Connect with us

Automotive

EV fantasy losing charge on taxpayer time

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

The vision of an all-electric transportation sector, shared by policymakers from various governments in Canada, may be fading fast.

The latest failure to charge is a recent announcement by Honda, which will postpone a $15 billion electric vehicle (EV) project in Ontario for two years, citing market demand—or lack thereof. Adding insult to injury, Honda will move some of its EV production to the United States, partially in response to the Trump Tariff Wars. But any focus on tariffs is misdirection to conceal reality; failures in the electrification agenda have appeared for years, long before Trump’s tariffs.

In 2023, the Quebec government pledged $2.9 billion in financing to secure a deal with Swedish EV manufacturer NorthVolt. Ottawa committed $1.34 billion to build the plant and another $3 billion worth of incentives. So far, per the CBC, the Quebec government “ invested $270 million in the project and the provincial pension investor, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), has also invested $200 million.” In 2024, NorthVolt declared bankruptcy in Sweden, throwing the Canadian plans into limbo.

Last month, the same Quebec government announced it will not rescue the Lion Electric company from its fiscal woes, which became obvious in December 2024 when the company filed for creditor protection (again, long before the tariff war). According to the Financial Post, “Lion thrived during the electric vehicle boom, reaching a market capitalization of US$4.2 billion in 2021 and growing to 1,400 employees the next year. Then the market for electric vehicles went through a tough period, and it became far more difficult for manufacturers to raise capital.” The Quebec government had already lost $177 million on investments in Lion, while the federal government lost $30 million, by the time the company filed for creditor protection.

Last year, Ford Motor Co. delayed production of an electric SUV at its Oakville, Ont., plant and Umicore halted spending on a $2.8 billion battery materials plant in eastern Ontario. In April 2025, General Motors announced it will soon close the CAMI electric van assembly plant in Ontario, with plans to reopen in the fall at half capacity, to “align production schedules with current demand.” And GM temporarily laid off hundreds of workers at its Ingersoll, Ontario, plant that produces an electric delivery vehicle because it isn’t selling as well as hoped.

There are still more examples of EV fizzle—again, all pre-tariff war. Government “investments” to Stellantis and LG Energy Solution and Ford Motor Company have fallen flat and dissolved, been paused or remain in limbo. And projects for Canada’s EV supply chain remain years away from production. “Of the four multibillion-dollar battery cell manufacturing plants announced for Canada,” wrote automotive reporter Gabriel Friedman, “only one—a joint venture known as NextStar Energy Inc. between South Korea’s LG Energy Solution Ltd. and European automaker Stellantis NV—progressed into even the construction phase.”

What’s the moral of the story?

Once again, the fevered dreams of government planners who seek to pick winning technologies in a major economic sector have proven to be just that, fevered dreams. In 2025, some 125 years since consumers first had a choice of electric vehicles or internal combustion vehicles (ICE), the ICE vehicles are still winning in economically-free markets. Without massive government subsidies to EVs, in fact, there would be no contest at all. It’d be ICE by a landslide.

In the face of this reality, the new Carney government should terminate any programs that try to force EV technologies into the marketplace, and rescind plans to have all new light-duty vehicle sales be EVs by 2035. It’s just not going to happen, and planning for a fantasy is not sound government policy nor sound use of taxpayer money. Governments in Ontario, Quebec and any other province looking to spend big on EVs should also rethink their plans forthwith.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Automotive

Canada’s electric vehicle industry faces multiple threats

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Joseph Fournier

While Trump’s trade war continues to grab all the headlines, Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) industry may be steaming toward an iceberg, due mainly to shifts in policy south of the border.

Specifically, the Trump administration has withdrew from the Paris Agreement (and its net-zero 2050 framework) and eliminated the U.S. EV mandate, which required upwards of 56 per cent of new vehicles sold in the United States. to be EV and 13 per cent be plug-in hybrids by 2032. These moves represent an existential threat to Canada’s EV investments and the viability of the large EV battery plants under various stages of planning and construction in Ontario and Quebec.

Indeed, the Trudeau government, along with the Ontario and Quebec governments, negotiated several significant battery manufacturing deals, which included subsidies and construction funding totalling $4.6 billion for the Northvolt AB plant near Montreal, $13.2 billion for the Volkswagen plant in Saint Thomas, Ontario, $15 billion for the Stellantis plant in Windsor, Ontario and $1.6 billion for the Japanese battery company Asahi Kasei plant in Port Colborne, Ontario. (Although both Northvolt AB and Stellantis are reconsidering their EV battery investments in Canada—Northvolt AB is approaching bankruptcy and Stellantis thinks that current federal subsidies are insufficient to justify its investment.)

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, taxpayer subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) for these deals will cost Canadians up to $44 billion between 2022/23 and 2032/33. In the U.S., EV sales in 2024 were 1.2 million (7 per cent of auto total sales) buoyed by an EV tax credit of US$7,500 per new vehicle, which translates into US$9 billion in EV consumer subsidies that year alone.

All of this raises the question: can the EV industry stand on its own without massive subsidies from taxpayers?

In 2023, of the two largest EV producers (Tesla and Ford), only Tesla would break even without the EV tax credit subsidies. According to Reuters, Tesla earned approximately US$8,300 in profit per EV in 2023, and of the 1.8 million Tesla vehicles produced globally, only 400,000 were produced in the U.S. Meanwhile, even after the subsidies, Ford lost US$64,700 per EV in 2023 and US$32,700 in 2024. (It’s also worth noting that Ford, with the second-highest EV production in the U.S., produced a mere 72,000 vehicles in 2023.)

While Ford still plans to make EVs, it recently announced plans to shift production at its Oakville, Ontario factory from electric sports vehicles to gas-powered pickup trucks. The news came shortly after General Motors announced it would trim its forecast of EVs produced in 2024 by 50,000.

Clearly, U.S. legacy automakers are worried about overproducing against sluggish consumer demand, knowing that their profitability and fiscal viability resides in their internal combustion engine vehicle production lines. Numerous large European automotive manufacturers also saw a decline in EV sales in 2024 and are re-investing in their combustion engine production lines to protect profits.

Finally, beyond only EVs, Canada’s automotive manufacturing sector is in decline. Between 2014 and 2023, automotive production fell from 2.4 million to 1.5 million vehicles while automobile imports increased from $57 billion to $82 billion. Of the 1.5 million vehicles produced in Canada in 2023, 88 per cent were exported to the U.S., leaving the industry highly vulnerable to shifts in American policy (which currently include President Trump’s threat of a 100 per cent tariff on automobile exports).

The iceberg is in view. The new Carney government and our provincial governments must take stock of the decline in the automotive manufacturing sector, its near total dependence on U.S. exports, and uncertain government-driven EV investments. And they should ask if the push to electrify the automotive manufacturing base is in the long-term best interests of Canadians.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Measure overturning California’s gas car ban heading to Trump’s desk

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

Congress has passed a measure to overturn California’s phased-in 2035 ban on the sale of new gas cars.

The vote impacts 11 other states and the District of Columbia, which make up 40% of the nation’s car market and adopted California emissions standards.

The measure, which was passed by the Senate Thursday after its previous approval by the House, now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature. But the Senate parliamentarian’s objection to Congress’s authority to overturn the EPA waiver approving the ban could set the stage for a possible legal battle between the federal government and states that have adopted the California ban.

The phased-in zero-emission vehicle requirement is set to apply to California, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington for the ongoing model year 2026, and Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. for model year 2027.

In the last weeks of the Biden administration, the EPA approved a waiver allowing California’s gas car ban to move forward. Because California’s emissions regulations — they were created to combat the state’s notorious smog — predate the EPA, the state was grandfathered in with the ability to set more stringent emissions requirements than the federal standard so long as the EPA grants a waiver for each such requirement.

Under the power of congressional review, Congress can vote to overturn executive regulatory decisions within 60 legislative days, suggesting the Biden administration’s decision not to approve the waivers until its final weeks could have been made with this power in mind.

Now, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced he is suing the Trump administration for unlawful use of the Congressional Review Act.

“These unlawful and unlawful CRA resolutions purport to invalidate clean air act waivers that allow California to enforce state-level emissions standards,” said Bonta at a news conference. “The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian … both determined the CRA’s process does not apply to the EPA waivers.”

“California has received approximately 100 waivers … and the CRA has not been applied,” continued Bonta.

In 2019, the first Trump administration withdrew a California vehicle emissions EPA waiver, leading to ongoing court cases that were withdrawn by the federal government when the Biden administration took power in 2021, and a reinstatement of the waiver in 2022. A lawsuit filed by multiple states and the energy industry against the 2022 reinstatement failed when a court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue, with the Supreme Court agreeing to review the finding on the lack of standing.

After the overturn’s anticipated signing by President Trump, the matter of Congressional Review and the constitutionality of California’s regulations are likely to bring the issue to a more final adjudication.

The ban would have required that 35% of cars in model year 2026 be qualifying zero-emissions vehicles, which allows for a large share of plug-in hybrid models, in addition to the now ubiquitous battery-electric vehicles, and rare hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. In California, which has the nation’s largest EV charging network and highest EV adoption rates, ZEV sales declined from 22% in the last quarter of 2024 to 20.8% in the first quarter of 2025, suggesting buyers are becoming less enthusiastic about purchasing electric vehicles.

Given that the 2026 model year is already under way for many automakers, a ZEV increase from 20.8% to 35% would have required a 68% increase in ZEV market share within the year, leading Toyota to call California’s requirement “impossible to meet.”

Automakers would have had to either restrict the inventory of non-qualifying vehicles, as Jeep has done in the past, purchase costly excess credits from automakers with excess ZEV credits such as Tesla or Rivian, or pay a $10,000 fine for each car they sell that doesn’t meet the requirement. Consumers still would be able to buy gas-powered cars in other states, or buy them on the used market, which experts say would have resulted in rising used car prices not only in states impacted by the ban, but nationwide, as used cars from around the country would likely be imported to impacted states to meet continued demand for gas-powered cars.

The typical financing payment for a new electric vehicle is over $700 per month, even after accounting for subsidies, putting EVs out of reach for most American families.

“We need to ‘Make California Affordable again’ by giving consumers options and not boxing them into a single choice and forcing them to purchase expensive electric vehicles they can’t afford,” said state Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, after Congress passed a measure overturning the ban. “Furthermore, as vice chair of the Senate Transportation Committee and a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I am concerned that California is not truly prepared to have 15 million electric vehicles on the road by 2035 … If everyone plugs in and charges their EVs, we will experience rolling blackouts because of inadequate energy capacity.”

In 2022, California energy grid officials requested that EV owners not charge their cars during a heat wave, highlighting the grid’s insufficient capacity to meet even recent demand. UC Berkeley researchers say the state must spend $20 billion on grid upgrades to handle energy transfers to electric vehicles, not including additional costs to the grid to support the anticipated transition from natural gas-powered appliances, which would increase grid strain even further.

Continue Reading

Trending

X