Business
5 year payback estimate for EV battery-maker subsidies off by 15 years! – PBO
From the Fraser Institute
Ottawa’s super-charged EV obsession reaches new heights
Every week, it seems, we get another report revealing the deep thoughtlessness and fiscal recklessness of Ottawa’s electric car and electric-car battery fixation. For example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently asked how long it will take for the federal government to see a return on the $28.2 billion of production subsidies to EV battery-makers Stellantis and Volkswagen. The answer—about four times longer than government originally claimed.
Remember, Prime Minister Trudeau said the “full economic impact of the project will be equal to the value of government investment in less than five years.” But according to the PBO, it will take 20 years, not five years, to merely recover the money the government “invested” on behalf of Canadians. There’s no actual profit to be had at that point.
Why the discrepancy?
To figure that out, the PBO looked into the government’s modelling used to generate its “five-year” payback scenario and found that the government’s estimate included numerous assumptions about other investments (and assumed production increases) outside the direct battery-making process including assumed capability in battery-material production, which is shorthand for mining and refining of critical metals and minerals needed to make EV batteries. Of course, this is a notoriously uncertain proposition given Canada’s dismal performance in bringing new mining-related infrastructure projects with EV-battery potential to fruition.
In fact, as the PBO notes, of the total “investment package” government modelled in calculating its “payback” date, only 8.6 per cent was directly related to battery production at the Volkswagen plant. More than 90 per cent was based on assumptions about developments outside of the subsidized battery-makers purview or control.
By contract, the PBO’s modelling of the investment cost-recovery focused only on “government revenues generated by cell and module manufacturing, upon which the production subsidies are based.” And unlike the government’s analysis, the PBO analysis starts when production is actually expected to begin at the new battery plants, which is not until sometime next year.
And yet, the PBO analysis remains quite generous as it excluded “public debt charges that would be incurred to finance the production subsidies” and simply accepted estimates of production capability by Stellantis and Volkswagen.
Clearly, the Trudeau government’s EV crusade is textbook bad public policy where the government attempts to pick winners and losers in the economy, in this case dependent on fanciful scenarios of future developments in global markets far outside Canada’s control. The crusade is also out of step with developments in the largest likely market for Canadian EVs and EV products—the United States, where car buyers are increasingly rejecting EVs despite heavy subsidies and massive government spending initiatives to promote EV manufacturing.
Governments in North America have been trying to push EVs over internal combustion vehicles for 30 years now, and it has not worked. EVs have consistently failed to compete with combustion vehicles on performance and cost, and failed to win broad consumer support despite oceans of government subsidies for manufacturers and buyers alike. It’s long past time for government to take off its rose-coloured glasses on the EV transition. There are better uses for government’s time and money. Getting people’s food and housing costs down, for example, might be a good place to start.
Author:
Fr0m Heartland Daily News
By Rick Whitbeck
The Biden administration’s decision to raise tariffs on Chinese-manufactured electric vehicles, steel, computer chips, and other technological products is the epitome of a penny wise and a pound foolish.
To much of the nation, the news was a reelection flip-flop, or an attempt to prop up the electric vehicle industry Biden has prioritized since he took office, as part of his green agenda. The international supply chain for electric vehicles isn’t going to magically stop running through the Chinese Communist Party anytime soon.
If Biden really wanted to curb Chinese geopolitical power, he would make fundamental changes to his administration’s history of attacking domestic mining opportunities. Allowing development of copper, graphite, nickel, cobalt, and other critical and strategic minerals right here at home would go much further than imposing tariffs.
Biden has demonstrated affinity for promoting “net zero” policies and forcing transitions away from traditional energy supplies of oil, gas, and coal. In a nutshell, the attacks on domestic mining projects seem completely counterproductive.
According to the International Energy Agency, staggering quantities of subsurface elements will need to be mined by at least five times their current worldwide production by 2040 to meet the Biden administration’s green energy goals. Graphite, cobalt, and lithium all will be needed in quantities exceeding 25 times (or more) their current supplies. In the next quarter century, we will need twice as much copper than has been produced in the last 3,000 years. All of which is impossible when Biden won’t let us dig.
The U.S. has tremendous opportunities to have our own mineral resources. Yet, the Biden administration has thwarted their development at nearly every turn. For example, massive copper and nickel deposits could be developed in Minnesota at the Twin Metals and Duluth Complex projects, but Biden has ordered each of them off-limits for development. The Resolution Copper prospect in Arizona met a similar fate, with the Department of Interior placing on “indefinite hold” its approval.
The Western Hemisphere’s largest copper prospect is Alaska’s Pebble Mine. Kowtowing to environmental extremists—and ignoring a clean U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Final Environmental Impact Statement—the Environmental Protection Agency continues to stymie progress on a deposit worth more than $500 billion. All the while shutting down the possibility of 700 full-time jobs in an area of rural Alaska that has seasonal unemployment exceeding 20%.
Alaska has been the target of more than 60 administrative and executive orders targeting its resource-based economy since Biden assumed office. One of the most recent took place on Earth Day, when a congressionally-authorized road to the Ambler Mining District—an area rich in copper, zinc, and other strategic and critical minerals—was stopped by the Department of Interior.
Just like with the Resolution mine in Arizona, the Interior Department used “Indigenous opposition” as its deciding factor, even though many villages and tribes closest to the mining district publicly support the project and its future employment opportunities. In Alaska, the Biden administration literally blocks the road to the minerals Biden’s tariffs claim to protect.
Alaska’s governor, Michael Dunleavy, along with its entire congressional delegation, has been openly critical of the continued hypocrisy of the Biden administration when it comes to talking “net zero” and acting with vigor to oppose domestic mining projects. The same response has come from many within the Minnesota and Arizona congressional community. They’ve been unable to break through to the administration, as Team Biden chooses to listen to eco-activists and career bureaucrats with an anti-development agenda.
What would hurt China, empower America, and begin to chip away at the global imbalance would be mining and processing our crucial minerals and elements domestically. Let’s see if the Biden administration wises up to that fact, or if America tires of being subservient to the CCP and makes fundamental changes to federal leadership in November.
Rick Whitbeck is the Alaska State Director for Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates for American energy jobs and fights back against economy-killing and family-destroying environmental extremism. Contact him at [email protected] and follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @PTFAlaska
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
To read more about domestic mining to escape reliance on China, click here.
To read more about clean energy and mining, click here.
From the Fraser Institute
The cost of regulation from all three levels of government to Canadian businesses totalled $38.8 billion in 2020, for a total of 731 million hours—the equivalent of nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs.
One does not have to look too deeply into recent headlines to see that Canada’s economic conditions are declining and consequently eroding the prosperity and living standards of Canadians. Between 2000 and 2023, Canada’s per-person GDP (a key indicator of living standards) has lagged far behind its peer countries. Business investment is also lagging, as are unemployment rates across the country particularly compared to the United States.
There are many reasons for Canada’s dismal economic conditions—including layer upon layer of regulation. Indeed, Canada’s regulatory load is substantial and growing. Between 2009 and 2018, the number of regulations in Canada grew from about 66,000 to 72,000. These regulations restrict business activity, impose costs on firms and reduce economic productivity.
According to a recent “red tape” study published by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), the cost of regulation from all three levels of government to Canadian businesses totalled $38.8 billion in 2020, for a total of 731 million hours—the equivalent of nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs. If we apply a $16.65 per-hour cost (the federal minimum wage in Canada for 2023), $12.2 billion annually is lost to regulatory compliance.
Of course, Canada’s smallest businesses bear a disproportionately high burden of the cost, paying up to five times more for regulatory compliance per-employee than larger businesses. The smallest businesses pay $7,023 per employee annually to comply with government regulation while larger businesses pay a much lower $1,237 per employee for regulatory compliance.
And the Trudeau government has embarked on a massive regulatory spree over the last decade, enacting dozens of major regulatory initiatives including Bill C-69 (which tightens Canada’s environmental assessment process for major infrastructure projects), Bill C-48 (which restricts oil tankers off Canada’s west coast) and electric vehicle mandates (which require all new cars be electric by 2035). Other examples of government red tape include appliance standards to reduce energy consumption from household appliances, home efficiency standards to reduce household energy consumption, banning single-use plastic products, “net zero” nitrous oxide emissions regulation, “net zero” building emissions regulations, and clean electricity standards to drive net emissions of greenhouse gases in electricity production to “net zero” by 2035.
Clearly, Canada’s festooning pile of regulatory red tape is badly in need of weeding. And it can be done. For example, during a deregulatory effort in British Columbia, which appointed a minister of deregulation in 2001, there was a 37 per cent reduction in regulatory requirements in the province by 2004.
Rather with plowing ahead with an ever-growing pallet of regulations to be heaped upon Canadian businesses and citizens, government should reach for the garden shears and start reducing the most recent regulatory expansions (before they have time to do too much harm), and then scour the massive strangling forest of older regulations.
Whacking through the red tape would go a long way to help Canada’s economy out of its dismal state and back into competitive ranges with its fellow developed countries and our neighbours in the U.S.
Author:
Forget Tariffs: Biden Should Look to Domestic Mining to Thwart Chinese EVs
Toronto’s “Sankofa Square” – The terrible folly and historic injustice of erasing the legacy of abolitionist Henry Dundas
Saskatchewan appeals court upholds COVID-era gov’t restrictions on outdoor gatherings
Government red tape strangling Canada’s economy
