering Strong requires swift action to translate the four pillars into steel in the ground, new wires, more workers and made-in-Canada widgets. The strategy identifies two dozen areas for action, which the government is now seeking input on. This consultation should be focused and fast, as there’s no time to waste.
Most importantly, provincial governments need to be brought on board and kept on board given they have direct oversight for electricity systems. On interprovincial transmission lines, in particular, they have demonstrated an encouraging willingness to work together to overcome the barriers that have stymied interest, as evidenced by the Ontario-initiated National Energy Corridor Agreement. Not surprisingly, the federal-provincial relationships will hinge around the age-old question of who pays for what, and who benefits.
This fall’s federal budget will stand as an important litmus test of the Carney government’s resolve to translate this strategy into steel in the ground. It’s estimated that doubling electricity supply will require a trillion dollars of investment. A recent analysis of the UK’s electricity and electrification ambition found that the economic ROI on such investment is 4:1. In Canada, given the energy intensity of our economy and our supply chain potential, the ROI could be even greater. There’s no time to waste in mobilizing and deploying investment.
In launching the strategy, Prime Minister Carney drew on a quote from Marshall McLuhan that captures the moment well: “Our Age of Anxiety is, in great part, the result of trying to do today’s jobs with yesterday’s tools—with yesterday’s concepts.”
As the International Energy Agency has noted, we have now entered the Age of Electricity. The coming months and years will demonstrate whether we’re using today’s best tools to meet tomorrow’s challenges.
Contributing Writer Dan Woynillowicz is the Principal of Polaris Strategy + Insight, a public policy consulting firm focused on climate change and the energy transition.
Across Canada, gas pump prices are the talk of the town. Since the U.S. and Israel launched attacks on Iran at the end of February, the average price of a litre of gasoline in Canada has spiked 45 cents—a 34 percent jump—to over $1.75/litre. Drivers are, understandably, none too happy.
A survey by the Angus Reid Institute (ARI) found that 58% of Canadians have made some sort of change to their behaviour to offset these higher prices, with 43%) saying they are driving less and 14% noting they’ve had to cut spending elsewhere. Unsurprisingly, Canadians living in households earning more than $100,000 are more likely to say they’ve made no changes to their habits (47%) relative to those living in lower income households (29%).
Affordability is already strained for many households. A separate ARI survey’s Financial Pressure Index found 23% of Canadians are facing High financial pressure, 18% Medium, 35% Low, and 24% Very Low. It also found that concern over cost of living has reached a three-year high in lower-income households amid this gas price spike, with 68% of households with sub-$50,000 income selecting cost-of-living/inflation as their top concern.
It’s entirely appropriate—and expected—that the federal government is considering its options to alleviate this pain-point. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the official opposition Conservatives, was quick to weigh in with advice of his own, and his remedy is—perhaps unsurprisingly—to cut taxes (the fuel excise tax and GST) and climate policy (the Clean Fuel Regulation).
What do Canadians want? Bloomberg commissioned a survey by Nanos to dig into the topic. It found that reducing fuel-related taxes would be the most popular federal government response, with 39% support. But while it was the most popular single option, it’s noteworthy that a cumulative 41% preferred options that would better protect Canadians from future gasoline price shocks, such as investing more in long-term energy alternatives (22.2%), providing public transit incentives (9.4%), expanding hybrid/EV incentives (9.4%).
And there’s the rub—when it comes to our ongoing reliance on oil, we just keep digging ourselves into a deeper hole. At the moment, that’s become acutely painful. Do we want an aspirin so we can keep digging, or should we consider getting out of the hole?
Perhaps that’s too glib, considering the very real, very acute economic hardship that many Canadians are facing right now. Some pain relief is warranted, but it’s important to acknowledge that not all Canadians are experiencing the same degree of hardship, and an across the board axing of the excise fuel tax or GST on gasoline is the proverbial chainsaw approach, when a scalpel will do.
As Rebekah Young and Oliver Gervais noted in a Scotiabank brief, “There are some calls for cutting gas taxes with several European countries temporarily suspending fuel levies. While such measures are broad‑based and highly visible—and would offer some near‑term relief to low‑ and middle‑income households, who spend a larger share of their income on transportation—they are also regressive, delivering the largest benefits to higher‑income households with greater fuel consumption.“
The Scotiabank analysis finds that for each sustained $10/barrel increase in oil prices, Canada’s two lowest income quintiles see an incremental $1 billion hit in food and energy costs, which translates into an additional ~$150 per household. As the authors note, “the regressive impact is stark relative to disposable income where the lowest quintile spends almost half of disposable income on food and energy versus under 20% for the average household leaving limited flexibility to adjust.”
Their prescription? Targeted support to those least able to cope.
The delivery mechanism? A temporary increase to the quarterly GST Groceries and Essentials Benefit. Such targeted support would be consistent with approaches taken elsewhere, including Korea, New Zealand and Ireland.
Not only would this approach deliver support to those most in need of it, it would avoid a counterproductive blunting of price signals, “weakening incentives to conserve fuel or switch to alternatives.” Furthermore, given that “once implemented, fuel tax cuts tend to be politically difficult to unwind,” the federal government’s budget is much better served by this targeted relief, (to address the pain) which can be coupled with strategic policy and investments to conserve fuel and switch to alternatives (to help get us out of this hole).
The Clean Fuel Regulations (CFR) and associated federal supports for biofuel production, EV incentives, and EV charging infrastructure programs all serve to establish alternatives that will increasingly insulate Canadian consumers from future oil price shocks.
The CFR incentivizes blending made-in-Canada biofuels into gasoline, as well as investments in the EV charging network (including home chargers)—while this does come at a cost at the pump, it should be considered an investment in energy security and transportation price stability. As the President of Advanced Biofuels Canada noted, “It’s easy, but inaccurate, to suggest that Canadians’ home finances would be stronger without biofuels, but the data do not support that theory. Furthermore, a domestic biofuel industry that utilizes Canadian farm crop feedstocks insulates us from the instability caused by global trade tensions by shoring up domestic supply of transportation fuels and lessening reliance on foreign markets and volatile trade policies.”
Meanwhile, the federal government’s auto industrial strategy—including proposed vehicle tailpipe emission standards—will support the evolution of the Canadian auto sector, save future buyers of gas cars and trucks thousands of dollars per year at the pump thanks to better fuel efficiency, and spur more supply and choice of EVs that avoid the gas pump altogether. Just last week, Clean Energy Canada released updated analysis (and a handy calculator) showing how EVs save typical drivers about $23,000 to $32,000 over 10 years of ownership (and that’s based on average 2025 gas prices of $1.42 per litre, before the recent price spike).
[As an aside, it’s somewhat baffling that the federal Conservatives prefer President Trump’s tailpipe standards, which will end up costing Americans an additional $185 billion at the gas pumps over the next 25 years. How does this help affordabilty?]
As I’ve previously written, even as a major oil producer Canada is not immune to geopolitically-driven price shocks. That path to energy security—and price stability—runs through greater electrification.
Prime Minister Carney has shown an affinity for practical, prudent and pragmatic responses to the various “ruptures” that dominate both headlines and our daily lives. When it comes to the current “rupture” in energy markets the practical, prudent and pragmatic response is two-pronged:
(1) Provide temporary and targeted relief to those Canadians most acutely impacted by high gas prices.
(2) Stay the course on the policies and programs that will reduce our exposure to future oil price shocks by pivoting to domestic clean energy (biofuels, electricity etc.), and more efficient and ultimately electric vehicles.
It’s well past time we stop digging a deeper hole.
This opinion editorial was originally published in National Newswatch.
With the spreading Middle East conflict disrupting oil and gas markets, we’re reminded that producing those commodities doesn’t insulate Canadian households and businesses from geopolitical price spikes. But electricity does.
Canada holds a strategic advantage: among the lowest electricity costs in the OECD and one of the least emissions-intensive grids, powered largely by world-class hydro and nuclear built over generations, with rates regulated for stability. In an era defined by energy insecurity, it’s a competitive edge. The task now is to strengthen it.
Oil and LNG are globally traded commodities, and while a disruption in Middle East production and transport through the Strait of Hormuz may only limit some physical imports, the ensuing price spikes are global, meaning higher pump prices and heating bills in Canada, too. These spikes—and the inflation that follows—are driving many import-dependent countries to pivot toward energy they can produce and control themselves, including wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps and EVs.
With prices once again on the rise, the lesson is clear: energy security depends on more electricity capacity and the electrification of industry, transport and buildings. This reality raises two important questions for Canada.
First, what steps will we take to electrify and better ensure Canada’s energy security?
Prime Minister Carney is developing an electricity strategy aimed at doubling supply. Given the economics, most of what gets built will be clean, simply because it’s the cheapest option. But Canada must also increase electricity’s share of meeting the energy needs of Canadian businesses and households. Doubling electrification would further reduce exposure to global energy shocks, and if paired with stronger efficiency measures, could double Canada’s energy productivity. That means producing more economic output with less energy — the definition of modern competitiveness.
This “double-double-double” approach could catalyze billions in investment, create career opportunities across the country, boost businesses productivity, lower energy costs and bolster supply chains—from raw resources through manufacturing—and services that Canada can also export abroad.
The second question is: What new economic opportunities does this create both at home and with our trading partners?
While visiting Ottawa last week, a senior EU official told reporters that future energy trade agreements with Canada would prioritize “clean energy sources,” noting “Seventy per cent of Europe’s electricity comes from either renewables or nuclear. This is the way forward. It is simple.” And while increased global prices for LNG exports to other regions can be a revenue generator for Canada short-term, a focus on diversifying what we export is critical if we are to insulate our country from a boom-and-bust revenue cycle, the consequence of which we saw clearly in Alberta’s 2026 budget.
The clean economy is no longer emerging—it’s scaling. With $2.3 trillion invested globally in the energy transition last year alone, opportunities for a more resilient economy lie in the clean energy supply chain—from the critical minerals and processed metals to batteries and grid equipment that rapidly electrifying trade partners are looking for. A recent analysis found that Canada’s exports in clean energy supply chains grew 21 per cent faster than all other exports over the last five years, and Canada’s market share of these exports is growing. This success can be turbo-charged with industrial policy targeting those segments of the clean energy supply chain where competitive advantage has been demonstrated.
The growth in demand for these materials and products can strengthen traditional Canadian industries. For example at the Prospectors and Developers Association Conference this week, Minister Hodgson announced 30 new critical minerals partnerships that will unlock $12.1 billion in projects to “strengthen supply chains, support economic growth and reduce strategic vulnerabilities.”
Electrification can enable energy security, economic competitiveness, and industrial renewal – all at once. By working with provinces to broaden our national electricity strategy—ensuring it aims to double supply, electrification and productivity—Canada can capture domestic and export opportunities that will build lasting prosperity, security and resilience for generations to come.
Today, the federal government launched a new auto industry strategy that (among other things) included a pivot from the Electric Vehicle Availability Standard to stronger vehicle GHG emission regulations. The strength of these regulations will be calibrated to “put Canada on a path to achieve a goal of 75% EV sales by 2035 and 90% EV sales by 2040.” Same direction of travel, but a different and slower route (the primary reason for which, it should be noted, is an effort to secure a sustainable domestic auto sector).
Last year, when Merran Smith and I undertook an independent review of CleanBC, B.C’s climate plan, we considered what should be done with provincial EV policy. We noted that to support increased consumer adoption of EVs three conditions must be satisfied:
1) Affordability
2) Sufficient public charging infrastructure
3) EV supply (availability) and consumer choice (diversity of models)
The federal strategy includes renewal of the $5,000 EV rebate ($2,500 for PHEVs), which helps satisfy the first condition. On the second, it commits to “investments of $1.5 billion through the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s Charging and Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure Initiative, making it easier and more convenient for drivers to charge their EVs across the country.”
While the forthcoming federal vehicle emission regulations, if well designed, will contribute towards satisfying the third condition nationally, which provincial/territorial markets are best supplied will depend on provincial policy.
Quebec is maintaining both its EV mandate and its $2,000 rebate (stackable with the federal rebate), making it the top destination for EV inventory. Given price is the #1 determinant for EV buyers, similar rebates in Manitoba ($4,000), PEI ($4,000), Newfoundland and Labrador ($2,500) and the Yukon ($5,000) will drive inventory to these markets.
B.C “paused” its provincial rebate and Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, Adrian Dix, has said he sees this as a federal responsibility. With today’s announcement, this has now been addressed. He also chided the federal government for its (then) 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. This too has been remedied.
Similar to Minister Dix, our review concluded that the provincial EV sales requirements for 2030 (90%) and 2035 (100%) were too aggressive, and should be moderated. Minister Dix suggested that provincial aims should be aligned with federal aims, which were then under review. We now know the scale of federal ambition: 75% EV sales by 2035 and 90% EV sales by 2040.
Our CleanBC review recommended maintaining B.C’s Zero Emission Vehicle Act (ZEVA), but amending the targets to 50-60% in 2030, and 90% in 2035 (eliminating the ban on ICE vehicles), and supported additional regulatory compliance flexibilities to enhance consumer affordability and access to charging (which the government advanced in November). We also acknowledged a key message from the EV charging sector: that ZEVA greatly strengthens market certainty, which bolsters the case for investment in public charging.
Given these federal changes, does B.C still need ZEVA? In my view, the answer is unequivocally yes.
Why?
We don’t want to return to the era of limited (or no) EV inventory on dealership lots, and months to years-long waitlists. And we do want to continue to secure and increase the wide ranging benefits of growth in EV adoption:
Affordability: An early-2025 survey of more than 5,100 British Columbia EV drivers confirmed what analysts have long suspected: Going electric keeps more money in your pocket. Compared with their previous gasoline vehicles, 97% reported lower fuel costs, while 90% reported reduced maintenance expenses. A ballpark estimate of the fuel cost savings of the 210,000 EV drivers in B.C is $467 million. That’s real money in people’s pockets.
Jobs and Economic Growth: An estimated 384 companies compete in B.C’s zero emission vehicle sector; the cluster directly provides 8,280 full-time jobs and contributes $920 million to GDP.
Health: Less air pollution in communities, reducing the $1.3 billion per year in health impacts from on-road transportation in B.C., including ~160 premature deaths.
Reduced climate pollution: As of the end of June 2025, over 210,000 light-duty ZEVs are now registered in B.C., compared to just over 3,000 in 2015. That delivers in the ballpark of 700,000 tonnes per year less climate pollution.
The bottom line: By maintaining the provincial Zero Emission Vehicle Act—but amending the target trajectory to 2030 and 2035 to more achievable levels—British Columbia stands to disproportionately capture federal financial support for consumer purchases of EVs and investment in charging infrastructure, while ensuring British Columbians have a growing number of EVs to choose from, including more affordable Chinese EVs. In doing so, British Columbians will continue to benefit from greater access to more affordable EVs, better charging, and both the economic (affordability and jobs), climate, and health (lower pollution) benefits that accompany a shift to electrification.
I always enjoy the Globe and Mail’s “chartapalooza” that Jason Kirby curates at the start of each year. After all, a picture (or in this case a chart) is worth a thousand words, and if you follow me you know I like a good chart.
So here’s my (unofficial) contribution of two charts and two maps (why not?) that Canadian political and business leaders may wish to consider as they navigate the stormy seas of 2026 and beyond.
In 2025 the term “electrostate”—and China’s ascension as the world’s first electrostate—began to hit the mainstream. Put simply, an electrostate is a nation that invents, produces and deploys clean energy technologies that produce (e.g. wind and solar) and use (e.g. EVs and heat pumps) electricity, with electricity meeting a growing share of energy demand through increased electrification.
But with China as the most dominant electrostate, and the United States doubling down as a petrostate, analysts observe that “What is emerging are two competing models of energy and influence—one anchored in the enduring logic of hydrocarbons, the other in the accelerating promise of electrification. At stake is not just the future of energy systems, but the contours of geopolitical power in the decades ahead.”
And as we enter 2026 this competition between China, the most powerful electrostate, and the United States, the most powerful petrostate, was identified by the Eurasia Group as the second-biggest global risk. As they put it, “The spread of cheap electrotech is good news for the world. It enables more resilient energy systems, creates new opportunities for AI deployment, and maintains momentum for the global energy transition…China bet on electrons. The US bet on molecules. In 2026, we’ll start to see who was right.”
This takes us to my second chart.
The odds appear to favour the Chinese electrostate.
In the battle for energy export dominance, as Bloomberg reported (also the source of this chart) “For now, there is a clear winner: China.” While the US hit a record in oil exports in 2024 at $150 billion, China’s clean technology exports were $30 billion higher. And through the first half of 2025 this trend held, even though technology prices for solar panels and batteries had fallen sharply.
But China isn’t just exporting these technologies, they are rapidly building out production capacity in other countries. As a report from the Net Zero Industrial Lab found, “A rapid acceleration in overseas investment by Chinese green technology manufacturers is reshaping the global clean-tech landscape. Since 2022 alone, investments have surged past USD 220 billion, spanning sectors such as batteries, solar, wind, new energy vehicles (NEVs), and green hydrogen. These investments now reach 54 countries across every major region.” Hot spots of investment include Indonesia (a linchpin for nickel-rich battery-material projects and new solar lines), Morocco (cathodes and green-hydrogen for EU supply chains), Gulf states (solar module and electrolyser manufacturing backed by sovereign offtakes), and Hungary, Spain, Brazil, and Egypt (sector-specific hubs for batteries, hydrogen, or mixed clean-tech plays).
Which brings us to two important maps.
Fossil fuel import dependency is widespreadand very expensive
In Canada we are blessed with an abundance of energy of all kinds, which enables us to meet our own needs and be a significant exporter. Three-quarters of the global population reside in nations that are fossil fuel importers, and one-quarter spends over 5 percent of GDP on fossil fuel imports. The geopolitical, security, and economic risks of this dependency are myriad, from exposure to price volatility and inflation to trade deficits, vulnerability to political coercion, and compromised sovereignty. It’s not surprising, then, that import-dependent nations will jump at the opportunity to get off the fossil fuel import rollercoaster—whether by design or consumer defection (for the latter, see Pakistan).
Given access to the technologies to harness it and use it, renewable power is available to all
In 2025 it became evident that while much of the western discourse around the energy transition hinged on commitments to climate action, the on-the-ground reality driving investment in and adoption of electro-tech (wind, solar, batteries, EVs, heat pumps etc.) often boils down to economics and energy security. In addition to China, Latin America, Africa and South East Asia are leapfrogging past the OECD’s share of wind and solar. Brazil, Pakistan and India ranked amongst the top-5 solar PV importers from China.
As Bloomberg columnist David Fickling wrote, “There’s a comforting story that oil bulls like to tell themselves to stave off worries about the future: While the privileged few in Europe and California might have lost their minds over electric vehicles, billions of drivers in the Global South are readying themselves to provide the next wave of petroleum demand.” But according to the IEA, EV sales increased by 60% in developing countries as a whole in 2024.
Prime Minister Mark Carney believes“Canada has a tremendous opportunity to be the world’s leading energy superpower, in both clean and conventional energy.” In recent months the broad brush strokes of what this means for conventional energy—oil and gas—are becomingclearer. But what it means to be a clean energy superpower—and what it will take to grow into this—has yet to be defined.
As evidenced by the charts and maps above we had best get working on this.
Here’s a conversation that we ought to be having in Canada about our energy future (but aren’t—at least not yet): How do we show up in the energy transition—globally and at home—in the coming decades?
As a country, we have an abundance of fossil fuel resources. We also have an abundance of clean and renewable energy resources, and the critical minerals needed for the technologies that harness and capitalize on them.
We are in a relatively unique position to choose: petro-state or electro-state?
As Anne-Sophie Corbeau & Tatiana Mitrova write: “What is emerging are two competing models of energy and influence—one anchored in the enduring logic of hydrocarbons, the other in the accelerating promise of electrification. At stake is not just the future of energy systems, but the contours of geopolitical power in the decades ahead.”
The stakes, as articulated by Kingsmill BondDaan Walter & Sam Butler-Sloss, are clear: “The electrotech revolution isn’t all sunshine and opportunity—there are serious risks to falling behind. While future energy systems may no longer depend on fuel, they will depend on software, control systems, and digital infrastructure. If countries don’t develop those themselves, they’ll end up reliant on others—and vulnerable to them…We’ve entered an era defined by technological competition and energy security. By focusing on electrotech now, countries and companies can navigate the instability of the coming decade with greater resilience. And in doing so, they also lay the foundation for long-term stability, free from climate disaster.”
As I’ve previously written, “Some argue the transition to clean energy will be slow. They would prefer policymakers focus on enabling increased production and use of Canada’s oil and gas resources, citing ever-growing global demand. But increasingly, energy analysts are forecasting a future, based on current market trends, that paints a very different picture with sweeping implications for Canada….The risk to Canada, then, is that we continue to pay short shrift to the opportunities at hand—in critical minerals, batteries and other technologies, and clean and renewable electricity—in favour of trying to prop up the viability of our oil and gas sector. That we focus on the sunset, rather than the sunrise.”
This won’t be an easy conversation, but it’s a necessary one.
This piece was originally published in Business in Vancouver.
By Dan Woynillowicz & Madeleine McPherson
If you tune into the news or are active on social media, odds are you’ve seen a growing number of stories questioning whether B.C. has enough electricity and suggesting government needs to ease off on policies and programs that encourage businesses and British Columbians to electrify, switching from fossil fuels to clean electricity.
In recent months several organizations have popped up to actively push this narrative, publishing analysis aimed at raising alarm about whether B.C.’s grid is up to the challenge of substituting clean power for fossil fuels. While they claim concern about climate change, their actions and advice make their intention clear: to preserve and perpetuate the market share for oil, natural gas, and the vehicles and furnaces that burn them.
The B.C. Coalition for Affordable Dependable Energy (BCCADE)—which advocates for the continued use of natural gas—has been promoting an analysis of the implications of replacing the natural gas currently used in residential and commercial buildings with electricity. For starters, this isn’t something prescribed by any provincial or municipal policy, but even if it was their calculation—that the province would require 41,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of additional electricity generation—is simply wrong. Regrettably, this analysis falls victim to something called the primary energy fallacy, which fails to account for the efficiency gains from electrification.
While gas furnace efficiency ranges from 80 to 90 percent, an electric heat pump is, conservatively, more than twice as efficient. Similarly, an electric hot water tank is around 30 percent more efficient than its gas equivalent. When you factor in these significant efficiency gains, total energy requirements for residential and commercial buildings drop; replacing current natural gas use would require about 20,000 GWh of additional electricity generation—just half the amount touted by BCCADE.
Which brings us to the ongoing efforts of the Energy Futures Institute, an initiative of Resource Works, to raise the alarm about whether B.C. has sufficient electricity in the near term, let alone in an electrified future. To spark public anxiety, the Institute has focused on BC Hydro’s recently increased reliance on electricity imports—precipitated by drought conditions—while mostly ignoring BC Hydro’s procurement of additional supply (which will be repeated every two years), and publishing research that overestimates future demand from electric vehicles (EVs) by at least double.
First, it’s important to acknowledge that BC Hydro is adapting to two realities: the growing impacts of climate change and growing demand for clean electricity to help tackle climate change through electrification. It’s why BC Hydro is continuously monitoring and adapting its operations as new climate science emerges, while procuring additional supply contracts every two years. BC Hydro’s current call for power received proposals for triple the amount of electricity it is seeking, with 21 proposals from independent power producers with projects in almost every region: 8 from the southern Interior, 4 from the central Interior, 5 from the north coast, 2 from the Peace Region & 2 from Vancouver Island. Wind, solar and batteries can be built quickly and technology costs have been dropping over the last decade as global production has increased exponentially: by 90 percent for solar, 70 percent for onshore wind, and more than 90 percent for batteries. Paired with the province’s flexible hydro reservoirs, B.C is well positioned to increase their role in delivering reliable, affordable clean power.
Second, B.C.’s recent reliance on electricity imports—and its longstanding electricity trade with our neighbours, whose profitability has helped keep rates low—shouldn’t be seen as a liability, but a benefit. Numerous studies have concluded that interties linking provinces and states are more reliable, resilient and affordable. For example, forthcoming research finds that more electricity trade with Alberta would reduce capital costs for new generation, reduce GHG emissions and strengthen resilience.
Fomenting the fear that B.C. doesn’t have enough power and leveraging that fear to argue the province should do less to tackle climate change does a disservice to British Columbians. It doesn’t enrich but diminishes the dialogue that we need to have in B.C. about how we produce and use energy.
British Columbians deserve less heat and more light in this discussion. Or put more simply, less fear-mongering and more facts.
Dan Woynillowicz runs Polaris Strategy and Insight, advising companies, organizations and governments on strategy and policy to navigate climate change and the transition to clean energy.
Madeleine McPherson leads a research team at the University of Victoria focused on modelling the transition to a clean energy system, and co-creating pathways with stakeholders from civil society, government, and industry.
This was originally published in Business in Vancouver.
With a provincial election looming, pollsters are trying to tease out the public mood and the issues that might dominate at the ballot box. By significant margins, the top three issues on the minds of British Columbians are cost of living (64 percent), health care (51 percent) and housing affordability (41 percent). Meanwhile, climate change and the environment has fallen from being identified as a top issue by 30 percent of British Columbians during the 2020 election to just 18 percent, according to polling by the Angus Reid Institute.
Climate change gets lumped in with “the environment,” which seems logical enough. After all, it’s caused by carbon pollution, and it impacts everything from rivers to forests and wildlife. But narrow-casting climate change as an environmental issue fails to reflect the systemic impacts already being felt by British Columbians due to climate change. In fact, the top tier issues of cost of living, health care and housing affordability are all being made worse due to climate change.
Let’s start with cost of living. Back in 2022 when gasoline prices jumped by 73 cents per litre, on average, the province’s carbon tax was an easy target for blame. But according to a recent analysis 96 percent—or 70 out of the 73 cent price increase—was driven by the global oil market. While opponents made great hay out of blaming the carbon tax for “driving up the cost of everything,” another analysis by University of Calgary economists concluded “climate policies are not a significant driver of the rising cost of living. Nor will removing policies such as carbon pricing materially improve the situation.” Highlighting the impact on grocery prices in B.C. they found that “the latest estimates from Statistics Canada suggest carbon taxes increased the average cost of food by about 0.33 per cent relative to what they would be in the absence of carbon taxes. That’s the entire effect.” That’s 33 cents on a $100 grocery bill.
Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada has noted that climate change-fuelled extreme weather “has been one factor driving up food prices in Canada.” A lot of food on Canadian grocery store shelves comes from California and Mexico, both of which have seen negative impacts on harvests due to weather. Similarly, when severe heat and drought impacts Canadian grain harvest, that drives up the price of not only a loaf of bread, but meat, too. Similarly, declining harvests of oranges and olives are driving up the cost of juice and olive oil.
Looking to point the finger for inflation? Try fossil fuels and the climate change that results from burning them.
Health, healthcare and climate change similarly collide. A recent Health Canada report explored the myriad health impacts of climate change resulting from rising temperatures and extreme heat, wildfires, and the expansion of zoonotic diseases into Canada, while also highlighting how these are not just future concerns, but impacts already being experienced today. These kinds of health impacts have a knock-on cost to Canada’s healthcare system in the billions of dollars, while also reducing economic activity by tens of billions of dollars over the coming decades.
While the linkages to climate change may not seem quite as clearcut when it comes to housing affordability, there are numerous interactions. A lack of affordable housing in cities encourages urban sprawl, forcing households into the suburbs and exurbs, which are typically underserved by public transit, meaning more driving (and the resulting fuel bills and emissions). Meanwhile, more frequent and intense extreme weather events including wildfires and atmospheric rivers—made more likely by climate change—can further strain the need to build (or rebuild) housing and infrastructure, driving up material and construction costs, while also making house insurance more limited and more expensive.
Cost of living, health care and affordable housing are all very real, very acute issues that British Columbians are experiencing directly. But it’s clear that a changing climate is making them worse, and rolling back climate action will only deepen these and other challenges. If you want solutions to issues like the cost of living, health care, housing affordability, food security or a whole host of other issues, then continued action to cut carbon pollution is a pre-requisite, not a nice-to-have.
Because climate change isn’t just another political issue, it’s an era.
Polaris Strategy + Insight 