Discussion 1 – Zero Emission Vehicles (Clean Transportation)



Support for Zero Emission Vehicles

Zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) are becoming increasingly common as more drivers discover their benefits. Fuel costs are up to 80 percent lower compared to conventional vehicles and greenhouse gas emissions are reduced substantially.

ZEVs include plug-in hybrids, battery electric and hydrogen fuel cells electric vehicles. As these clean technologies improve, ZEVs are becoming more reliable and affordable. To increase the number of ZEVs on the road and related jobs in the ZEV sector, B.C. is focusing on several areas:

  • vehicle purchase price and consumer awareness
  • charging and refuelling stations
  • training and technological advancement
  • market capacity (vehicle supply) to meet demand.

To help address the first three issues, B.C. introduced the Clean Energy Vehicle (CEV) Program, which offers incentives to offset the costs of zero emission vehicles. It supports the expansion of charging and refueling infrastructure, as well as education, training and jobs.

The Province is proposing to continue investments in the program until ZEVs make up 5% of all new light-duty vehicle sales, including SUVs, light trucks and passenger vehicles under 4500 kg. Once the 5% target is reached, incentives would be phased out.  The price gap between ZEVs and gasoline vehicles is anticipated to close in the mid-2020s.

The Province is also considering a mandate which would require automakers to supply ZEVs for the light duty vehicle market, increasing consumer choices for clean transportation. This has been done in Quebec, California and in 10 US states where they have established a performance-based mandate for automakers to supply an increasing percentage of ZEVs for the light duty vehicle market.

With 10,000 CEVs already on the road, the province will continue to support charging and refuelling infrastructure to enable safe and convenient travel around B.C. There are currently over 1,300 residential and public charging stations, including 64 DC fast charging stations.

We can also look to other jurisdictions for best practices. In Norway, more than half of new vehicles sales (52% in 2017) are electric or hybrids, thanks to an innovative combination of generous tax reductions and other incentives. Seven countries have also announced either a future ban of the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars, or targeted 100% of vehicle sales to be clean energy vehicles: Ireland, Netherlands, Germany and India by 2030; Scotland by 2032; France and UK by 2040.

Questions:

  • How can B.C. encourage the use of clean vehicles? What are some of the challenges and how could they be addressed?

Sort

423 responses to “Discussion 1 – Zero Emission Vehicles (Clean Transportation)

    User avatar
    [-] Myna

    Govts have catered to automobile companies forever. You have provided everything for them: roads, traffic lights and signs, road repairs,street cleaning,parking bridges, tunnels etc etc
    A huge portion of our public purse has gone to support the use of their wares.
    What other businesses have you supported in such a manner?
    And then we have to pay for the the health costs as a result of overuse of these things.Accidents require emergency response, police surveillance, and much hospital time….all of this paid for from our public funds leaving little for innovative public transit. This is UNFAIR.
    All we get is more pollution, more pavement, horrendous NOISE all day long and
    STRESS from too many vehicles everywhere.
    You should have acted on this decades ago.
    Our landscapes,our streets,our living environments are UGLY with fossil fueled automobiles.

    5
    3
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jim

    The current fire challenges tha BC is facing should point the BC government into contnuing to promote EV’s = reduced carbon in atmosphere = reduced future risk of future fire danger = reduced cost of fighting those fires. I recocommend maintaining or increasing the new vehicle subsidy and scrap-in program.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Linda

    Build charging stations in a thoughtfully planned out system to all areas of the province so one can actually drive anywhere in BC without being concerned about whether they can make it from point A to point B.
    Increase the price of gas substantially at the pumps so consumers will seriously start considering purchasing a Zero Emission Vehicle.
    Mandate Car Companies to phase out the production of fossil fuel vehicles within a reasonable time, i.e. by 2025.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gary

    Mandating works. Do it for ZEV’s.

    2
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    It would also be great to have incentives for building secure bike parking including plugs for electric bikes for existing apartment buildings.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Matt

    Encourage electric vehicles and plug in electric vehicles by offering incentives similar to what was offered during the Obama Adminstration in the US paid for by the fossil fuel industry royalties and taxes which should be levied to cover the cost to health, the economy and environment for destructive fossil fuel industry practices.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gary

    I think one of the biggest challenges is education the public. There is a lot of misinformation out there about EV’s, mainly from the intrenched energy suppliers. More advertising would do wonders, or just give the auto companies a special tax break for advertising that applies to EV’s.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alastair

    Clean, electric vehicles will be widely bought by the public when they are cheaper than the gasoline alternative. One element for success will be access to a lot more electricity at a low price for BC residents. Learning from Ontario today, hydro and nuclear electricity cost between 6 and 7c / kWh. The cheapest sources of electricity and available all the time (most electric cars will be charged at night and used in the day). BC should expand its hydro dam fleet, and look into the new generation of Small Modular Reactors, to support decarbonization of the electricity system. All international jurisdictions with low carbon power rely on hydro and nuclear (not wind and solar), e.g. France, Ontario, Quebec, Costa Rica etc. Where countries move toward wind but away from nuclear and hydro (e.g. Germany) the results are clear: more fossil fuel use when the wind isn’t blowing.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    One of the issues that is overlooked in the EV versus ICE comparison is that the EV comes with a big component of the energy system already in place. When you purchase an ICE vehicle, you are committing the planet to 30 tonnes of carbon pollution and yourself to spending at least $20,000 in future fuel costs. With electric, you have paid some of the energy cost up front and get a $2,000 gas savings dividend every year.
    Require businesses that promote vehicle use (such as Costco) to invest in their own charging stations, or, financially support others in the vicinity. Start with any business that provides drive-through window customer access and mandate 2 charging stations per lane. Require shopping centers that provide free parking to install charging stations. Pay parking lots are another obvious location for charging stations. Car dealerships selling new vehicles should have public charging stations.
    Change PST trade-in allowance such that it does not apply to the purchase of ICE vehicles. Why is the EV rebate now taxable; was this to trigger the higher luxury tax on new vehicles?
    The government has now instituted a luxury tax on expensive vehicles. I would counter that all gas-fueled vehicles are a luxury we can no longer afford and should be taxed at the same 25% level. This could be phased in and reduced for PHEV’s or vehicles with low fuel requirements. Electric vehicles should be subsidized to cover the average cost of battery manufacturing of up to 60 kw/h.

    8
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] K.

    Infrastructure needs to be addressed. The cities are not supporting home owners make necessary changes to their homes to install charging stations. Multi-residential buildings are denying installation of charging stations.
    The cities should be doing what ever they can to help home owners meet the necessary requirements to install EV infrastructure instead of making it difficult (City of North Van).
    Initiatives to help with the cost of charging stations are great, but the main thing is to stop having home owners jump through impossible hoops to make these upgrades to their homes.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] gv

    I support a quick phaseout of sales of new ICE vehicles. We need to reduce VKTs overall first, then focus on ZEVs for the rest. I’d like no more investment in growing single-occupancy vehicle infrastructure expansions like new interchanges and highway widening, and instead work on land use that supports access rather than travel. Let’s get public transit transitioned to low-carbon renewable fuel and massively increase service levels throughout BC so that it becomes the affordable, convenient option. Let’s build out all ages and abilities bike infrastructure so that everyone has a safe place to bike. Let’s update the Motor Vehicle Act to make it safer on BC roads for people walking, biking, and taking transit (e.g. safe passing laws) and let’s massively increase enforcement of traffic laws so that our streets become safer for people using active transportation. Let’s make cycling safety training mandatory in schools. Let’s make our ferries electric. Let’s build video conferencing facilities so that people don’t travel so much by air or by road for work. Let’s remove the PST on all bikes, and bring in rebates for e-bikes and cargo bikes. Let’s facilitate the use of cargo bikes for urban freight deliveries. And yes, we can continue to provide incentives for ZEVs and charging infrastructure, and continue building the fast charging network, and update building code and the upcoming retrofit code to include EV charging requirements. We can also consider removing the taxes on EVs for a little while. I don’t think ending rebates when a 5% market share is reached is high enough, unless it’s timed to coincide with a phaseout of ICE vehicles, and advertized as such. The EV charging rebates for this year were all spoken for just months into the program, so there is plenty of demand for rebates.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ralph

    More consideration should be given to ways to support ZEV car share and ride hailing (near term), and ZEV autonomous vehicles (long term).

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Cathy

    Encouraging ZEVs is extremely important if climate change and pollution are to be successfully tackled. Require automakers to supply ZEVs. Imitate Quebec, California and 10 US states.
    Norway has set the stage for the planet. Imitate their practices and policies.
    Target 100% of vehicle sales to be clean energy vehicles in line with Ireland, Netherlands, Germany and India by 2030.
    Government procurement for all provincially owned vehicles should be ZEVs. Contractors should be held to the same standard for all provincial contractors.
    Encourage the use of bicycles, electric bicycles and public transit including buses, ferries, sky train and light rail transit by investing sufficient public funds.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kara

    I agreed with all the suggestions in the Paper. I would like to suggest incentives for EV’s from BC Ferries. Some ideas: 1. A reduced rate and/or a preferential lane for EVs. 2. Eventually: a lane equipped with EV chargers, that could be reserved (and paid for) in advance. 3 Even more eventually: onboard EV chargers, that could also be reserved and paid for in advance.
    Also, there needs to be SO many more public charging stations! I think it’s fine if they are all eventually user-pay. As long as the pay system is not too complex or too dependant on third party companies.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    the province should consider options to raise funds needed for ZEV incentives that are related to the types of vehicles being phased out – e.g. a surcharge less efficient vehicles generates funding for incentives on EVs.

    extend the existing PST exemption for bicycles to electric bikes. Consider ways to support electric cargo bikes.

    continue programs that encourage the removal of older, fossil fueled vehicles from the road

    create supports/incentives for used zero emissions vehicle markets

    Need programs to support retrofits of existing multi-family buildings to install EV charging

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    You’ve created 50+ posts in the last 24 hours using different names asking for the same discounts on bicycles. This discussion is about Zero Emission Vehicles… not bicycles so please stay on topic.

    What is a vehicle?

    “vehicle” means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include a device designed to be moved by human power, a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks, mobile equipment or a motor assisted cycle;

    http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_01

    0
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ashton

    This is exactly why the Morot Vehicle Act (Alberta calls Traffic Safety Act) needs an overhaul!!

    Priority in mobility planning = (1) walking (wheels chairs walkers etc) – (2) cycling – (3) multimodal/Transit – (4) goods movement – (5) commercial vehicles – (6) HOV – (7) the island of misfit toys – (8) SOVs

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    This section appears to focus on clean vehicles – it’s unclear where the strategies and plans in support of cycling and transit are. We should be providing separated cycling routes along all highways. The province needs to increase funding for all ages and abilities cycling infrastructure.

    Massive expansion of transit is needed. Support for the Mayor’s Plan in the Lower Mainland is great – more like that is needed to make up for the lack of expansion over the past ten years.

    Requiring automakers to supply ZEVs to market is critical; it is far to difficult to purchase an EV in the current market and our transition is slowing because of it.

    I don’t agree with phasing out incentives when we reach the 5% of all sales goal – perhaps at that time we re-evaluate if incentives are the most effective tool, but deciding in advance that a 95/5 sales split is the point at which incentives are no longer needed seems unwarranted. Notably, Norway still offers subsidies.

    The province needs to identify other ways to incentivize zero emission vehicles (like EV access to HOV lanes – which is great) – preferential treatment/pricing on ferries?

    The province also needs to advocate for a national zero emissions vehicle strategy.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    I support a government subsidy for the purchase of personal EVs especially ebikes. No mention of transit here so there should be a transition of fuel powered buses to electric powered buses. Ferries should also tansition to electric power.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    The bicycle is one of the most efficient machines ever invented, and is a zero emission vehicle. Unfortunately, there are no safe separated bike paths along the busy highway on my way to work, so I drive my old gas guzzler to 50km round trip most days.

    In Alaska, they mandate separated bike paths along all highways that need upgrading, even in sparsely populated areas. It’s awesome, and they have a much shorter bike season than we do. Let’s do the same here. I suggest starting with highway 6 from Vernon to Lumby or maybe Cherryville (though I am biased).

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    A bicycle is not a vehicle. BC defines a vehicle as the following;

    “vehicle” means a device in, on or by which a person or thing is or may be transported or drawn on a highway, but does not include a device designed to be moved by human power, a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks, mobile equipment or a motor assisted cycle;

    http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_01

    0
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    https://kfgo.com/news/articles/2018/jun/13/toyota-motor-to-invest-1-billion-in-southeast-asias-grab/

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/23/volkswagen-all-electric-car-share-service-set-for-berlin-in-2019.html

    Major car companies are moving fast toward car sharing, and associated technology. The cars under discussion are EVs.

    This is happening in Europe. We should have this happen in BC too. Let’s be leaders!

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sue

    We need incentives to help people want to change especially when incomes are low. I’d rather see a lot more transit added including dedicate bus only lanes up the Pat Bay Hwy and all other Hwys. We need to make transit cheaper, more frequent, more accessible and we need to divert a lot of hwy money into infrastructure for buses. I want electric buses, separated bike lane and pedestrian walkways that are safe from traffic. Please close Govt in front of the Empress and Belleville in front of the Legislature to traffic permanently and makes these community spaces. Please reward municipalities that can prove they are creating more bike paths. Please help folks with low incomes buy bikes (BC Housing could manage this perhaps). Annual bus passes need to be made available to anyone who wants one at very low rates until buses can be made free. In the meantime all new homes and businesses should have EV chargers.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Janice

    Increase awareness of these programs, through online and print media releases. Post at all infrastructure expansion sites, such as highway improvement areas, bridge repair sites, and at all government offices.
    Ensure municipalities install charging stations in several areas around their districts, minimum 3 stations per site.
    Offer incentives to parking lot owners, to install multiple stations.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] gv

    I support a quick phaseout of sales of new ICE vehicles. We need to reduce VKTs overall first, then focus on ZEVs for the rest. I’d like no more investment in single-occupancy vehicle infrastructure expansions like interchanges and highway widening, and instead work on land use that supports access rather than travel. Let’s get public transit transitioned to low-carbon renewable fuel and massively increase service levels throughout BC so that it becomes the affordable, convenient option. Let’s build out all ages and abilities bike infrastructure so that everyone has a safe place to bike. Let’s update the Motor Vehicle Act to make it safer on BC roads for people walking, biking, and taking transit (e.g. safe passing laws) and let’s massively increase enforcement of traffic laws so that our streets become safer for people using active transportation. Let’s make cycling safety training mandatory in schools. Let’s make our ferries electric. Let’s build video conferencing facilities so that people don’t travel so much by air or by road for work. Let’s remove the PST on all bikes, and bring in rebates for e-bikes and cargo bikes. Let’s facilitate the use of cargo bikes for urban freight deliveries. And yes, we can continue to provide incentives for ZEVs and charging infrastructure, and continue building the fast charging network, and update building code and the upcoming retrofit code to include EV charging requirements. We can also consider removing the taxes on EVs for a little while. I don’t think ending rebates when a 5% market share is reached is high enough, unless it’s timed to coincide with a phaseout of ICE vehicles, and advertized as such. The EV charging rebates for this year were all spoken for just months into the program, so there is plenty of demand for rebates.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rebecca

    The intention paper is lacking certainty. The scale of the crisis we are facing does not allow time for phrasing each action as “the province could…”. For example, the province definitely should provide preferential parking and access for ZEV; this is not something that “could be considered”. What if we adopted a two-tier parking pricing system wherein prices for non ZEVs were raised and those for ZEVs were lowered? My point is that we need to dream bigger. Every provincial government building must have a ZEV charging station. The sale of new gasoline and diesel light duty vehicles must occur much sooner than 2040. How about 2025? And how about we tax sales of gas vehicles after 2020, in order to raise funds for a pst exemption on ZEVs? As you say in the paper, due to the price of gas, the life time cost of ZEVs is lower than that of non-ZEVs. What could the downside be, then, to this ban on sales of non-ZEVs? Each year we delay taking necessary action such as this translates to more death and economic damage caused by climate disasters in the long run.
    Additionally, E-bikes should be the focus of campaigns to shift away from cars, as they address the main reasons (that I have observed) that individuals choose not to bike: taking too long and lack of fitness. To encourage their use, offer subsidies for electric bikes. Although the CEV incentive program should still be offered, e-bike subsidies would be much more cost effective. The former offers up to $5 000 per vehicle, which covers approximately 15% of a $35 000 ZEV, such as a Nissan Leaf. A mid-range e-bike costs around $3 000. A subsidy could be offered for a full 50% of this cost, which would both be more significant to the consumer and 66% cheaper for the government.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jack

    Incentives and rebates for the purchase of used electric vehicles would be a great step. So would incentives for the manufacture/production and purchase of all-electric light utility vehicles, pick-ups, and panel trucks. If we could transform fleets of delivery vehicles to all-electric drive, it would go a long way to clean the air in our cities and towns.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    Make public transit free.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ruth

    Increase their affordability, not just tax incentives but the purchase price which I feel consumers focus on. Also, increase network of charging stations to be competitive with gasoline.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Craig

    The market will determine the roll out of e-vehicles and it should be offered incentives to accelerate the market.
    My issue is Autonimous Vehiclea and the impact on our existing infrastructure and how we will have to accommodate them on our roadways. The big carrot is a 80% reduction in accidents and a 30% increase in road efficiency. Do we have a plan?

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] William

    Currently someone who can afford a zero emission passenger car receives a big subsidy from tax payers while no incentive at all exists for electric assisted bikes. If I had an e-bike I would use it instead of my car when it is too hot or smoky to ride up hills on my regular bike, or when arriving at my destination all sweaty isn’t appropriate, or for trips that are a little too long without assistance. It will save many car trips and not contribute to congestion or road wear and tear like the currently subsidized vehicles. I don’t suggest changing the ZEV subsidies, just broadening them to include e-bikes.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] kieran

    Zero emission vehicles also includes bicycles. We need more investment and incentives for cycling and associated infrastructure. Please include this.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ruth

    Agree with this. Also, increase transit affordability, convenience and reduce emissions from transit vehicles.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    If we want to move away from fossil fuels, BC should stop subsidies in that direction – to the natural gas industry (including significant subsidies to the hopeful LNG industry). We are told that our natural gas is “clean”. Not so much, with over 75% coming from fracking.

    Fracking results in a significant amount of natural gas (methane) lost into the air. These are called fugitive emissions. Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. Fracking is also a nasty business environmentally in other ways; this is no secret.

    Use these subsidies instead for lots and lots of electric vehicle charging stations around BC, and you will see “range anxiety” re electric cars reduce significantly. Don’t build hydrogen refueling stations – very expensive.

    Reduce bus fares. Have the $2.75 (or is it $2.95 now – Compass Card makes that easy to miss) one zone fair across Metro Van apply to skytrain and seabus ($4) as well. Germany is thinking about making buses free. I think that would be good. Where to get the money for this? Reduce/stop subsidies to the natural gas industry in BC.

    Start subsidies for e-bikes! More safe bike paths!

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Franz

    Several of my colleagues won’t hesitate to finance $20,000-$40.000 to replace a car, but are balking at spending $2,000 on an electric bike to commute…because of the price tag. Link the Clean Energy Vehicle program to education and incentives for electric bikes please.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    The proposals are very good. What is missing is support for the lowest emission and most energy efficient vehicle ever invented, the bicycle. Particularly in urban areas, policy should encourage cycling by supporting safe, separated bike lanes. Vancouver is an excellent example of modest success which can be expanded.

    8
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] ron

    By far the largest barrier will be manufacturing and we have little power over this development. However the Provincial Government through BC Hydro can ensure that an infrastructure is available to charge vehicles so that “fuel” access is not an impediment.
    I believe that offering purchase incentives is a bit of a loss leader as it suggests to the buying public that this is a technology they cannot afford. The fuel is already significantly cheaper than the incumbent fossil fuels and in many cases it is given away at local charging stations. Price of the vehicles will be a problem and will disappear over time so the question is how to get past the initial higher cost. We understand that battery cost and peripherals cost are dropping rapidly so the problem may take care of itself. Perhaps the most effective way to get more electric vehicles on the road is through an “electric car mandate” so that a growing percentage of all new vehicle sales must be electric or at the least ZEV’s. Make it attractive for the Tesla’s of the world and the other mainstream EV manufacturers to put special emphasis on sales into BC so that we get a disproportionate share of the vehicles that are available. Somehow China which is seen by many to be a laggard on Climate Change is way ahead accounting for 43 % of all new EV sales in the last quarter. The US which you might expect to be the leader is only accounting for 19% of new sales. I assume this is because all of the support for such technology is drying up except in California and a few other brave states.
    It would seem that government intentions can be the driving force in the market development.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Howard

    – Incentivize car dealers to stock EVs and car buyers to test-drive/buy them (current programs for new-EV rebate incentives are good, as is the Scrap-IT program, but limited in number)
    – incentivize house-builders and home-owners to incorporate L2 charging units at home
    – incentivize offices, warehouses, malls & businesses to incorporate L2 charging units at work, in shopping areas
    – incentivize gas stations to become “energy stations” with L3 charging units
    – Encourage EV manufacturers to locate in BC – our weather makes us the best market for EV growth in Canada –
    – Innovation: Encourage third-party battery design/manufacturers to locate/operate here. We need to be able to upgrade older EVs (pre-2016) with new longer-range batteries as these batteries become available. That way a used EV (with a low-range battery) retains its value
    – Use Cow-Power ! Combine BC’s great dairy farms with EV charge points. (e.g. EcoDairy in Abbotsford, BC). Ecodairy has an anaerobic digester that converts cow droppings into gas to generate electricity for the fast charging station. And it’s a fantastic rest-stop with shopping. And ice cream!
    – BC Ferries – add charging stations on the ferries – and in the line-ups! Add bio-digesters to big ferries?
    – Routes – need more fast-charging stations on popular BC highways; Hwy 14, 16, 19, 20, 97, 99
    – Rest Stops and BC Parks – bio-digest human wastes (?) and convert geothermal or wind/wave action where available

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lynn

    Please give biking the consideration it deserves in the consultation process. It is an oversight to not increased infrastructure for safe biking including a bike tunnel beside the new George Massey twinned tunnel. Please also provide incentives for people to purchase electric bikes and to provide low interest loans to increase ridership.

    5
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] marylee

    Vehicles could be smaller. Small vehicles rerquire less fuel. For some of us and in some weather, bicycles are not an option. A range of small, strong, run-around vehicles for city use could even be mandated in certain areas.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] marylee

    Vehicles could be smaller. The larger the vehicle the more fuel is needed. There are many of us for whom a bicycle is too difficult, but a small run-around car for city use is an option. I would like to see an emphasis on good, strong small vehicles.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jacob

    Barriers and Opportunities for EV adoption

    1) Influences on the Public mind Education and Misinformation
    Education is key to implementing a ZEV program for that will have enough of an impact to mitigate even though the ongoing harm to our changing climate. Out of sight out of mind is a truism that applies to emissions from most vehicles, unless they’re smoking like crazy we don’t think what was coming out of the tailpipe. We grew up putting gas in cars to burn. The exhaust however, is mostly invisible. My mother-in-law who is in her 70s did not get what we’re doing in buying an expensive vehicle could not refuel in 10-15 minutes at select corners nearby. It was not until I got her to visualize the common 2 liter pop bottle (shudder) and imagine 2-3 thousand of them popping out the exhaust pipe every minute. The dawning comprehension of what we have been doing for generations was priceless.
    The misinformation is rampant. I often get told that my car or my motorcycle, both Electric, are worse for the environment than a gasoline engine. Primarily the materials in the batteries. We have ways of refurbishing car batteries to extend their life. We can reuse battery packs as home storage for solar. We even have a company here in BC that looks after the recycling of the batteries properly.
    If we are to make a difference in this climate change we can start by educating the voting public. We don’t want to see something so critical to the survival of our species and this planet we are only a part of become a partisan issue. Here we need to work together, every last one of us, if at all possible. Let’s raise the bar on what’s possible.
    2) Inconvenience and Convenience
    There’s something to be said for lifestyle where you leave your car and go do the things you want to do and come back to a car fully charged ready to go again. Leaving with a full charge every morning to do your daily driving is a great feeling.
    Whether it is shopping, a meal, or taking a walk, or as I recently did – bumper boats with my son. Coming back to a car that’s ready to do another 140 km or in the case of the next generation over 200 – 400 km is indeed convenience. Having a great meal and then carrying on a trip to the next city is not a hardship.
    Having said this it has, at times, been inconvenient having a short range BEV (battery electric vehicle). However, I personally think there Comes A Time where we have to say my personal convenience does not outweigh the harm we’re doing to this planet
    3) Incentives and Disincentives
    Well I prefer disincentives to incentives the burning of carbon fuels over incentives there is a place for both. The initial incentive program needs to be enhanced and modified to accurately reflect our goals. Is our goal to subsidize the purchase of a new vehicle for select individuals who can afford new cars or is it to reduce the impact of climate change by the burning of carbon fuel. Until battery technology and prices improve and economies of scale apply to both the batteries and the electric vehicles, we need to overcome the barrier for ZEV of the price difference. The economics already work that you save more money with electric vehicle over the life of the vehicle than driving an internal combustion engine. It is hard psychologically for people to overcome that initial ticket price. The other very real barrier is that coming up with a down payment to reduce the monthly payments in financing is often a bigger hurdle for a shrinking middle class. Why are we subsidizing only new vehicles?
    The Scrap It program that could apply to an older electric vehicle is arbitrary and hard to acquire. Started with government seed money it is arbitrarily administered with the carbon credits being sold to high polluters. There should be some notion that the carbon credits are going to those who are at least trying to reduce. An example of the inequality of this program is that Motorize a local BC dealership that sells only EVs and hybrids cannot take advantage of this system. I’m going back to my initial statement… Are we trying to reduce emissions or subsidize the purchase of a new car? If subsidy was based on residence of British Colombians trying to reduce their impact on the climate and thus tied to the person rather than an particular car, then many would buy a used ZEV. Are we not trying to reduce reuse and recycle? In addition many people philosophically object to buying new all the time. As far as the argument of not incentivizing the same vehicle twice. Is not our goal is to get high polluting cars off the road and replace them with zero emission vehicles? Our prime target for incentives should be those of lower-income or middle-income that want to do the right thing but just cannot afford to finance a new vehicle or even a used one. Everyone should have the opportunity to do the right thing and have their own kick at the can of driving a smooth, quiet, reliable, low maintenance, ultra low energy consumption vehicle. Electric vehicles are just fun to drive – add this to how smooth and quiet they become part of a peaceful commute. Why should this be the realm of only those who can afford it? While moving to electric buses in a better utilized public transit is essential, it is the reality that we have individual cars. Cheap vehicles cost more to maintain, use more gas , and therefore produce more pollutants. Any incentive program that does not try to meet the needs of those who buy these cars is at best missing the point, and at worst discriminating against those of lower-income who want to do the right thing.
    Some of the opportunities we have around zero emission vehicles is to give more people the chance to do what they want to do already. I love the First Nations wisdom that we borrow this Earth from our children. So if the Scrap It program was revamped and administered by an environmental organization and made more fair and less open to ‘gaming the system’, if the rebate program applied to used cars, If there was an interest free or low cost loan to reduce financing payments (down payment funds operated as a loan circle?) then we could see adoption of zero emission vehicles reach a critical mass. The refunding of the charger rebate program also removes a final barrier.
    Once the cost of burning gas or diesel becomes prohibitive financially then the rebate program can be phased out. Until then a rebate program could be seen as a repayment to the Earth the damage that we’ve done for generations that have not factored the cost of the damage done with ever minute of operating an internal combustion engine.
    Imagine the pop bottles coming out every tailpipe you see.
    Long-distance ZEV sharing
    Hydrogen fuel cell complementary to BEV
    Solar panel installations for charging cars

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Aleksiina

    Any discussion of zero emission vehicles needs to include bicycles and should have equal or greater incentives for bicycle and electric bicycles.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sheila

    First, get EV charging stations on BCFerries and major route ferry lineups. It’d be efficient use of drivers’ time and reduce range anxiety. There’s already a system for loading disabled drivers, so BCF staff could use the same to direct EVs to particular lanes.
    2 Better trip planning software and better roadway labelling for charging stations would encourage long distance trips.
    3 I’m not compelled by sales requirements – given supply problems already. Dealers can’t keep EVs on lot; we waited long on a wait list for a used EV.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    I’m all in favor of bicycles getting tax breaks and incentives, but not if it means reduced incentives for EVs.

    First, my coworker lives 70kms from work and not because she likes driving. It was the only place she could afford to buy. I personally live 20kms away from work, but its mostly uphill. So bicycles aren’t good for either of us.

    Second, bikes are great for sunny days, but many of us live in areas where it rains 75% of the year. No way most of the population would want to arrive at school or work soaked to the bone and frozen.

    The point is, people who can and want to bike to work, are most likely already biking to work. It’s not like bikes are expensive. Anyone who wants one can get now… Heck, even if Govt gave bikes away for free, I’d take one… But I’d still drive to work. So I don’t believe rebates or tax breaks are really going to have much of an impact on reducing C02 emissions.

    Encouraging people to switch their combustion engine cars to clean electric cars should be the priority as it would have the biggest impact on reducing C02 emissions which I believe is the whole point

    Thank you

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Graham

    Hydrogen is not an appropriate technology for mass consumer transportation. It may have a place to power bus fleets but the distribution network for consumer transportation is extremely problematical.

    Lost in this discussion is encouraging people in Vancouver to take the bus more – we have hardly any bus shelters in rainy North Vancouver. Why would anyone want to wait in the rain and wind for a bus?? Bus shelters are so inexpensive and are a durable investment. Don’t waste money on hydrogen, it’s a dead end fuel.

    I just came back from a business trip to Norway. Tons of electric cars (>30% in Oslo) because they have incentives. We should not be ending incentives when we get to 5%, we should continue to at least 20% or more.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Your discussion paper has different headings than what are shown on this computer document. So I am not sure where this comment fits. Hopefully here.

    We need more companies like Modo, Car to Go, Evo, Zip Car covering more of Metro Vancouver. I live in North Vancouver and there are few here. I would like to be able to commute between North Vancouver and Horseshoe Bay, not using my car (which I would like to get rid of). Unfortunately Modo has a station in Horseshoe Bay, but almost no cars in North Vancouver. Evo has a station near me but none in Horseshoe Bay.

    We also need to open our arms to Uber, Lyft etc. Reduce the number of cars on the road. Yes, it will be very hard on taxi drivers. Digital watches put watchmakers/repairers out of business. Digital pictures put Kodak out of business. Big changes are difficult. Over time, Uber, Lyft will be done in EVs because EV engines last so much longer than a car with a gas engine.

    As you suggest, we need to open our arms to automomous (self driving) cars. Delivery by self driving vans is beginning in the US. This is Transportation as a Service. Stanford University energy expert Tony Seba believes TaaS is just around the corner time-wise. Various US states are considering/making regulations to allow TaaS. If you want to listen to a remarkable video, look up Tony Seba and transportation. And Taas will be done by EVs because these engines last so much longer than a gas engine.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Joanne

    More cycling networks! Designated cycling lanes and cycling lanes that are separate from the carriageway. Enforce no parking in bike lanes.
    Subsidize electric bikes.
    Future ban of the sale of new gasoline and diesel cars
    Financial incentives for buying electric/hybrid vehicles.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Elizabeth

    3rd attempt to post this:
    Why confine this discussion to vehicles? The goal should be to get people out of vehicles/planes and into other public modes of transportation such as trains. Look towards reinvigorating train travel throughout BC. ie. Vancouver to Prince George and perhaps a rail system to augment the Malahat highway. Link into other modes of transport ie. the ferry system and take an integrated approach so that the province grows and not just in the lower mainland.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Art

    1) Don’t use thresholds to exclude “high value” vehicles like Teslas. I couldn’t afford one myself, but they set an example and lead consumer aspirations. They make EVs seem cool, capable, and high status.

    2) Set much more aggressive targets. Hundreds of thousands of vehicles within 5, 10 years. A double digit % of vehicle sales within 5.

    3) Emphasis in public communication on not losing bc dollars to pay for gas from external sources, keep the money in bc.

    4) Require new homes, condos, etc to be equipped for charging at every parking spot.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rina

    Please invest more in bike networks and provide financial incentives including rebates and low cost loans for bicycles, electric bikes and cargo bikes as well as eliminating the PST on electric bikes.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Elizabeth

    Wondering why this discussion is confined to vehicles? I think the goal should be to get people out of their vehicles and using public modes of transportation, either run by government or by private enterprise. Start looking at creating/reinvigorating trains as a mode of transport for moving people from the south to the north and west to east, vice versa. For example, train systems from the lower mainland to Prince George and possibly look at a train system to parallel the Malahat tying this into the ferry system etc. Try to decrease vehicle and plane traffic through making trains more attractive to use.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Additional comment: The financial incentives should continue long term, vs stop at the 5% target. The gas/oil industry gets substantial long term subsidy from both BC and Federal governments. Let’s give ZEVs the same.

    Also let’s give financial help for electric bicycles, and have more safe bike paths. I would ride a bike if I felt there were lots of safe bike paths to get to stores, etc.

    5
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Philippe

    We also need to support/encourage the use of electric bikes / scooters as an alternative to cars, through the use of better infrastructure and financial incentives.

    5
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Moreno

    Any discussion of Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) must include the bicycle and its variants: cargo bikes and e-bikes. Cycling is one of the most energy and resource efficient form of transportation that exists, and yet, policies, programmes, financial incentives, and infrastructure that would support a modal-shift to cycling is almost entirely missing from your consultation paper; this is a significant gap that must be redressed.

    The Province of B.C. should re-direct the money being proposed to increase investments in private vehicle ownership toward investments in urban cycling networks (through cost-sharing programmes like a revamped BikeBC); provide financial incentives, including rebates, to individuals for the purchase of bicycles, electric bikes and cargo bikes, and; eliminating the PST on bicycle and e-bike sales.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Must be nice to live so close to work and school you can ride a bicycle everywhere. For the other 90% of the population who can’t afford to live where they work, cars are the only option

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    Vehicle purchase price and consumer awareness:
    BC’s support for purchase of ZEVs is great, and needs to continue. The Scrap it Program is also good. Public education is important.

    Charging and refuelling stations:
    We need far more charging stations. I talk to lots of people about ZEVs and people are not even aware of hydrogen fueled cars. Also from your graph I see there are very few models of hydrogen fuelled cars available, and the public likes choice. I would spend BC taxpayer’s $ on EV charging, not hydrogen refuelling stations.

    market capacity (vehicle supply) to meet demand:
    Yes to the following points and deadlines (deadlines should be sooner if we want to avoid hothouse Earth:
    -require that automakers supply ZEVs (EV and hyprid) for the light duty vehicle market
    -report sales to BC government
    -meet targets for new vehicle sales
    -by 2040 or EARLIER, ban sale of new gasoline light duty vehicles

    Also do what many countries in Europe have done: ZEV cars get free:
    -ferry rides
    -charging at public charge points
    -public parking
    -no PST

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    “Also do what many countries in Europe have done: ZEV cars get free:
    -ferry rides
    -charging at public charge points
    -public parking
    -no PST”

    Love to see these changes.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Transition

    Transition Sooke is a strong supporter of the CEV for BC point-of-sale rebate program for the purchase of electric cars and other rebate programs that encourage uptake of EVs. We join with other BC cycling and mode-shift advocates in supporting a rewards program (rebates and/or PST exemption) on the sale of electric bikes, e-bike conversion kits and actual e-bike conversions made by bike shops. According to the British Columbia Cycling Coalition, e-bikes suitable for commuting typically cost between $1k and $3K, making a PST exemption worth about $75-to-$210 for buyers.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Judy

    I am delighted to see so many comments regarding the bicycle as the ultimate ZEV and very much agree with the need to encourage cycling via investment in well signed cycling infrastructure and its maintenance. This should include requirements for secure bike parking at destinations such as transit exchanges and workplaces.
    Regarding EV incentives, rather than phasing out at 5% market share it might make more sense to continue it to the point at which EVs reach price parity and perhaps create disincentives for fossil fueled vehicles at that point.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] vincent

    Provide more of the above incentives.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Edward

    Bicycle routes and infrastructure that supports human powered and electric powered transportation should take a high level of precedence in a plan. In urban settings,. bicycle paths and walking paths enable the possibility of less reliance on petro powered transport.
    Public transport needs to be enhanced in Urban areas and especially in the sparsely populated regions of the Province.
    Automobile transport should be discouraged as a regular means of transport for populations in the suburbs. Building more highways demands that the streets, which are presently not functioning well as a means of transport, are made less practical, healthy and friendly. Bicycle routes, public transport systems and densification of urban centres.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    I am absolutely in favour of replacing petroleum dependant vehicles with CEVs. I am concerned about what happens to all the petroleum dependant vehicles that will become superfluous. How about incentives for bio-fuels that can be used to power these vehicles? The problems with current mass production of bio-fuels is that agricultural land is taken up to grow the feed stock. I believe technology is being developed to utilise waste cellulose, animal fats and used vegetable oils to produce fuels. We have a 1994 diesel vehicle that we run 100% biodiesel in and have no problems. Unfortunately this is not the case for more modern diesel vehicles. Renewable or green diesel is a bio-fuel that can absolutely replace petroleum diesel but needs an oil refinery to be produced. Possible incentives could be made available for these larger scale projects so that standard vehicle can use this fuel. Feed-stocks are all readily available and renewable: sawdust, animal and fish offal, used vegetable oils and grease, even algae and offending water plants that currently clog our lakes.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Brian

    Tax incentives for e-bikes, electric cargo bikes just like electric cars currently enjoy.
    These represent a great opportunity to expand use of investment in cycling infrastructure.

    In addition there should be an effort to move our transit system from diesel to electric power, particularly in the urban centres. There sould be a better effort made to integrate cycling and walking in to the transit system to expand the reach of transit.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles make no sense at small scale like cars. BEVs are the future and should be most actively supported. Subsidies, or similar, to close the short to medium term price gap make sense.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Robert

    BC needs a leadership goal in the transportation sector, as we are looked to by the world for leadership, or at least fair participation. So how do we get to zero fossil vehicles by the soonest date at the most economical cost?
    We can’t capture and sequester carbon from vehicles; this is a thermodynamic impossibility. Can we replace all fossil fuels with renewable fuels? Absolutely: torrefaction of wood waste to produce biocreosote for refinement to liquid fuels equal to diesel or gasoline is practical technology, and we have wood and other organics in abundance.
    Until industry starts down that path meaningfully, however, there is no better measure than to require car dealers in BC to sell an increasing fraction of their lots as EVs. My own experience working for Ford and Nissan tells me 15% is an attainable figure, increasing 5% a year. Some quick math tells us if we are to meet our 2050 goals, we must start this by 2022.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Deb

    One of the best ZEV options is a bicycle! Encouraging the use of bicycles for private commuting and for business purposes not only addresses the environmental issue, but also health care issues. As a society we need to foster a cycling culture. We can do this by offering incentives to purchase bicycles; perhaps through rebate programs, exemption from sales tax, and programs for children through the school system. We also need to invest in SAFE cycling infrastructure and fund education programs. Workplaces who support staff cycling efforts should receive tax breaks.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Anyone who wants a bicycle can easily afford one now. Govt could give every single BC resident a bike and people would still drive to work.

    Distance to and from work, and weather between Oct and May, are the biggest deterrents to bicycle use and there is nothing the Government can do about that.

    1
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Melanie

    More charging stations and increased tax incentives. Norway has already done this. Let’s do what they’re doing.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] anna

    I just bought an electric vehicle with a back up gas engine (range anxiety and all). I think they are a great idea for a car, but there is another vehicle out there which not only is zero emissions, but also has health benefits to the user that far out weigh any electric vehicle. Around town it can be just as fast as a car, and for some can go just as far. (400 km in a day) They are simple to use (a 5 year old can do it), have nothing but positive health benefits, and are great for the environment. Electric vehicles are subsidized, but these other ones are not. Why not? The infrastructure for them is often poor, and while in some countries they are encouraged, in Canada they are not. Why not? I am referring to , of course, the bicycle.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Christine

    I believe Bc could encourage the use of clean vehicles by publicizing the kind of information above as I believe the general public doesn’t know how advanced the technology is. Also clean vehicles should include bikes. They are less costly, reduce traffic and create less noise pollution. By providing more and safer bike lanes in city centres it would encourage many people to bike more, who currently aren’t willing to risk their necks on roads that aren’t safe for bikers.
    Talk about clean vehicles, let’s include the cleanest, healthiest and most economic of all, bicycles.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Adam

    I would like to see an improvement on cycle lanes and safer travelling for cyclists.

    Sky train over crowding by introducing larger and/or more frequent trains.

    Larger incentive for EVs to make them more competitive with traditional vehicles

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dr.

    As a leading academic for transportation sustainability in North America resident in BC, I know that Active Transportation is, and can be, an important part of the clean modal mix and can in time, with adequate infrastructure and programming make up as much as 50% of personal travel in BC. It is by far the cleanest means of transportation and the return on investment is much higher than other alternatives. For example, cycling, consistently returns $15 per $1 spent. As a result, Active Transportation should be included as an important and central part of this discussion, including developing subsidies for purchases of regular and e-bikes as well as the utilization of other appropriate fiscal mechanisms.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    Zero Emissions Vehicles must consider and include bicycles. None of the above subsidies or incentives appear to address bicycles, cargo bicycles or electric bicycles. Nothing is mentioned about improving bicycle infrastructure or incentives for purchasing and maintaining a bicycle. While this may seem trivial the number of vehicles that could be removed from the roads (including electric cars) is staggering.
    While the cost of bicycles is relatively low, to low-income families a $2000.00 cargo bike is still out of range, despite the fact that it’s more likely to do them good than an electric car.
    The subsidies, rebates and tax relief needed to incent bicycle use is significantly smaller than anything proposed so far with respect to the shiny toy electric vehicles, which while admirably zero emissions are hardly zero impact.
    Now it’s true that bicycles are hardly zero impact to produce themselves however, the relative impact to the planet by the creation of a single bicycle to the impact of the creation and maintenance of an electric car is small, nearly infinitesimal.
    Please, consider and include bicycles and bicycle infrastructure in this Zero Emissions Vehicle initiative.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    “While the cost of bicycles is relatively low, to low-income families a $2000.00 cargo bike is still out of range, despite the fact that it’s more likely to do them good than an electric car.”

    Why does a low income family need or want a $2000 cargo bike and why can’t a $200 Canadian tire bike do? How can this low income family afford a car ($20,000+), insurance ($1200+ a year), gas ($1500+ a year), and regular maintenance, ($500-$1000 a year) but can’t afford a peddle bike?

    Do you think this low income family that is spending $3000+ a year on their gas car is saying “I’d totally give up this car if I could afford a $2000 cargo bike”? This just makes zero sense.

    What I fear is all these people pushing for bicycle incentives will convince the govt to provide them at the expense of EV incentives. EV incentives need to be very strong in order to convince the general population to give up their gas cars and we need to direct every dollar to these incentives.

    0
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    “Just Do It!” Follow the leads of Norway, Quebec, California and the other 10 U.S. states that have adopted mandates for automakers to supply an increasing percentage of ZEVs for the light duty vehicle market. In addition, medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles could be electrified, as has been done in other countries; garbage trucks, municipal busses, short-distance heavy trucks (used eg in port and other industrial facilities), public works fleets, are just some examples that could be adopted in BC within 1 – 2 years, IF there was the political will.

    Inland ferries (currently we are building diesel-fueled ones!!!) should be battery-electric or at very least hybrid-electric. With about 95% of our electricity generated by hydro, we should be using this to fuel the clean transportation sector.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] peter

    Provide incentives and do not phase them out. Norway has 52% EV sales and still provides generous incentives. BC has many things in common with Norway including a significant petro-economy. Study Norway’s ZEV programs and consider them carefully.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dr.

    Bicycles are the ultimate zero-emission vehicle!

    Please invest more in bike networks and provide financial incentives including rebates and low cost loans for bicycles, electric bikes and cargo bikes as well as eliminating the PST on electric bikes.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] robert

    Where do bicycles fit into the programme? There is little mention of them, and in the over all there are few dollars for improvement of the bicycle infrastructure. A bike really is as close as one can get to a true ZEV. In BC an electric car is quite friendly to the environment, but in places like Alberta there is no such thing as an ZEV – other than a bike. An electric car may not spew noxious fumes out of the back, but when it is plugged in it is drawing on fossil fuels, as about 80% of the electricity generated in Albertsa is thermogenerated.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] William

    What about the bicycle? Affordable, few negative externalities, and contributes strongly to local jobs. Gets people moving instead of sitting around consuming technology. The environmental footprint from you so-called zero emission vehicles is monstrous compared to the humble bicycle. Support the two wheelers. Thank you.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mohammad

    On top of all the great suggestions here, I believe the government should also provide great support for startups and small business who are working on solutions to make EV adoption/ownership easier throughout the province. This way BC can become a symbol for all other cities around the world.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Landon

    E-bikes need to be included in the program. These alternatives provide benefits beyond the typical electric car since they also lower road wear, increase personal heath, and reduce public infrastructure needs. E-bikes can also help someone who might be considering cycling but feels they’re too far away or would sweat too much to seriously consider the option.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Shaun

    Keep electric bicycles in the equation by continuing to invest in infrastructure to connect the regions and eliminate the PST on electric bike sales. Also better synchronization between traffic signals. Doesn’t matter whats powering the vehicles if they can’t move.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    As an ex bike shop owner who had an electric bike component and promoted tours, I have some input. I believe its about education. We have an excellent bike pathway transportation system which needs to be maintained and expanded. A clean safe path beckons the rider. Anything else creates an excuse,and is potentially dangerous. Something out of the normal commute can create unwelcoming challenges. Riders get injured and even killed. Its time those conditions are changed. Road construction is one comes to mind. Construction companies intrude on the path. Half done jobs left to the next day with little or no signage may be ok in the daylight but in the shoulder seasons or early morning, night travel are deadly. Weather changes can be another. A wind storm refuge needs addressing. Ice, and snow,of course, treacherous . The lane lines are sometimes the only divider between a truck and trailer doing 80 km, and a cyclist, in the rain. Then there is the quiet electric vehicle. It has the sensor to note the bike but what about the cyclist or electric bike rider not much notice there. Complacent behaviour could be deadly. Although great when first laid down these dividing lines need refreshing more than most road lines.
    Although I mentioned cyclists there comes the definitive part between regular bikes and electric bikes. Fundamentally they are the same, but given that the increase in stable power things start to change. Can I drive this on the road, like a scooter? Legally yes, but practically the bike path network might serve as a better option. Developing good habits and decision making will need to be supported by better ‘rules of the road’ or legislation.
    I do go on.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Judith

    A major omission from this intentions paper is discussion of alternatives to cars – as much as possible, we need to make it easier/cheaper/more desirable to use alternatives including walking, cycling, and transit (including inter-city bus and /or rail transportation that serve rural and remote communities).

    We need to invest in these at least as much as in road building and incentives for vehicles.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    Funding of any new or expanded incentives should include a higher tax on gasoline and diesel, the burning of such fuels which is causing continued increases in GHG emissions.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bruce

    I started driving a 100 percent Battery Powered Electric Vehicle in March 2013. It had a fully charged range of 120 kilometers and I was able to drive 85 percent of my travels within that range. We used our hybrid vehicle for the 15 percent of longer trips.
    In 2018, the newer version of our Battery Powered Electric Vehicle now has a single charge range of 240 kilometers so we would no longer require a Hybrid vehicle as a backup.
    Unfortunately the supply of these 240 kilometer vehicles is limited by the manufacturer into the BC Market and only dedicated shoppers willing to wait months for delivery are able to buy them.
    The supply of these vehicles needs to be fixed and a ZEV mandate like the one that Quebec has just adopted is necessary.
    ***
    The BC Provincial Government needs to fill the vacuum left by the Federal Government and provide additional information to the public about the benefits of driving a Battery Powered Electric Vehicle,
    Test drives of vehicles at Auto Shows and other events like the recent ElectraFest in Vancouver help expose the general public to the benefits of Battery Powered Electric Vehicle ownership.
    Test drive events need to occur more often.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] SEBC

    “Clean vehicles” should for sure include bicycles of all sorts, and other self-propelled vehicles, (including running shoes), not just a strict focus on EVs of various sorts. Investment in a major network of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure would reap numerous rewards, in terms not only of reduced GHGs, but also reduced air pollution particulates, reduced population obesity, depression, lung disease, diabetes, heart disease, cancer and so on (this has been shown in studies), reduced MVA rates, and reduced road maintenance and expansion costs.
    As well, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, when extended around a large region, constitute a major tourism draw. We could use that kind of draw to offset the losses from raging wildfires this summer, caused by climate change. As I speak, my family and I are at the end of about a 10 day bike tour in another country, because the countries we’ve been able to bike through have safe, extensive, well-signed, and well-connected cycling infrastructure built into both the urban and rural landscapes. This is the third such trip for us – lots of lost potential revenue for Canada, because we haven’t invested whatsoever in active transit networks.

    As far as EV incentives go, the govt should not be picking winners, granting incentives to only some EV purchases. For example Tesla should not be excluded from incentives because of purchase costs because, currently, Tesla is the main vehicle that fully replaces the need for ICE-powered vehicles – though some others are catching up very gradually (but with very low availability). As well, Tesla has taken the initiative to put in place self-funded supercharging infrastructure as well as citing and supplying many chargers at hotels and tourism destinations- unlike all the rest of the vehicle makers who are crying out for government to put in place all the necessary charging infrastructure. The luxury tax should be set aside on all EVs, as long as they are pure battery electric, not just some trumped up hybrid with miniscule battery contribution to a trip, vs gas.

    Carbon taxes should be applied at a rate that exceeds the very minuscule standard set in place by the federal government. BC should continue to show leadership, as adopting a carbon tax did not lead to any economic downfall. We need to be an example to the rest of the country, if not the world.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    As noted, the Transportation sector accounts for almost 40% of GHG emissions and the BC government was the leader in introducing significant policies for a low-carbon future in this sector. Now is not the time to ease off the pressure on automakers, distributors and buyers so I urge you to strengthen current programs for reducing GHG emissions through more support for ZEVs.
    Specifically:
    1.Continue and expand the Clean Energy Vehicle program beyond an arbitrary 5% of new vehicle sales. This initiative has been successful in broadening the appeal for ZEVs and this is not the time to be thinking of a limit to the program. Perhaps 50% might be more appropriate.
    2. Proceed with the requirement for automakers to supply a target number of ZEVs to the market by an agreed date.
    3. Certainly continue and expand the network of EV charging stations in all regions of BC especially with DCFCs on or close to major roads in the Province.
    4. Follow the examples in Europe where tax and other financial incentives have promoted faster uptake of ZEVs.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Simon

    When phasing out ZEV’s phase out plug-in hybrids first, while offering the potential for 100% electric power, they may practically operate on mostly hydrocarbons.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Simon

    These “clean fuels” are a band-aid, postponing the transition to a post carbon economy. I do not understand the justification for them.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lyn

    Please put funds for other forms of clean energy vehicular such as bikes, e-bikes, cargo bikes, and Segways

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Phaedra

    Are bikes included as a ZEV? They are definitely zero emission vehicles. There is a need for rebates and incentives for cargo bikes and electric assist bikes (or better yet, a combination of the two) because they are prohibitively expensive right now. Cargo bikes let you haul bulky loads. Electric assist bikes let you haul heavier loads and make it over hills without being too sweaty for work or whatever else you have planned. (electric assist means that you still have to pedal the bike but it “assists” by giving you a power boost. This is not a moped) Being able to carry larger and heavier items and arrive at your destination looking presentable would allow more people lessen their use of cars or replace them entirely. Cycling is preferable over vehicles because they take less energy and are related to better health outcomes, saving money for the overburdened health care system.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Brian

    No transportation is cleaner and better for the health of both people and the environment than the bicycle. How about including some widespread infrastructure and strategies to make cycling safer and more attractive to all residents and industry?

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dr.

    First off, let me congratulation the Province for taking concrete steps to support ZEVs and for soliciting public input on this important matter.

    I have two main points to make.

    The first is that the Province should extend and immediately reinstate the charging station incentives for those who purchase ZEVs. I recently purchased a 2015 Nissan Leaf with the expectation of receiving the $750 rebate for a home charging station that was supposed to run until 2020. However, after purchasing the vehicle, I realized that the program ran out of funding. This is from BC Hydro’s webpage: “Three new rebates, funded with $1.85 million from the Province of British Columbia as part of its Clean Energy Vehicle Program and administered by Plug In BC, are available now through March 31, 2020 (or while program funding lasts).” Well, it turns out that the funding lasted only until July of 2018. I encourage the Province to set aside necessary funding to ensure that the program runs *at least* until 2020, if not further.

    Second, a larger point about the phase out of gasoline and diesel cars. I am a professor at Uvic and I work on climate policy and sustainability. I worked recently with a top engineer at Ford, who works on the electric powertrain system, and this individual informed me that Ford intends on phasing out all of its diesel and electric vehicles by 2030. This is the same year that Germany, India, and other countries will ban such vehicles. However, it is my understanding that proposed legislation in BC would not phase out gas and diesel cars until 2040. So why the lag? Given the exigencies of the climate crisis, why not take bold steps and get ahead of the curve? Ford is likely not alone. Other manufacturers will follow suit. There is no reason to wait an additional ten years for the phase out. Further, the entire automobile fleet turns over every 15 years or so, so a phaseout by 2030 makes an abundance of sense and will help the Province reach its mandated reductions targets.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    Eliminate PST on electric bikes is a good starting point. Incentivize cycling. Some countries even pay people to cycle and some provide tax free benefits for the purchase of an electric bike and cargo bikes. If we can do this for cars, why not bikes? I bike commute daily 40 kilometers adding up to 8000 kilometers per year. It is easily done with an electric bike. I ride almost the entire year round and I have special tires for winter travel and often combine transit and bike commutes.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lesley

    My husband & I are both semi-fair-weather bicyclists. While the old E & N railway goes right by the end of our street we are forced to continue our dance with motorized traffic on the Old Island Highway. We would choose to use our bicycles more often if we did not have to worry about whether or not we were highly visible & safe.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    I assumed, perhaps naively, that once a progressive government came to power in BC that deep investment, decades overdue, would be made in active transportation. Electric cars are quite simply not a viable solution to the unfolding climate crisis or to creating livable 21st century communities. We need to invest in transit and in active transportation, particularly comprehensive bicycle network and inter urban bike corridors like the E + N on Vancouver Island.

    Respectfully,

    David Grey
    Nanaimo BC

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Linda

    How about having bikes as clean transportation! Add more bike lanes and make it less dangerous for cyclists. Having commuted 25 years by cycling it’s time to get into the 21st century and move ahead, much like Europe.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Paul

    Eliminate PST on e-assist bikes, please. Good taxation policy is neutral towards technological variations. Pedal bikes are not taxed so why tax e-assist bikes? E-assist bikes are ideal for getting us older folks around as an alternative to automobiles. Regards, Paul

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Danielle

    Safe bike paths and separate bike lanes make cycling much easier, and will encourage more people to be active and transport to work and school.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Giacomo

    I’m surprised to see no mention of cycling as ZEVs. The support of cycling would be inexpensive and provide immediate benefits. I suggest removing the PST on all ebikes, including cargo bikes, perhaps providing other incentives for bike purchases and investing in well-designed cycling infrastructure.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Fernand

    Please include bicycles and e-bikes in the incentives toward clean transportation. Bikes are also good for the user’s health, require fewer resources (less maintenance) and take a lot less space in urban environments (for parking!) and on the roads.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] S

    It would be great to see more bike networks and support for cycling initiatives including potential rebates and low cost loans for bicycles, electric bikes and cargo bikes as part of a zero-emissions vehicle strategy. Given the land use impacts cycling is far better for the environment than electric vehicles.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Timothy

    Please create incentives for cyclists who leave zero imprint on the climate as a mode of transportation. First and foremost, you should remove the PST from the sale of all bicycles incl. cargo and ebikes.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] john

    We own an electric and a hybrid electric vehicle. We are know paying BC Hydro Tier 2 power rates. It seems odd that we are supporting a clean economy but paying more for power to do so. Tier 2 was brought in to conserve power. Electric Vehicles due to their high efficiency conserve significant power so Tiered power rates are actually a disincentive for power conservation and for a clean economy for people that want to do the right thing.
    Could we get a waiver for Tier 2 rates if we have an E Car?

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] mark

    This should not be that hard to figure out. You mention eight countries that have taken action. Follow their lead. See what works for them and replicate it.
    Electric vehicles are obviously the way of the future. Keep building more infrastructure. Don’t let a lack of charging stations be an impediment. Increase incentives for CEV/ZEV purchases to jump start the conversion. Add a surtax to the purchase or licencing of gas/diesel powered vehicles to deter their purchase.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gail

    I think the challenges with electric vehicles are lack of charging stations . Also pricing , having incentives for purchase would be another beneficial move towards supporting the industry .
    I personally plan to make my next vehicle purchase be an electric vehicle but I have to wait a couple of years as I have to plan financially for that transition. I work for the municipa / provincial government & having charging stations at my workplace workplace would be a benefit/ incentive.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Marcy

    One of the biggest hurdles many of us have for buying a ZEV is having multiple charging stations in the parking garages of the condos. Without charging stations at home (and we can’t add them individually when parking in a condo’s garage), it makes it harder for us to buy a ZEV. Having an easy way to upgrade an older parking garage to supply charging stations would probably drastically increase the number of people buying ZEVs in suburban areas.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mohammad

    Hi Marcy, with technologies like http://www.plugz.io you can easily use any outlet in your condo garage along with your existing charger (comes standard with any EV purchase) to charge your electric vehicle. Plugzio will eliminate the need for extra expensive chargers to be installed by Strata.

    A level 1 charger at home is more than enough for most EVs (including myself) and supporting technologies like Plugz.io will not only help EV owners charge at home, it will also support local startups.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    1. ENCOURAGE BUSINESSES TO ALLOW THEIR EMPLOYEES TO WORK FROM HOME, REMOTELY, 2 DAYS A WEEK.
    THIS WILL POSSIBLY IMMEDIATELY REDUCE PRIVATE PASSENGER EMISSIONS BY 40% A WEEK.

    2. GIVE A TAX CREDIT TO PEOPLE WHO BIKE OR WALK TO WORK.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    WHY NO MORE AIR CARE.

    WHAT ORGANIZATION IS REGULATIING DIESEL EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES, AND MARINE VESSELS?

    I CANNOT FIND ON CANADA WEBSITE THAT THERE IS ANY REGULATION WHATSOEVER.

    DIESEL IS CARCINOGENIC. CAUSES LUNG CANCER.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lisa

    BAN DIESEL BUSES, TRUCKS, TRANSPORT AND EVENTUALLY FERRIES, TUGS, FREIGHTERS AND YACHTS.

    WORLD HEALTH AND THE CANCER ORG. , KNOW THAT DIESEL IS CARCINOGENIC. CAUSES LUNG CANCER. DIESEL IS A KILLER. NOT JUST A CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. DIESEL GOES DIRECTLY IN TO OUR LUNGS, OUR CHILDRENS LUNGS….

    IT IS TIME TO SAY “NO” TO DIESEL. OTHER CITIES ARE DOING THIS.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] ron

    The approach to clean vehicles is a good start. I think that the power infrastructure needs to be looked at as our existing grid system will be found wanting when vehicle penetration exceeds the 5% target. This is something BC can do through BC Hydro since grid and its accompanying generation and distribution infrastructure are primarily owned by BC Hydro. In the developments for building improvements provision for a minimum 200 amp service / customer also should be anticipated as the current older house at 60 amps or 100 amps will probably not support fast charging or even off peak charging above minimal levels.
    Overall I would be more in favour of mandating the direction for ex. “By 20XX all vehicles sold and operated in BC will be electric whether by battery, fuel cell or some combination, or through true zero carbon fuels.” This sets the playing field clearly and leaves the solutions to automobile companies and
    innovators. Mandating has the potential to curtail development of better alternatives at a time when much more can still be learned.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    BC Hydro has already said they are fully able to support EV adoption of the BC vehicle fleet. Don’t worry about the grid.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jennifer

    Our transit system isn’t smooth and it should be cheaper or tax deductable. Then, more people would be encouraged to use it. Europe is a step ahead of us, always, as well as other countries it seems. Their transit system runs smooth and frequent and people can get anywhere. For BC, there is an accident on highway one between 264th and 200th street west and eastbound everyday if not twice a day. People speed like maniacs from both sides where there are 3 lanes and then they lose control when it goes down to 2 lanes or when people are merging from the exits (which have dangerous merging lanes). The amount of back up/traffic this causes is insane. When all back roads are backed up you know there is a problem. We also need less cars on the road. Electric or hybrid cars are not affordable for most British Columbians. We extend highway lanes but we don’t extend transit. All we know is to expand highways. Now we’ve ruined the middle forest median on the highway of heroes. 4 way stop signs worked for communities and cities when the population was minimal but now that it is out of control why do we still have them? Roundabouts make the most sense and would fix all traffic problems in busy intersections and running 4 way stop signs would no longer be an issue. Money should be invested in accessibility rather than giving pay increases to transit CEO’s or office members.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] gv

    I support a quick phaseout of sales of new ICE vehicles. We need to reduce VKTs overall first, then focus on ZEVs for the rest. I would like no more investment in single-occupancy vehicle infrastructure expansions like interchanges and highway widening, and instead we should work on land use that supports access rather than travel. Let’s get public transit transitioned to low-carbon renewable fuel and massively increase service levels throughout BC so that it becomes the affordable, convenient option. Let’s build out all ages and abilities bike infrastructure so that everyone has a safe place to bike. Let’s update the Motor Vehicle Act to make it safer on BC roads for people walking, biking, and taking transit (e.g. safe passing laws) and let’s massively increase enforcement of traffic laws so that our streets become safer for people using active transportation. Let’s make cycling safety training mandatory in schools. Let’s make our ferries electric. Let’s build video conferencing facilities so that people don’t travel so much by air or by road for work. Let’s remove the PST on all bikes, and bring in rebates for e-bikes and cargo bikes. Let’s facilitate the use of cargo bikes for urban freight deliveries. And yes, we can continue to provide incentives for ZEVs and charging infrastructure, and continue building the fast charging network, and update building code and the upcoming retrofit code to include EV charging requirements. We can also consider removing the taxes on EVs for a little while. I don’t think ending rebates when a 5% market share is reached is high enough, unless it’s timed to coincide with a phaseout of ICE vehicles, and advertized as such. The EV charging rebates for this year were all spoken for just months into the program, so there is plenty of demand for rebates.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] GV

    I support a quick phaseout of sales of new ICE vehicles. I have never owned a car and plan not to, enjoy cycling, public transit, and car sharing, and would like to see others making a similar transition in response to the climate crisis. I would like to see support for reducing single occupancy trips regardless of fuel type through land use changes and funding other options. Let’s fund electric and other low-carbon fuel conversions for public transit, and massively expand public transit service levels. Let’s fund a massive buildout of high quality, all ages and abilities cycling infrastructure, remove the PST on bikes and e-bikes, teach cycling skills and rules in all public schools, and update the Motor Vehicle Act to provide more support and safety measures for people not using cars (e.g. a safe passing law). Let’s get electric ferries. Let’s invest in video conferencing facilities so that people don’t fly for work so much. Let’s support R&D and pilot programs for heavy duty vehicles to get off fossil fuels (electric, biogas, hydrogen, etc.). I don’t know what to do about freight but please get some experts in on that. Cargo bikes and e-cargo bikes can help for urban area short distance deliveries. No more big interchanges and highway and bridge widenings and other single occupancy vehicle-encouraging investments – it’s all got to shift to more sustainable mobility modes. And yes, rebates for personal electric vehicles and fast charging network across the province, and requirements for all new buildings to have charging capabilities, and potentially in the retrofit code for buildings too, but with a priority on reducing VKTs first and overall. The 5% cap proposed on market share is way too low unless it’s coupled with a ban on new ICE cars at the same time. Despite there being a good business case for higher upfront costs and low operating costs for electric vehicles, an incentive will still be useful for behaviour change. Also, consider removing or reducing the taxes on electric vehicle purchases. I’m ready for big change!

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Catherine

    Future ban on purchase of new gas-powered cars – say by 2021. Follow Norway and Ireland’s lead. Be bold!

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    My input would be to offer large subsidies to encourage people to purchase ZEVs and the cost of home or business charging stations.
    Retrofitting existing vehicles to run on nitrogen fuel and ensure adequate fueling infrastructure.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laura

    We recommend extending the scope of the CEV Programs to include hydrogen fuel cell, dual fuel technologies, Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (HICE) technology, vehicle retrofitting, and medium and heavy-duty vehicles in its incentive and rebate programs.

    A wide range of technological options will be required to reach national and provincial Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets in the transportation sector, including solutions for new and existing vehicles. Technology solutions will also need to be supported by policies that preserve competitiveness, are inclusive and adjust to the speed of technology transitions. Ultimately, market forces will determine winners based on geographic location, vehicle class, use cases, availability and viability of alternative fuels and related refueling/recharging infrastructure. However, policy makers have the ability to set the conditions and level the playing field to enable all market participants to compete within an equivalent regulatory and incentives framework.

    For example, Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (HICE) technology represents one viable near term pathway for GHG reductions because it can create emissions reductions immediately with existing vehicle engines, while fuel cell or electric engines might be viable options for new vehicles as these technologies improve and the vehicle stock turns over.

    Clean Energy Vehicle (CEV) programs that incentivize the adoption of clean energy vehicles exist in various Canadian jurisdictions including British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Most programs include point-of-sale incentives for new electric, fuel-cell, and plug-in hybrid light-duty vehicles. Quebec includes hydrogen-powered vehicles, too. In terms of technology neutrality, limiting the use of hydrogen to fuel-cell technology excludes access to incentives by HICE vehicles.

    In terms of program scope, there is a limitation in the potential for emissions reductions, if such programs target new and light-duty vehicles only. Greater environmental benefits could be achieved by incentivizing medium and heavy-duty vehicle retrofits, as those vehicles generate roughly 10 times more emissions.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laura

    We recommend extending the scope of the CEV Programs to include: EVs, hydrogen fuel-cells, dual fuel technologies, Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (HICE) technology, vehicle retrofitting, and medium and heavy-duty vehicles in its incentive and rebate programs.

    A wide range of technological options will be required to reach national and provincial Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets in the transportation sector, including solutions for new and existing vehicles. Technology solutions will also need to be supported by policies that preserve competitiveness, are inclusive and adjust to the speed of technology transitions. Ultimately, market forces will determine winners based on geographic location, vehicle class, use cases, availability and viability of alternative fuels and related refueling/recharging infrastructure. However, policy makers have the ability to set the conditions and level the playing field to enable all market participants to compete within an equivalent regulatory and incentives framework.

    For example, Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine (HICE) technology represents one viable near term pathway for GHG reductions because it can create emissions reductions immediately with existing vehicle engines, while fuel cell or electric engines might be viable options for new vehicles as these technologies improve and the vehicle stock turns over.

    Clean Energy Vehicle (CEV) programs that incentivize the adoption of clean energy vehicles exist in various Canadian jurisdictions including British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. Most programs include point-of-sale incentives for new electric, fuel-cell, and plug-in hybrid light-duty vehicles. Quebec includes hydrogen-powered vehicles, too. In terms of technology neutrality, limiting the use of hydrogen to fuel-cell technology excludes access to incentives by HICE vehicles.

    In terms of program scope, there is a limitation in the potential for emissions reductions, if such programs target new and light-duty vehicles only. Greater environmental benefits could be achieved by incentivizing medium and heavy-duty vehicle retrofits, as those vehicles generate roughly 10 times more emissions.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laura

    Enabling a diverse and inclusive technology portfolio:

    The proposed ZEVs regulatory focus, mainly on light-duty plug-in hybrid, battery electric and fuel cell vehicles do not address the emissions of heavy-duty vehicles that are on the road and will continue to be driven for years to come. One specific technology-based solution that can be included in the pathway to clean transportation is hydrogen internal combustion engine (HICE) technology which has been introduced and commercially tested by Hydra Energy in British Columbia and is suitable for retrofitting post-sale heavy duty vehicles.

    Retrofitting post-sale heavy duty vehicles offers a significant opportunity to reduce carbon emissions that is not currently being fully supported in the proposed regulatory environment. Federal and provincial governments could create a more balanced competitive environment that encourages technology inclusiveness and the adoption of clean technologies in post-sale vehicle markets, plus capitalization on existing infrastructure.

    By enabling a diverse and inclusive technology portfolio, government can motivate investment in niche solutions that help meet emissions reductions targets faster. A technology neutrality/diversity approach within BC’s regulatory framework should expand eligibility for allowances, tax exemptions, incentives, and other programs on the same terms as currently intended for hydrogen fuel cells, plug-in Hybrids and electric battery technologies.

    While new fuel cell and battery technologies can be more easily applied to new vehicles, there are over one billion internal combustion engine vehicles on the road today and over 100 million new vehicles being sold annually, most of which are still designed to run on fossil fuels. Retrofitting such vehicles has an enormous potential as part of the transition to clean transportation. This solution also eliminates the trade-offs between price, weight, range and recharge time that breakthroughs in electric batteries and fuel cells still face.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Louise

    I support government steps to ensure the ready availability of clean vehicles at a range of prices, as well as steps to offset purchase costs. I would also support tax reductions and other incentives, and a scheduled ban on the sale of fossil fuel-dependent vehicles. We need to make the shift fast.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    Please consider the following:

    1. A carbon tax on the sale of vehicles that exceed the average fuel efficiency in their respective classes, based on federal standard measures of fuel economy. For example, a mid-size SUV that is less fuel efficiency than its competitors, will come with a carbon surtax. This tax, in addition to the provincial incentives program, may help curb the sale of gas-guzzling vehicles.

    2. Provide a discount on the insurance rates of ZEV vehicles to further lower the cost of ownership.

    3. Increase the number of parking stalls/HOV lanes for EVs. Implement road tolls for vehicles heading into busy urban areas (like London). Exempt EVs from the tax.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Amy

    The Province could assist with funding local community organizations to install vehicle charging stations in rural communities. This would encourage economic development and help build a sense of community in the smaller towns and villages in British Columbia.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Donovan

    The discussion paper appears to be aiming on the low side in terms of promoting the range of initiatives that are needed to move to cleaner transportation when it comes to promoting EVs. Certainly some kind of supply requirements for ZEVs would be welcome!

    I’d like to see the government integrate the current CEV for new vehicles and Scrap-It programs so ensure consistent program delivery and funding levels over the program terms. As it is currently, the different administrative channels and funding short-falls the are encountered by Scrap-IT and EV charger incentives soon after yearly or incentive introductions simply create a lot of confusion. To the point of being counter-productive.

    Also, the Tesla-penalizing CEV approach to the incentive not being available to vehicles over $75,000 is a policy that should be revisited. Yes, I understand the red-eye attitude that purchasers being able to afford such vehicles are not in need. But such an approach simply penalizes early adopters and in this case the company that in effect has made all EVs that are on the market today available at all.

    The plan to eliminate the CEV program once 5% market penetration of new vehicle sales seems arbitrarily low. I’d encourage considering simply reducing the incentive at stepped levels until market penetration reaches something in the order of 20-25%.

    That stated, consideration should be given to the merits of a lower cost approach for delivering on such incentives…. as with the mentioned PST exemption. Or what could be a partial exemption.

    Not mentioned in the discussion paper is the possibility of the provincial government negotiating with federal counterparts as to federal level rebates. Or simply developing joint rebate provincial-federal EV incentive programs. Why not, and why shouldn’t BC benefit given that we are adopters of carbon taxes, unlike a number of provinces that are outright fighting such initiatives. The Federal government should be rewarding such provinces as BC with jointly administered incentive programs.

    EV charging infrastructure and maintaining incentives for residences, MURBS (strata & rental), and work places needs to be enhanced. Further, specific attention needs to be placed on the MURB residential area. With perhaps at least a program to put in place a “right-to-request-and-plan” EV charging infrastructure.

    EV charging infrastructure for both existing buildings and new builds needs to be given weight. Thus the need to integrate this into building code requirements. The BC Energy Step Code should be expanded to include EV charging infrastructure within its scope. And thus, not to leave this to the ad hoc adoption at each municipal or regional jurisdiction. Both, in terms of building scope, but also factoring in building energy requirements. Energy efficient and low carbon builds should be leading the way with integration with EV transportation.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    Just no urgency in the intention papers. Even the name “intention” is so half- hearted. The road to hxll is paved with good “intentions” We are certainly on our way. We get the government we deserve. So public education needs to be part of this. Explain to the people who will vote you out of office for taking action the need for action. Our population doesn’t understand and are too busy with everything else to figure it out on their own. Add a section of public education.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Shirley

    It is counter-productive to try to encourage EV use while simultaneously raising hydro rates. We have sufficient power generation capacity in BC and should put our citizens ahead of selling to foreign markets. These policy issues need to be looked at together, and moving forward on this transition should be more aggressive than the intention paper proposes.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sara

    Scrap the PST on electric bike conversion kits.
    Provide an incentive for electric bikes and conversion kits and electric cargo bikes (particularly if they will be used by delivery companies in their fleet vehicles). It can be prohibitively expensive to purchase an electric bicycle because bike shops don’t offer the types of loans and financing car dealerships do, you have to actually have the funds upfront to purchase a much more expensive electric bike.
    Electric bikes should be prioritized over electric cars and the infrastructure for bicycles in cities should get greater funding so we can get to a cleaner and greener future much faster than the interim measure of reducing gas-based cars.
    If electric bikes were made less expensive more people would own them because they do provide benefits to health and wellness that no electric car can ever directly provide to its user.
    More needs to be done to force older model and much more polluting vehicles off of our roadways, for too long we have allowed these vehicles to operate in our cities where I frequently see blue smoke coming out of tailpipes. If we truly cared to reduce emissions we would not only incentivize electric cars but also remove older, more polluting cars from our roads. Emissions testing should be required of all older model vehicles registered in BC for healthy air and to encourage scrapping older model cars that will not be brought up to standards.

    3
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pascalle

    Re: prioritizing bikes over cars.
    This isn’t realistic. Bikes will never be adopted more than cars. Many people have to commute long distances to work because of skyrocketing housing prices. Also, when you have kids your day doesn’t just consist of going from point a to point b, then back again. You are commuting to schools, then to work, then to schools again, then to soccer practise, then to the grocery store, then home – can you imagine yourself doing all of this on a bike? With multiple children? probably not.
    More people will always be using cars, so if we don’t address cars appropriately and just focus on bikes, think about where that gets us.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ryan

    “If electric bikes were made less expensive more people would own them”

    I live 40kms from work. Like many Vancouverites, we’ve been priced out of the market and have had to move our families to Maple Ridge, PoCo, Surrey and other outlying towns. This is too far to bike to and from every day.

    The people who would buy e-bikes are people who already own bikes and since regular bikes are better for the environment, promoting e-bikes would probably have a negative impact on the environment. (albeit tiny)

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    I commute from Surrey to Burnaby on an ebike 20 km each way. I probably would drive more or take transit more if I didn’t have an ebike. I also use it to replace car trips when I am solo inside Surrey for afterwork activities

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    Not true. Many folks that have trouble pedalling due to leg or health issues are using electric bikes. Many living outside of the City of Vancouver are using e-bikes to commute to work.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    Why are traffic signals not synchronized? I have heard the arguments that facilitating traffic flow encourages more driving, but think this opposition to building more and bigger roads is inappropriately applied to signal synchronization. SS would reduce emissions, improve fuel economy, benefit all types of vehicles, reduce human time wasted in traffic, and make better use of existing infrastructure. SS software is readily available, and its programming and implementation are relatively easy, making SS possibly the cheapest, quickest way to improve the “greenness” of transportation.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    The only true “zero emission vehicles” are bicycles and feet, which are best used in pedestrian-oriented, mixed use developments where people need not drive long distances for shopping, work, school, or play. Local and provincial governments and the real estate and road-building industries still encourage sprawling, residential-only developments that are guaranteed to require excessive driving. Creating multiple-use, pedestrian-friendly “service centres” within 500m of all housing (new or existing) would greatly reduce the need to drive (and improve our communities). The intention paper’s limp reference to linking land use to transportation must be strengthened and made specific.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gerry

    Addressing the lack of EV charging in Multi Unit Residential Buildings with a combination of financial incentives and levies. A regulation that asserts a citizen’s “right to charge” could empower people to engage in demanding what they need to make the transition to emissions free personal transport.

    Cash rebates and tax holidays (sales tax and property tax) for power infrastructure upgrades to enable rapid deployment of EVSEs in MURBS. New buildings should be required to hard wire 100% of parking stalls for EVSE installation (Minimum” Level 1″ – 20 amps @ 120 Volts with 150% greater benefits for “Level 2- 30 amps @ 208 Volts”)
    It would be helpful in existing buildings to require a minimum of the equivalent of one shared NEMA 14/30 ( “dryer outlet” for occupant owned EVSEs with NEMA 14/30 plug) for 25% of parking spaces.
    This would simplify the requirements for selecting specific hardware at the outset, eliminating the hesitation based on fear of obsolescence of current EVSE models.

    Incentives mentioned above should be coupled with chronologically graduated increasing tax levy on properties based on the total footprint of parking area- (escalating from month to month over the next 3 years) as penalties for not addressing in a timely manner, the demand expressed by MURB residents for EV charging where they live. This “disincentive for avoidance of EVSE installation” program could be in the form of a carbon levy based on the % of total parking stalls not providing EV charging.

    These policies should be informed by the need to improve rewards for choosing other transport options but should offer robust support for those whose choices are limited to the use of personal vehicles for day to day travel. Not everyone can ride the bus or a bike. We need to empower the motorist in this province to take the first step away from Green House Gas emitting fossil fuel burning vehicles, rather than punishing them for subscribing to a lifestyle we were all complicit in creating.

    We need to hear and respect all voices across socio-economic segments and people who live in MURBS have not been served by existing EV support policies and programs. They are a large segment and we need to address their needs if we hope to take serious climate action with in the transportation sector.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mary

    My overall comment is I do not feel urgency in your approach. Lots of things you could do, but time lines are too long. Will you do all of your suggested actions? When will you do them?
    I would say move up your action targets big time.
    All new vehicle sales must be ZEV’s by 2025
    Be like Germany and ban sale of gas powered engines by 2030 (or before).
    All the incentives you mention for ZEV need to be implemented now.
    Increase the reduction of carbon in the fuel NOW.
    This is a WAR against climate break down….and I feel you have a “walk in the park” attitude. Where is your urgency?
    Surely the worst air in the world situation on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland should wake you up . Climate breakdown is not pleasant and it will get a lot worse.
    Also, stop LNG production. It is NOT clean and to put it in larger marine vessels doesn’t solve our climate problem but makes it worse.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    I completely agree. We are literally on fire and our government’s goal is…. 5% EV adoption rate? How bout a real target like 50% adoption rate in less than 5 years? Act like our kids depend on it… cause they do.

    Heck, I’d love to see fossil fuel burning banned like ozone killing CFCs were in the 80’s.

    Goal should be…
    EV adoption rate 100%
    New gas cars sales banned by 2025
    All used gas car sales banned by 2030
    All fossil fuel burning banned by 2035

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Paul

    While I support incentives for ZEVs, the biggest “bang for the buck” in terms of reducing emissions from personal transportation comes from mode shifting away from private automobiles toward walking, biking, and public transportation. That this is not even mentioned in this paper is surprising. To effectively mode shift will require an integrated approach including such things as taking measures to reduce sprawl. Funding should be shifted away from highways – which encourage sprawl – to improvements in public transportation and other measures. Even such things as policies which encourage developers to build more affordable (and energy efficient) housing in areas which are already urbanized can help in this area.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dave

    The incentives outlined are encouraging, but there is little mention of where the money will come from. It says in the overview that in Norway, more than half of new vehicles sales (52% in 2017) are electric or hybrids, thanks to an innovative combination of generous tax reductions and other incentives. This is possible because Norway has developed its natural resources – which is what Canada is not effectively doing at the moment and BC is making it more difficult through its position on the Trans Mountain pipeline. BC must work more cooperatively with other provinces and the federal government to build a strong economy that will provide the resources to undertake initiatives such as Norway is in a position to do.

    0
    2
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jack

    One of the keys to getting more EVs is at the municipal level. Service vehicles used by local governments fit very well with Evs as most business is done within city limits. Provincial government needs to provide funding to municipalities to incentivize the purchase of Evs.. The province also should work with car manufactures to obtain a bulk purchase agreement on buying Evs which would be passed on the all levels of government. The province also needs to set aside more money for grant incentives on purchasing EVs by the public.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Trevor

    ZEV options are limited for families. When we bought our van last year I wanted electric—hybrid at least. Very disappointed to find out efficient gas vehicles are as efficient or better than hybrid options. ZEVs seem to try match the power of gas vehicles and thereby limit potential efficiency, but I don’t need to accelerate quickly or tow a trailer, I just need to get around without gas. The only EV that could carry 2 adults, 3 kids, and cargo, was the newly releasing Chrysler Pacifica. Their hybrid version was priced as a luxury vehicle and out of our budget. Bought a 2012 Toyota Sienna instead, truly the only other option for our need and budget (about $30K). I already transit everyday to work and we walk and bike when possible, but can’t do all family food and activity needs without a vehicle and car share isn’t practicable with young kids in car seats.

    Solution?
    Short-term: I guess policies demanding auto-makers provide more efficient vehicles and better government rebate incentives. I was a willing purchaser with poor options and what I bought was definitely NOT my consumer vote (but unfortunately will be taken as such).
    Long-term: City infrastructure that flips the current transportation model on it’s head: Put walking and biking at the top, transit in the middle, and individual driving on the bottom, to guide funding and design decisions. I live in New Westminster, which generally has average-but-awful pedestrian access, but excellent vehicle access. What do you think people will choose with the options we have?

    If any brand had an EV with even 100km range on a charge (or a hybrid with better than 30mpg blended), space for 3 child carseats and cargo, and around the $30K mark, I’d’ve bought it in a heart beat.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    Take the PST off electric assist bicycles, and advertise the change.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    I am seeing many more EVs on the road, compared to just a year ago. We need to ramp up the installation of charging stations in both private commercial and public areas.
    Plug in electric ferries are already in use in Norway, and the batteries are supplied by a BC company! What an opportunity we have on a number of the short ferry runs in BC to go fully electric.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sarah

    The key to expanding adoption of Zevs has to be an expanded fast charging network. Right now they’re great for commuting and short trips but to get widespread adoption, people need to be able to imagine replacing their gas-burning vehicle. As long as charging is slow and sparse, that’s difficult for moat people to do.

    Until the range you can drive on battery alone is significantly increased, PHEVs are not zero emission. I didn’t buy one because none would do my 36km round trip commute without burning gas.

    Don’t forget electric bikes as a great way to replace a vehicle for short trips. We should be incentivizing e-bikes as well as cars.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sarah

    And don’t forget, to really make a dent in emissions from transportation we need to be encouraging people out of cars altogether. Funding transit, incentivizing and requiring bike lanes, adopting better road building standards, incentivizing municipal planning for complete communities where people can live and work, all of these things reduce traffic. Encouraging people to continue driving alone in electric vehicles is not enough

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] S.A.

    There should be an incentive to encourage initially, and then require in 2-3 years) that apartment owners install charging stations in their parking garages & parking lots and for cities to transition to electric buses.
    I would like to see a more aggressive program to create a network of rapid chanrging stations so people with EVs that have limited range can use them for longer trips.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Aird

    1. All new buildings should be required to have electric charging stations. Note that in our prairies, there are 120v electrical plug-ins, for block-heaters, absolutely everywhere. So, it can’t be too difficult for us to legislate 240v into new buildings and parking lots for basic EV charging.

    2. Make EV charging points in residential buildings two-way so the car batteries can act as a demand moderator for high-demand times on our electrical grid .

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Courteney

    I believe that the exemption of PST would encourage more people to purchase ZEVs.
    Some people may argue that there are not enough charging stations for electric vehicles, however, if more of these were installed in strategic locations (similarly how gas stations are set up – not necessarily within parking lots as I have often seen) I believe ZEVs would gain popularity quickly.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Courteney

    Also, I think the government needs to make the benefits of buying and owning a ZEV more blatant. Until I read these papers, I did not know that ZEV could drive in the HOV lane regardless of how many passengers are inside. I did not know about any incentives for buying a ZEV. Perhaps create ads and commercials to educate the public about these incentives as well as the benefits of driving a ZEV.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alexandra

    Clean vehicles are clearly part of the future in BC if we’re to have one. Subsidies for clean vehicles in much the same way as we received subsidies for changing from oil heat to a heat pump would encourage people for whom it would otherwise be impossible.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Brad

    I was disappointed to discover that funding for installing a home charging station had been exhausted by the end of June. I had started the process of acquiring a charging station by having an electrician install a sub panel in my home so my electrical system could handle a charging station. My project was interrupted by travel plans but, since the rebate program information did not indicate a termination date, I felt confident that I could complete the project on my return. I am hoping another initiative might be forthcoming to assist me in completing this project.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    I live in a Condo. I bought a home charger for my parking stall after I got strata approval. Turned out only detached homes qualified for single charging station rebates and because I lived in a multi unit apartment, I was excluded. It’s these kind of barriers gov’t put up that hurt EV adoption

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mohammad

    How much did the home charger cost you Chris? Do you have a meter attached to it? How do you pay the strata?

    Have you also looked into local technologies like http://www.plugz.io that claims to solve the EV charging dilemma at Condos?

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Was $750 for the charger. Yea its attached to my meter

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] ST

    Uncap ZEV rebate for purchase price. Manage the program yourselves not the auto industry conglomerate new car dealers which has alterior motives.

    No one is buying a leaf to replace their Range Rover. Instead change HOV access to only 100% zero emissions, no half ass hybrids that still require burning of fuel. Increase the incentive and phase out amount once thresholds are met. Year 1 10k, once 100,000 sold cut in half etc.

    Most impactful with less revenue impact would be free parking in city of vancouver. Street side charging like in Norway.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] ST

    Also remove the luxury tax from any vehicle contributing to cleaner breathing air. Penalizing people for making a health conscious decision for their own benefit and everyone around them should not include extortionist taxing given the long term benefits (restrict it to 4 seater + as another commenter mentioned to exclude supercars).

    NDP/greens you have a real chance to be leaders here. Scrap new car dealer administration of CEVforBC and let’s get moving on sustainable transport incentives including bikes:)!

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Agree completely with ST.

    Most of all with scrapping the New Car Dealership Association that administer the program

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Wendy

    Incentivize a full complement of electric options by offering a subsidy/tax incentive for both electric bicycles and conversion kits (add-on kits make a conventional bicycle electric). E-bikes encourage green transportation over longer commutes, easing the burden on congested roadways. They also attract ridership to integrated transit, and make cycling more inclusive to beginners and older folks. Build a separated shoulder on long distance routes (e.g. Lougheed Highway) — this is cheap and easy to do with concrete Jersey barriers, while including designated motor vehicle turn offs for roadside emergencies.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Erin

    How to encourage:
    – extend the Scrap-It program under new management and assess program strengths & weaknesses before re-implementing
    – increase the variety of ZEVs available for purchase in BC
    – require dealerships to educate consumers on ZEV options (with penalties for non-compliance, self-reported by consumers)
    – allow gas stations to sell power for charging stations to transition fossil fuel infrastructure to ZEV friendly businesses. Most people want to use the bathroom, purchase from the convenience store, and fuel up all in the same stop; this would decrease the degree of behaviour change required and reduce owners & employees of gas stations resistance to change.
    – ZEV specific parking in downtown centers
    – phase out the sale of gas powered cars by 2030, following the international example. While it is possible that future governments may change this goal, it still serves the purpose of pressuring dealerships and manufacturers to transition to ZEVs more quickly
    – all new residential buildings, especially multi-resident units, should be wired for home charger installations
    – set up provincial EV battery recycling program to recover precious metals and reduce negative environmental impact of increased ZEV usage
    – continue to increase carbon tax at predictable intervals (1% per year, for example) to incentivize ZEVs and reduce provincial reliance on fossil fuels
    – increase availability of light duty ZEVs for regions with challenging terrain
    – program home charging stations to draw power overnight/ outside of peak hours and charge a lower rate for owners who voluntarily participate

    Other aspects of clean energy transportation missing from this proposal:
    – increase bicycle infrastructure for bike lanes, bike racks, and separate bike trails that are family-friendly (and cut distance for commuting)
    – support the creation and maintenance of vehicle co-ops so that everyone can have access to 4WD, wheelchair vans, and pick-up trucks on occasion. Provide an additional incentive for co-ops looking to purchase ZEVs for communal usage
    – invest in electric buses, not LNG or diesel buses that will have to be replaced in the near future. Make public transportation a clean alternative
    – subsidize the purchase of electric bicycles, as they overcome a lot of the barriers that individuals face in choosing to commute on a traditional bicycle and reduce vehicle traffic
    – stop expanding road infrastructure to accommodate more cars; inconvenience is a great motivator for carpooling, using rapid transit, walking, cycling, etc.
    – reinstate the toll on the Port Mann bridge; increased cost motivates commuters to carpool or invest in living closer to their place of work/study
    – prioritize snow removal on sidewalks and cycling paths over roads; prioritize people over cars
    – increase rideshare infrastructure such as centralized regional websites with separate options for one-time trips or regular commutes and accountability measures such as ratings, online payment, etc.

    And on a final note, HOV lanes should remain for cars with 2+ occupants – even people using ZEVs should carpool!

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sean

    Increase the gas tax. Put a levy on insurance for older, higher emission, vehicles.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Judith

    Maintain and expand the CEV program, with a focus on BEVs.
    Dramatically expand the charging infrastructure, especially the DCFC network – people will not buy until they know they can easily recharge ‘on the go’.
    Require all new vehicle purchases to be EVs by 2025 – we need to make the transition happen now.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Susan

    BC Hydro should stop the tier 2 program entirely. If electricity is the cleanest way to heat our homes, why penalize us?

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Susan

    Enable commercial recharging stations where EV owners and operators pay for the power they use. Why should EVs have free power?

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Derek

    Incentives are the primary tool used to get people to change their habits. Continue and expand BC’s EV incentive program and continue the expansion of the charging network and consumers will follow

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Irene

    I support your program but your incentive should be higher than $5000 for the electric car. Ontario had a $10,000 incentive + $500 for the vehicle charging station until the PC government cancelled it.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    Sounds good. I hope you will provide some cash incentives for zero emission vehicles, similar to what Ontario had up until Ford was elected. Unfortunately, he cancelled the whole program. I have a hybrid now but would like to upgrade to a plug in version which would cut my carbon emissions by another 50%. Thank you.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Firat

    I would love to see CEV program get more funding and continue! I think it isa great way to encourage people!

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Frederick

    Some of the cleanest electric vehicles are ebikes for travel in cities Yet ebikes are not offered incentives. Further, ebikes are still subject to provincial sales tax, unlike regular bicycles. Ebikes also address the congestion issue. In 2017 Germans bought 720,000 ebikes.

    Meanwhile the administration south of us is putting a 25% tariff on ebikes.

    Let’s do it right here in BC!

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] I.

    There is a glaring omission in this transportation plan — there is nothing at all about bicycle transportation. Bicycles are an essential component of a green transportation network. Bicycle infrastructure is low-cost to build, and generates many savings and economic stimuli: 1) Savings in healthcare costs by encouraging active transportation — inactivity is estimated to cost $5.3 billion in health care costs annually 2) higher productivity when air pollution is reduced (recent studies show that even low level air pollution costs billions in lost productivity 3) savings in road repair costs 4) retail businesses increase sales when situated on bicycle routes, because these streets attract foot and bike traffic 5) the overall cost benefit analysis of investing in bicycle infrastructure in almost all studies is between 13:1 and 19:1 — this is extraordinarily high value for money. More info on economic benefits of cycling:

    Better bicycle networks increase efficiency and safety for everyone: 1) intentional-design urban planning practices demonstrate that motor vehicle congestion is reduced by building alternatives like public transportation and bike routes 2) bicycle infrastructure integrates well with public transport systems, and increases convenience of both, making for a powerful attractant to increase ridership of both. 3) As bicycle ridership increases, safety increases for all roadway users — this is a well-demonstrated virtuous cycle. See and . Bicycle infrastructure increases social cohesion and reduces violent crime .

    Cities using Vision Zero strategies to reduce crashes and pedestrian fatalities rely on bicycle improvements as a cornerstone of this approach; while implementing Vision Zero, NYC has seen a 45% decrease in pedestrian deaths between 2013-17, despite a US nationwide rise of 13% in the same time frame . Using simple techniques like traffic calming and leveraging community initiatives like Bike to Work Week, neighbourhood streets are safer and quality of life is increased. A Vision Zero approach would help ICBC’s bottomline as well.

    Bicycle infrastructure is not just an urban amenity. As most of BC has lost Greyhound operation, connecting communities with bicycle lanes on secondary highways can fill in yawning gaps in rural transportation networks as well. A relatively small investment in infrastructure brings increased tourism and higher safety for locals, especially youth (reduced reliance on hitchhiking for example). This is also of immense benefit to coastal communities as well. British Columbia has the largest fleet of ferries in the world, and car capacity is the largest limiter of ridership. By building more bicycle infrastructure to/between ferry terminals, and to/from other transit hubs, more British Columbians can choose to bring their bicycles on ferries and connector buses/trains, thus increasing ridership on BC Ferries. Many people choose to ride bicycles year-round despite snow and rain conditions ; estimates put this at 30%-50% of summer ridership; modest investment in rider education and bicycle infrastructure can easily increase these figures.

    For these and many other reasons, it is urgent and essential that bicycle transportation is incorporated into BC’s climate strategy if we are to maximize our sustainable future.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lin

    Talking about clean vehicles has to address the elephant in the room. Clean vehicles aren’t the solution. Removing private vehicle trips by replacing them with sustainable, zero emission and low emission trips is. That means shifting away from private vehicles, whether they are electric or not, and replacing those trips with bicycle trips, walking trips and mass public transit trips. In order to make active transportation viable, it must be safe. Safe system infrastructure to connect bike networks across municipal boundaries and connect to transit hubs must be part of the clean transportation plan. Reducing road speeds, taking huge vehicles off the road (SUV’s and lack ‘pickups’) and making roads safer and more inviting for vulnerable road users who chose active transportation over private cars, must go hand in hand with transitioning away from fossil fuel consuming private vehicles. “…transportation is now the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States—and it has been for two years, according to an analysis from the Rhodium Group.” https://newrepublic.com/article/150689/modern-automobile-must-die

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    Grants for all electric vehicles (EV) should be increased significantly from the current grant of $5000, I think this grant should be doubled.

    Hybrid vehicles should also be part of an expanded grant program. This class of ” Grants” could be based on the maximum range a hybrid vehicle can travel off just its fully charged stored electrical energy medium.

    Vehicles that us pure hydrogen as their fuel source ( gaseous or liquid) only should also qualify for grants

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] cindy

    Set a date for a ban on gasoline and diesel vehicles. Continue subsidies for purchasers of ZEVs. Increase transit funding (including lowered user fees) and bike infrastructure funding to provide convenient alternative transportation in urban areas because this reduces the need for a car – or perhaps a 2nd car – removing one or more gas/diesel car off the road. Currently, we keep two cars, but would go down to one – a (currently more expensive) ZEV – if we knew we could get around conveniently and inexpensively, mostly, by bus and bike so we wouldn’t need the 2nd vehicle. If you have an electric vehicle, perhaps offer families free bus passes. ZEVs need charging stations for longer trips between cities – in town in not so important as distances are short and people can usually recharge at home. Provide subsidies for recharging stations in new condos or apartment buildings and make them mandatory for new houses and apartments.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mark

    I currently drive a 2004 minivan. I am price conscious, but want to buy an electric car when this vehicle dies. I strongly recommend that BC continue to have incentives for electric vehicles. I recommend that this support continues to at least 10% to ensure adequate momentum is established.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Phu

    I would support continued EV subsidy from CEV and extend BC Scrap It program. I recently took advantage of both programs and found they offered a good incentive for me to go electric. Otherwise the cost of a new EV would be beyond my budget. A used EV would have also been an option as well but the total incentive lead me to purchase new.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ron

    I bought an electric vehicle 18 months ago. I suggest the Province provide more incentives to increase electric vehicle purchases such as more grants, more charge stations, more high speed charge stations, reduce insurance rates (as an incentive), improved information on electric vehicle ownership benefits.

    BC Hydro needs to stop charging the 2nd tier rate when I charge my vehicle and run my low carbon air source heat pump to heat my house.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    Many heavily populated areas in BC are ideal for all electric vehicles. Double the grant for the purchase of all electric cars and light commercial vehicles. Provide a grant for hybrid vehicles based on maximum range from stored battery energy only. Do not waste funds on fighting the Kinder Morgan Pipeline expansion.

    Success on this portfolio will require Site C Dam energy and additional renewable resources.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James.

    Offer incentives to purchase cleaner vehicles. Require car and truck dealers to sell certain percentage, increasing regularly, of clean vehicles.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] C

    Larger incentives = more BEVs = Better environment

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rick

    This Energy Mix article provides a good perspective of what the priorities are and it would appear an all out effort to park global warming at no more than 2C. Quote: Holthaus stresses that, “yes, the prospect of runaway climate change is terrifying. But this dead world is not our destiny. It’s entirely avoidable. As the authors of the paper have argued in response to the coverage, implying otherwise is the same as giving up just as the fight gets tough.”

    The research raises pressing questions about “whether the world’s climate can be safely ‘parked’ near 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels, or whether this might trigger other processes which drive further warming, even if the world stops emitting greenhouse gases,” CBC reports. While the solutions are out there—same as they’ve ever been—the report stresses that attacking carbon pollution directly is just the essential first step.

    “Currently, global average temperatures are just over 1.0°C above the pre-industrial period and rising at 0.17°C each decade,” CBC notes, citing the report by scientists from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the University of Copenhagen, Australian National University, and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. That would mean another five to six decades to add another degree Celsius—or to accelerate the full menu of solutions to decarbonize the energy system and draw down greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere. http://www.theenergymix.com/2018/08/07/hothouse-earth-urgent-action-needed-to-avoid-severe-climate-tipping-points-study-confirms/

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alan

    I am sorry if I am missing something but last time I checked, the cleanest zero-emission vehicles on the planet are also the most low-tech, quiet, efficient and cheap, with the added benefit they improve the cardiovascular systems of the people who use them. They are called bicycles. Any clean transportation program that doesn’t put bicycle infrastructure at the centre of the range of policy options is ill-conceived. The most profoundly efficient cities of the world like Copenhagen, Helsinki or Amsterdam have bred a culture of transportation cycling that produces healthy citizens, clean cities and the massively efficient movement of people. If even a tiny fraction of BC’s proposed investments in so-called clean cars could be diverted to cycling infrastructure then we could see a return on investment that could be measured in more than cleaner cities, but less congestion, less illness, and less healthcare spending. You can’t say that for zero emission cars.

    6
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Eve

    Subsidy for purchace of new electric vehicles by expanding the CEV program and bc scrap it.
    Make a larger variety of EV’s available in Canada like the Zoe.
    Expand the existing residential charger installation subsidy as it ran out in only two months.
    Phase out fossil fuel ferries and go electric as in Norway.
    Subsidize electric semi for transportation of goods.
    Subsidy for installation of solar panels to diversify and decentralize the electric grid. Include inverters that can handle providing power to the home in the event of a black out.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Anneliese

    Electric vehicles will help only if the electricity used is from wholly clean sources.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    1. BC gets its electricity from Hydro which doesn’t emit C02

    2. Even if BC got it’s electricity from coal, it would still be better for the environment

    It appears the fossil fuel misinformation campaign is alive and well. This just shows we need to have a Advertising campaign to go along with the program to help correct all the falsehoods out there

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Brent

    Extend the current CEVforBC program as it’s likely going to run out this fall, the timing of it exhausting its funds coincides with the arrival of a batch of Tesla Model 3 AWD vehicles. Individuals like myself having to travel over mountain passes and in harsher winter conditions in the interior benefit from the AWD, but need an incentive program to offset the extra cost. If anything, add increased bonuses for cars built for our Canadian winters.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Romika

    Let CEVforBC die please. Create a new program with a different administrator.

    Thanks

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tom

    grants for vehicle purchases, home chargers, and more public fast charging stations

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mark

    Reduce costs – including insurance as an incentive. EVs travel primarily local therefore less risk.

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lee

    Especially given BC’s low emission electricity generation system we should have much more than the current level of about 0.3% CEVs registered. We should start to shift from a tax-supported incentive system for car purchasers towards car-maker requirements to sell/lease minimum numbers of CEVs/ZEVs. This can be modeled on the Quebec/California system, which car-makers are already familiar with. This will be financially more sustainable and likely be more politically palatable over the medium term.
    One issue associated with such requirements is that they may not benefit Canada’s vehicle emissions as a whole since car-makers are subject to national fleet average emissions standards. The more ZEV vehicles sold in BC and Quebec, the less effort required on CEVs in the rest of Canada. Discussions are needed with federal officials to monitor such potential developments. Also, with Canada’s vehicle emission standards synchronized with the US and given the political difficulties with these standards in the US, BC should be ready to align with Quebec and California should the Canada renege on its current policy commitments.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Donald

    Build up our rail network and electrify it.
    Half of the total life-cycle emissions from private motor vehicles occur before they leave the dealers lot, so EV’s are of little help.
    Build enough public transit, to phase in car-free cities, and car-free suburbs.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sandra

    Require the car dealerships whose manufacturers produce ZEV, to ensure that they have them in stock in a timely way and have enough of them to meet the demand. My observation is that they are dragging their feet. Perhaps it is because of the manufacturer but I think we should be pushing them. There are currently many options available but they are not being promoted by the dealers.
    Also, encourage the Times Colonist and other newspapers to include news about ZEVs in their weekly “Driving” sections.
    Make any fleets possible ZEV to demonstrate that they are a good option.
    If ZEVs were more visible to the public they may begin to realize that they are among them already! Perhaps a harmless decal could be offered to all ZEV owners to display on their vehicles – I notice we are all quite proud of our choice of driving a ZEV.
    Continue to expand the number of fast charging stations on municipality to municipality routes and in destinations such as Tofino.
    Have the appropriate Ministries and institutions such as universities submit articles to newspapers, articles, news reports, etc. to dispel some of the misinformation that is being put out about availability, cost and efficiency of ZEVs.

    1
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Frances

    There are already engines that use electric power instead of gasoline. More of these engines need to be built and available to everyone who buys a car.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Greg

    To support increased use, the provincial government should mandate that all rentals by government employees on the job should be ZEVs as default option, if available.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Guuduniia

    The price rebate is a great idea as the cost difference is significance and has caused me to hesitate on buying a hybrid vehicle. I would also advocate for research to be done so that more hybrid vehicles can tow which many cannot at this time due to the technology of the recapture cannot handle the extra weight of the towed item on the regeneration of power.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Shirley

    Provide incentives towards purchasing of zero immisions vehicles by reducing taxes for them. Increase network of re-charge stations across the province. Enable municipalities to purchase more electric public transit vehicles.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] adon

    I would love to be able to own an electric vehicle and travel from the Northeast corner of the province to any corner of BC with the ability to use quick chargers so the travel experience is not much different from a typical gasoline-fuel experience.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Peter

    Continue to fund and incentivise rebates towards Full EV’s and not Hybrids. Assist and provide homeowners with a rebate towards infrastructure, such as level 2 chargers. Scrap-it credit should be similar with no Hybrids and make it more available to all EV’s and not a limited amount to certain cars.

    2
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jordan

    I would like to see the province ask for a municipality in BC to volunteer to pilot a “golf cart only” policy. In the city limits of said municipality only golf carts would be allowed, and cars would have to park and switch, or go around the city.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ian

    I’d love to see the continuation of the CEV for BC rebate to help encourage people (like myself) to take advantage and get an EV. If it wasn’t for the discount, I would not have considered the capital expense of getting an EV. I would also encourage you to advertise the rebate as I was only made aware of it by word of mouth.

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    That’s the fault of the CEVforBC administrator which is run by dealerships. Dealerships don’t want you buying electric cars as electric cars require almost zero maintenance and servicing. They have a financial incentive to not educate or notify potential car buyers of the benefits of the program. This is why I firmly believe if we want the program to succeed… the administrator needs to be replaced with a non profit environmental group.

    So I agree. The program should come with a large advertising budget

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Laurie

    The challenge is to stop talking about it and get it done! More incentives for those that are financially unable to make the switch. Get busy on your charging infrastructure. Stop listening to the Fossil Fuel Industry and start listening to British Columbians and the rest of the world. Hurry up!

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    I am a little confused about the underlying philosophy behind this policy. BC’s primary tool to fight global warming is the carbon tax. If that isn’t accomplishing the emission reductions BC wants, why not just raise the carbon tax a little higher? And why is the government planning to phase out ZEV promotion measures after an arbitrary 5% target is reached? What exactly is the government’s justification for intervening in the market at all? The answer to these questions matter when deciding what kind of measures the government should take.

    If we take a purely capitalistic perspective, you could say that global warming is fundamentally caused by government interventions in the market that favour fossil fuels. The government uses tax money to build free roads, bridges, side street parking, and snow removal service on roadways. This has the result of encouraging British Columbians to have long commutes to their work and schools, which results in high greenhouse gas emissions.

    If the government were to stop using taxes to pay for a free road network, and instead sold roads off to a multitude of private businesses, the result would likely be a smaller number of roads, each one having a toll on it. This would strongly encourage workers to have shorter commutes, and it would encourage businesses to have a larger number of smaller offices for its workers spread throughout the region, and it would also encourage them to experiment with telecommuting options. These would be positive developments for the environment and they could be achieved without any government intervention in the marketplace. It just requires that government stop using tax money to build and maintain free roads.

    If we take a more socialistic perspective, the government could raise taxes on businesses and use that money to give every household in British Columbia a free electric car, and simultaneously ban the sale of gasoline at gas stations. This action would likely cost many billions of dollars, but it would make huge progress toward BC’s greenhouse gas targets, resulting in a decreased need for other measures like the carbon tax.

    The government appears to be taking a Keynesian approach, where markets are mostly free, but the government occasionally intervenes for the good of society. In this case, encouraging people to drive clean cars instead of dirty cars is a good idea. But I would like you to consider why the government is looking to increase sales of zero emission motorized vehicles instead of zero emission modes of transit in general. For example, bicycles are zero emission vehicles whose use can be encouraged by building more bike lanes. I personally would ride a bike everywhere if there was a more comprehensive network of these lanes.

    The government could also promote the use of zero emission electric scooters by lowering the barriers for elderly people to qualify to get them for free. This could eliminate the need for car trips.

    Tax breaks on walking shoes could encourage people to walk to their destinations more. Better public transit would encourage people to take environmentally friendly mass transit more often. In my opinion, the real goal here should not be to increase the sale of electric cars; it should be to decrease the sale of gas-powered vehicles.

    If the policy is going to be limited to promoting ZEV use though, all of the measures that were proposed look positive to me. My strongest support among these options would go toward the policies that most closely mimic the subsidies that already exist for gas-powered vehicles, such as creating more recharge stations in convenient locations, and an expansion of the use of HOV lanes, which would essentially create free roads for ZEV’s. However, I would still like the government to consider just how much intervention in the market is justified to reach its target.

    Summary of recommendations: (1) Expand this program to include promoting the sale of bicycles and electric scooters. (2) Re-frame the goal of this program to reducing the sale of gas-powered vehicles. (3) Take a hard look at indirect subsidies for gas-powered vehicles and eliminate them. (4) Base any intervention in the automobile market on well thought out economic theory, and use that to determine the aggressiveness of the intervention. (5) If policy is going to be limited to ZEV’s, the best measure to take is the creation of more recharge stations.

    1
    3
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    While your approach to punishing the citizens of BC for making poor decisions would be effective in reducing C02, it is also an effective way to be voted out of office and replaced with a Doug Ford or Trump style character.

    You’re not taking into account human nature. A fantastic article written by Michael Barnard from Cleantechnica said this;

    “Any proposed transformation which requires human nature to change will fail.

    Some gross generalizations are true about a large majority of people. They want comfort. They want convenience. They want safety for themselves, their friends, and their families. They want to have fun. They are incredibly bad at making rational decisions for themselves, never mind for strangers on the other side of the world impacted by their decisions. They care about status and will seek it out in innumerable ways. When given sufficient money and security, most of them will become self-absorbed, not absorbed in helping others. They want more than they have, and more specifically they want more than the people around them have. They value something that they have right now more than something that will occur in 20 or 100 years.

    So when we talk about necessary changes to combat global climate change, it has to be in context of those gross generalizations. Fighting human nature is like King Canute ordering the tide to not come in. Whether it’s a story of an arrogant king or a king teaching humility to his courtiers, the tide still came in. Human nature will win.

    This sounds like bad news, but it isn’t. As pointed out, everything is going to be running on electricity and electronics. This means people are getting more and more but it is more and more efficient. Flat panel TVs today draw a fraction of the electricity of older TVs but have much better resolution and colour. As pointed out, cars are massively better and about to get supplanted with even better electric cars.

    People continue to win better and better gains at lower and lower energy costs with fewer and fewer negative externalities. Mostly that’s due to electricity coming through the grid.

    And the way to get people to shift to better alternatives faster is through understanding human nature too. Efficiency programs that depended on educating people barely moved the dial. Giving people better TVs, refrigerators, stereos, smartphones, and lights moved the dial a lot. And a bunch of people made a lot of money on the transformation and continue to.”

    – Michael Barnard – November 12th, 2017

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Emmet

    I support subsidies for electric vehicles, including installation of solar panels at home and work to power them.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Julia

    Benefits to Electric Vehicles (EV):
    Cost Savings – EVs cost as little as $320 a year for electric fuel compared to $2400 for a gasoline.
    EVs Reduce Carbon Emissions, Diverse Models, Latest Technology, Less Maintenance.
    Ease of charging – 110V, 240 V and 480 V will all work although timing will vary.
    Access to HOV lanes and EV parking.

    One big challenge is maintaining affordability and that’s why the EV rebate is so important. Access to high power charging stations can also be an issue because they will charge a car much more quickly than a lower voltage charger.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] James

    Make it easier to install charging in MURBs
    Change electricity rates to time of use. Currently EV owners charging at home usually pay the higher price for power
    Promote the cost saving of electricity over gas.
    Allow businesses to install public chargers and charge for power.
    Incentivize workplace charging infrastructure.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ron

    On a provincial level, I think the most important thing is having purchase incentives for EVs. The up front costs are higher, although the fuel and maintenance costs are lower.
    Having a provincial mandate for having wiring for chargers in new construction is another area were the province could step up. This is less clear, as the local zoning laws are a better way to address this issue, but it does give a piecemeal solution.
    Insurance costs are another issue. I’ve seen reports that EV insurance is more expensive than that for a comparable internal combustion vehicle, and that is a deterrent to ownership. Are the costs really higher? If data says ‘no’, then the insurance rates ought to come down.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ian

    1) Simple. Follow the lead of Germany, India, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands and Norway and ban the sale of new gas cars in the province by 2030. That will have the single biggest impact.
    2) Dramatically improve consumer education to remove “range anxiety”. New EVs have a range of 250+ kms and you conveniently plug in and charge during “down time” eg while shopping, at a restaurant, at the cinema, overnight while sleeping etc. because there are chargers everywhere.
    3) Dramatically increase the number of DCFC and their reliability. There are 64 DCFC in BC… but that is only ONE charge point per location. Tesla has multiple charge points per location thus almost completely removing any risk of having to wait for a charge. Additionally, when a charger goes offline it can take a week before it is back online again. It is awesome though that many of these chargers are FREE.
    4) Scrap-It is awesome, but it should not be a private org. Should be government run without restrictions and operated in conjunction with ICBC to ensure that those taking advantage of the program have held valid insurance for at least 1 year. The current Scrap-It program has limited availability and is too easy to game.
    5) Maintain and enhance incentives. 75%/$750 rebate on home chargers was excellent, but short lived. HOV is also useful. Discounted BC Ferries and free access to National Parks would be great.
    6) Discounted electricity rates for home EV charging.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    1. I totally agree. The problem with this however is which govt will be in power in 2030? And couldn’t the Govt simply change the law in 2029 after heavy lobbying from automakers? Missed targets replaced with new, further down the road targets, happen all the time without consequences. Most recently BCNDP and Greens voted to move the goal post on BC’s emission targets after it was apparent there was no way to meet them
    See this article for details: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-government-drops-greenhouse-gas-target-for-new-2030-goal-1.4653075

    2. Completely agree. Most new pure electric cars can travel between 250km and 500km per charge. That would cover the daily commute of 99.99% of the population however very few people know this.

    3. Not sure why Govt has to build public charging stations for automakers who make billions of dollars a year in profits. If profitless Tesla can build their own superchargers, so can Ford, GM and the rest. I think BC should either mandate automakers to build them if they want to continue to sell cars in BC or 100% of the funding should come directly from the sale of gas cars.

    4. Agreed. Especially with ending the contract with the private org. They have run the program terribly

    Points 5 and 6 I totally agree with

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Robert

    It was the incentives that finally made me decide to buy an electric vehicle. So I have put down a deposit on a car. Then I went to apply for the incentive /rebate for the charging station for my home only to find out that this has been closed off as of July and I cannot even apply to be on a wait list. ? We need to bring back some of these rebates incentives. For electricity why do some provinces have lower rates for off peak hours? Should this not be the same for B.C ?

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Barbara

    Continue offering rebates for EV purchasers; continue allowing single occupancy EVs to use HOV lanes; introduce lower ferry rates for EVs (this will also benefit ferry workers by eventually reducing the emissions they breathe in); offer EV chargin on ferries; continue to improve the number of DC Fast Charging stations around the province for long distance driving; make the process for accessing DCFC stations simple and consistent; provide programs to encourage municipalities to make at least Level 2 chargin stations available at all public facilities; work with businesses to make EV charging readily available to employees; set an example by using as many EVs as possible for provincial government purposes; provide legislation that will guarantee the right of EV owners living in multi-family dwellings to access electricity in parking areas for their vehicles; provide incentives and a model process to help strata corporations do the right thing; cnsider supporting innovative ideas such as charging stations attached to street lights for residential vehicle charging; continue efforts to publicize and encourage the public to switch to electric vehicles; reduce the provincial sales tax on electric vehicles; introduce measures that would require automible manufacturers and dealers to provide EVs to consumers and reach certain sales targets or suffer penalties. Clearly some of these measures are being considered and the examples from California and other states, Norway and other European countries are very instructive and worth emulating. It will take a long time to reduce carbon levels and (hopefully) begin to slow or even reduce global warming, but we are already late to the game and need to step up the pace of change. By the way, electric vehicles are cheaper to operate and fun to drive – no harm in making use of these facts too.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Elad

    I think a huge barrier is lack of charging for multiple residence buildings (condos etc). Ensuring that stratas are supportive, that all new such residential buildings have this infrastructure, is key. As a 6 year EV owner, I’ve had the ability to charge in my garage each night. I always wake up with a full tank. As a result, there has *NEVER* been a need for me to use charging infrastructure in the public. As EV ranges even on the low end creep up to 200 km + this will be more and more the case. So funds, incentives, laws around strata availability of chargers will be key. In some residential areas with only street parking, similarly having slower charging available outside is key.

    Having nice perks like HOV is useful and I know has driven adoption as well.

    Removing sales tax from EVs and luxury tax from them may be a better way than cash incentive. It seems the scrap it got harder to use which is too bad.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mohammad

    Hi Elad,

    Totally agree with you on providing solutions for Condo residents.

    Have you looked into technologies like Plugz.io which promise to solve condo issues with EV chargers?

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mark

    I would strongly support the Government of BC matching the green policies and directives of Norway !!!

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] D

    EVs are here to stay.
    My six year experience has been all good. Save money and emissions.
    Offset production of electricity by use of PVs adds an element so powerful it adds to quality of life.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jim

    My only question is why were so far behind everybody else in this regard. Let’s get on with it.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jeremey

    One thing to correct immediately is restricting the Scrap-It program to 10 rebates per car dealer. This means dealers in Fort St. John who won’t sell many EVs if any at all, are allocated 10 each. And the Vancouver dealer Tesla, who only has ONE location in BC, is only allocated 10 rebates but will actually comprise, I’m sure, of most of the EV sales across BC. Because of how the 10-limit is set up, the Scrap-It program looks like it has banded together with the traditional car dealers in the province to remove the incentive for most of the BC citizens that will be getting an EV. It’s ridiculous.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ian

    Completely agree Jeremey. But…

    1) Scrap-It is a private, not-for-profit organisation and has nothing to do with the BC government. In BC we are fortunate that it exists
    2) Different Scrap-It people have told me the same thing… all three Tesla locations were offered allocations but only West Oak accepted.
    3) It is far too easy to game the system. I have read of folks that buy a junker and insure it for 6 months then trade it in for Scrap-It and get $6,000 check. That is not the spirit of the program and I hope they change it so you have to prove at least 1 year of ownership/insurance.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    “the Scrap-It program looks like it has banded together with the traditional car dealers in the province to remove the incentive for most of the BC citizens that will be getting an EV”

    That’s exactly what it is. The EV program is run by the New Car Dealership Association. An organization created by autodealers to lobby the BC government on behalf of autodealers.

    The NCDA was the 3rd largest contributor to the BC Liberal Party and coincidentally, was chosen by the BCLiberals to run the program despite the dealership’s well known and documented conflict of interest in promoting EVs. That’s why after 10 years of them running the program, only 1 EV is sold for every 100 gas cars.

    The reason for these dismal numbers are in large part because NCDA excluded the most desirable electric vehicle, the Tesla Model S, from the rebate program. With help from their fBC Liberal party friends, NCDA was able to set the cap to $77k. At the time, a base model Tesla was $78k. This was not a coincidence.

    In 2018, Tesla finally released a car that was under the $77k limit which meant it got access to both the rebate and the scrap it program.

    In all prior years, the scrap it program was unlimited and provincial wide until the funds ran out. In order to exclude Tesla customers from taking advantage of the scrap it program this year, NCDA changed the rules to an allocation system where each dealership got 10 scrap its. Since Tesla only had 1 dealership, it meant it only got 10 scrap it rebates and those were gone after the first day.

    You see, NCDA has no interest in promoting EVs. Their goal is to give the impression they are promoting EVs while at the same time they are protecting their business interests by putting up road blocks to stop EV adoption.

    This is why I believe in order to see the program succeed, we need end the contract with NCDA and hire an organization that shares the program’s goals. Clean Energy BC or BCSustainableEnergy would be excellent choices

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    Agree! Fire NCDA and hire ICBC to run the programme since they are everywhere already.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jae

    Clean Energy BC firmly believes that our province can lead the way to a low-carbon economy through extensive electrification. Extensive electrification would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, create significant inward investment and jobs. We will shortly be releasing our white paper entitled: Power Forward; Assessing the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Extensive Electrification in British Columbia, it focuses on exploring how electrification offers BC an opportunity to meet our climate targets and strengthen the economy. Listed below are some excerpts from the white paper.
    Transportation (Based upon research by UVic in June 2018)

    • Financial incentives and mandates are needed to ensure that the transition to electric vehicles occurs at speed This is essential for BC to meet our climate goals. In addition, a competitive market will enable the growth of EV charging infrastructure.

    • Tesla’s work on EV mandates in Quebec and California showed that the most effective implementation method was for the mandate to be on the vehicle manufacturers and not on the dealers. This enables dealers who are keen to push beyond what ever mandate % is in place while allowing other who are not as keen to gradually raise the % of vehicles that they sell to meet the target. With the mandate focused on absolute % of new vehicles sold by manufacturer, BC gets to meet the target in a variety of ways.

    GHG and load implications of transportation electrification, 2040 Hypothetical Scenario:
    https://www.cleanenergybc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Transport-Electrification-Metrics.pdf

    Electrified Vehicle Class: Passenger Cars
    Additional Electricity Required: 4,297 GWh
    GHG Reductions: 1.51 Mt CO2e
    Increase above 2017 BC electricity production: 6.5%

    Jae Mather
    Executive Director
    Clean Energy BC

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jan

    Most big gas using vehicles are for showing money and status. Media helps with this. More media needs to focus on status is owning an energy efficient vehicle. Research how people can convert their existing vehicle for low cost, otherwise there is more garbage on the planet. But more so it is time to invest in rapid transit, ccommuter rail rather than billions of dollars on roads which are devastating and solve no problems.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jae

    Clean Energy BC (CEBC) is an industry association that represents over 120 members, including operators and developers whose business is in renewable power production, electrification of transportation, heating and industry, as well as suppliers, contractors, service providers, post-secondary institutions, and 12 First Nations. Our members are involved in many of the 124 Independent Power Projects currently in operation throughout BC that produce around 15% of the electricity in BC, and the 10 projects that are currently in development.

    Our organization firmly believes that our province can lead the way to a low-carbon economy through extensive electrification. Our membership has the local and international expertise to elevate BC’s clean technology and renewable energy options. We believe in empowering communities and creating a more affordable life for BC residents, while strengthening the local economy. Extensive electrification would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, create significant inward investment and jobs, while improving resilience by giving our province’s goods and services a competitive edge in the global clean-growth economy. Our soon to be released white paper entitled: Power Forward; Assessing the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Extensive Electrification in British Columbia, focuses on exploring how electrification offers BC an opportunity to meet our climate targets and strengthen the economy. Listed below are some excerpts from the white paper.

    • Financial incentives and mandates are needed to encourage the transition to electric vehicles. In addition, a competitive market will enable the growth of EV charging infrastructure.

    • UVic’s research shows that electric medium-duty trucks could reduce GHG emissions by 5.51 Mt CO2e by 2040. Implementing an EV truck and bus mandate would showcase that BC is an early-adopter of cleantech. https://www.cleanenergybc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Transport-Electrification-Metrics.pdf

    An excerpt from our white paper shows that in the 2040 Hypothetical Scenario could deliver:

    Passenger cars:
    Additional Electricity Required (GWh) 4,297
    GHG reductions (Mt CO2e) 1.51
    GHG reductions from Internal Combustion 13.4%
    Increase in electricity production in BC to meet this demand 6.5%

    Trucks (light, medium and Large):
    Additional Electricity Required (GWh) 21,629
    GHG reductions (Mt CO2e) 9.6
    GHG reductions from Internal Combustion 85.7%
    Increase in electricity production in BC to meet this demand 32.7%

    Bus:
    Additional Electricity Required (GWh) 200
    GHG reductions (Mt CO2e) 0.1
    GHG reductions from Internal Combustion 90%
    Increase in electricity production in BC to meet this demand 0.3%

    Aggregate total of passenger cars, trucks and buses:
    Additional Electricity Required (GWh) 26,126
    GHG reductions (Mt CO2e) 11.2
    Increase in electricity production in BC to meet this demand 39.5%

    BC can learn from Quebec, California, Norway, the UK, France and China from their best practices in rolling out EV mandates. It has been shown that mandates should be focused on manufacturers instead of dealers. This enables individual dealers to take leadership rolls and those that are less inclined to take more time to build expertise and market awareness.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    I just want to say, Clean Energy BC would be much better suited running this new EV incentive program than the current New Car Dealership Association or NCDA for short.

    Unlike NCDA, Clean Energy BC does not make money selling and servicing combustion engine vehicles. It appears Clean Energy BC’s goals are to promote a clean power industry in BC which includes the electrification of vehicles. Who better to run this new program than an organization that believes in and shares the same values and goals of the program?

    Compare this to NCDA. An association run by dealerships. It is a well documented fact that dealerships do not like selling EVs as they require far less maintenance and service which means much less profits for them. This is why after 10 years of running the current failed BC Liberal EV incentive program, EVs still only represent 1% of new cars sold. That means 10 years into the program, for every 99 new combustion engine cars sold this year, only 1 will be an electric car. That dismal record can not be rewarded with a new multiyear contract. The NCDA administration of the EV incentive program must be replaced if we are to meet the program’s goals.

    I’m not sure if Clean Energy BC offers such a service, but I seriously hope they do and I hope the government reaches out to them to see about administrating this new and incredible program

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] NORA

    Encourage = Continue rebates for new EVs, provide incentives for USED EVs,
    Challenges = people living in apartments or condos do not have access to charging for EVs. Working with BC Hydro, can provide charging stations on streetlight poles in densley populated areas.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Freye

    As important the movement towards zero emission vehicles and hybrids vehicles is, more important is the implementation of rapid and mass transportation. Currently, since the nineteen fifties, cities have been built around the car. On the contrary, the car should complement social development and environmental protection. This includes inter-linking the Interior and the Coast and the districts within.
    This a key cultural and environmental concept in a new and obviously necessary paradigm shift.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bryan

    I’m a new owner of used ZEV. As a single point of mention, I think there’s a nexus between EVs and Car Share programs. Consumers justify their large, fuel-burning vehicles based on that occasional need to haul a lot, or travel a long distance. An alternative: car share cooperatives offer a wide range of cars and trucks to supplement the daily use of EVs. Some facility by the government to support Car Share co-operatives like Modo could be valuable in moving consumers to a clean air alternative for all of their transportation needs. I am cognizant that this will require changing two behaviours: the move to EV, and also the understanding and use of car share systems–both look challenging and inconvenient for the average householder.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Doug

    British Columbia will have the new Site C dam. First I must say that I am not an advocate of flooding farmland, displacing wildlife and doing it without having permission from First Nations. However if this hydro power was used for electric vehicles and not for LNG it would have the benefit of lowering greenhouse gases, especially the dangerous methane.

    BC is in a very good position to be climate change leaders. Canada could use a good example!

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Unfortunately the $15billion dollar price tag of SiteC could have covered 90% of the cost to equip all 850,000 detached homes in BC with solar power.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Alan

    The current rebate for electric vehicles is an encouraging start, but new EV’s are still out of reach for a most middle class Canadians. I support the expansion of the rebate program and more measures like this to speed the transition to a smarter, cleaner economy.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    Replace all provincially owned vehicles with ZEVs if there is one that can possibly do the job (Teslas if you have to) or otherwise with the lowest emission vehicles available. In areas where there are insufficient charging stations to support the aforementioned vehicles put those in first. Do this within five years. Mandate that local governments do the same but give them a little financial help with it.

    Increase subsidies for new ZEVs – this will also lower the selling price of secondhand ZEVs.

    Find a way to make dealers prioritize selling ZEVs. They don’t like selling them because they need less shop work which is where dealers make money.

    Keep increasing the carbon tax – do not waver.

    Provide grants for municipalities that put chargers in where there are currently none.

    Put chargers at all BC campsites and outside all BC facilities that are in places where chargers would be help fill in gaps.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jaroslav

    Dear Sir / Madam,

    BACKGROUND:

    Many people leaving comments do not seem to try and use a hybrid or plug-in electric vehicles.

    I have a hybrid vehicle, and considered a plug-in hybrid as my next purchase, until I found that the aging battery started affected the performance (millage). A few years in and at ~200 T KM on the odometer, it is not the same as the EPA fuel efficiency rating of the new vehicle. The replacement battery is very pricey, leave alone the environmental aspect of the new battery production and disposal. Manufacturers are not disclosing this aspect during the sales process. I asked the question to one of the manufacturers at the Vancouver Autoshow, and they said, they are not allowed to disclose the cost of the new battery (!!!). Additionally, the battery is not serviceable, which you don’t know when you purchase the vehicle.

    So incentifying customers into buying electric or hybrid vehicles can come with reciprocation and shall be treated very cautiously. A $40K – $80K vehicle is a lot more than a trendy cell phone. Things will be learnt by consumers, and the government can do more to research – in order to do efficient regulation, keep this business more open / fair, and the operation more sustainable.

    SUGGESTIONS:

    1. I think that the greatest impact by simplest means can be achieved by increased taxation of fossil fuel, that should go into future generations fund. First of all, this will reduce the number of unnecessary heavy vehicles on the road. Indeed, do people need these SUV’s and pick ups, carry 2 tons of weight for just commuting purposes? This seems to be an absolutely insane and unhealthy trend! Secondly, this step will preserve the necessary resource for future generations, as today we burn this priceless asset as if there no tomorrow. Third, this will naturally help to address the green house gas issue.
    2. Car manufacturers shall disclose the cost of the replacement battery and a millage, at which 25% battery capacity reduction takes place. This will force them to do more dependable vehicles and provide a better / more competitive = more sustainable / attractive / affordable vehicle solution.
    3. Allow the fund to be used for inter-territorial transportation infrastructure. I.e. within the Lower Mainland / Fraser Valley the rail should connect the entire Vancouver – Chilliwack corridor with future extension to Hope. Set the goal to cover Chilliwack to Vancouver in just 1 hour. Can you imagine, how many cars this will take off the road?
    4. Allow the fund to support true green technologies: solar PV and thermal first of all.

    5
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] John

    When recently considering the purchase of a PHEV (which is by no means a ZEV as you claim) we found that the manufacturers have consistently chosen to make PHEV’s in the family car market with significant “technology” packages or “luxury” accessories which are actually the reason for the price differential. The failure of government to even get car makers to provide basic PHEV’s disguises the reasons why marked uptake is so low. Fix this to start with instead of waiting for 10 years for “volumes” to make it “economical” for cars to be suitably priced.

    The Province is also considering a mandate which would require automakers to supply ZEVs for the light duty vehicle market, increasing consumer choices for clean transportation. YES YES YES and make sure there arent the usual big loopholes.

    The province will continue to support charging and refuelling infrastructure to enable safe and convenient travel around B.C. I wasnt aware that it really was doing this. On the north shore in Metro Van there are very very few charging stations and new homes and buildings are not mandated to have them at every stall.

    By all means look at other jurisdictions which have moved on this issued years ago while you sat on your hands. MOVE ON.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Uptake is so low because the program is run by the New Car Dealer Association (NCDA). The NCDA has a major conflict of interest in promoting EVs because EVs need far less routine maintenance which is the dealership’s major profit generator. Read about it here.

    https://sg.news.yahoo.com/dealerships-trash-talk-electric-cars-study-151242529.html

    Whatever happens going forward, I hope the BCNDP and Greens find a more appropriate alternative administrator like a non profit environmental group

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kate

    Our family already has a fully electric vehicle as well as a plug-in hybrid. We’d eventually like to upgrade the plug-in hybrid to a fully electric SUV; but, currently feel limited by the range of most EVs as well as the price of vehicles available on the market. These challenges would be greatly reduced if there were more DC charging stations available and more automakers offering ZEVs. Of course, purchasing incentives are always helpful. We originally scrapped an aging pick-up truck and used the incentive offered at the time toward the purchase of our EV. Since we no longer have any older vehicles to scrap a tax reduction or other incentive would be greatly appreciated.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Eilene

    The BC Government needs to work with the municipal governments, BCIT, BC Hydro in the Charging station technology, subsidies and how to best use of charging stations. The cost of installing a Charging station is prohibitive for many companies and strata buildings.
    The more available charging stations the more citizens will invest in an EV. Of course having the spots specifically reserved for EV (much like in Quebec) is very helpful and waiving the parking fees on CITY streets would be a huge encouragement.
    Having an EV is a new lifestyle change, like anything that is good for you (and the environment) more people will take on the lifestyle change it is made easier. (i.e. Recycling)

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    1. Provincial financial rebates for the purhcase of clean-air vehicles.
    2. Free parking in various locations
    3. Cash incentives for trade-ins of non-clear-air vehicles.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Karl

    – Mandatory annual inspections, for both safety and emissions, paid for by an increased registration fee. A vehicle registration should not be an unlimited license to pollute our air and water. ZEV inspections would be safety only, and also a lower fee.

    – Bring in distance-based vehicle insurance, to reduce insurance costs and discourage low-value trips and the resulting pollution. Combine the distance readings with the annual inspections mentioned above.

    – Follow the reasearch on charging roadways, being done in Sweden.

    – Support federal electrification of railways or conversion to renewable fuel (eg hydrogen fuel cells), and incoming improved fuel standards for marine shipping and aviation.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pam

    I see lots of good comments in this section and agree with many of them. One thing that bothered me in the introduction paper was the circle on Page 4 which has an inner circle that says “Do More with More”. That is the philosophy that got us where we are now: a planet burning up and humans on a path to extinction. We need to do a lot less with a lot less of everything, especially energy.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    The path to success is showing people that alternatives are not only better for the environment, but they are also better products that will improve their lives. While your philosophy is correct, it will not lead to any meaningful change as 1 thing humans hate more than anything is having to give up or sacrifice. I believe the approach the govt is taking will be much more effective

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lois

    We are one of the few jurisdictions internationally that do not have dollar incentives for purchasing solar panels for homes, hot water heat for homes, or cleaner vehicles. That would go a long, long way to affordability.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] jim

    We need to discourage single occupant liquid fueled vehicles from being used . We need a road use tax that is based on vehicle weight and location of the vehicle. Physically larger vehicles should pay much more if used in urban areas. Smaller electric vehicles could be exempt from the road tax or taxed at a reduced rate.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jim

    As I see it, there are four prongs that must be pursued in BC’s Zero Emission Vehicles (Clean Transportation) policy:
    1. Shift from gas / diesel cars and light trucks to clean energy
    Targets should be set for sales of new vehicles in BC: 50% clean energy by 2025, 100% clean energy by 2030.
    Used cars and light trucks operating with gas / diesel should be given a sunset date in 2050, at which time all gas / diesel vehicles registered in BC would need to be licensed, insured, and driven under rules for antique vehicles.
    Purchase of new and used clean energy cars and light trucks should be subsidized until 10% of cars and light trucks registered in the province are clean energy vehicles.
    Subsidies for purchasing a clean energy vehicle should be higher when a gas / diesel vehicle is permanently taken off the road as a result of the sale.
    2. Fuel cost
    A special transitional gas / diesel tax should be implemented to help offset the cost of vehicle purchase subsidies. This tax would increase on a sliding scale, starting at 5% immediately and increasing by 5% per year in each of the next ten years.
    Proceeds from this tax would go directly to offset the cost of clean energy vehicle purchases and to support the creation of clean energy vehicle charging / refueling stations.
    3. Reduce private vehicle usage
    Public transit vehicles should also be shifted to clean energy in concert with these changes, and public vehicle usage should be enhanced and encouraged as part of the policy.
    Also, increased development of / usage of bike paths, pedestrian walkways, etc. should be included as an integral part of any clean energy policy that is dealing with vehicles. Stop making policy for vehicles and start making policy for people!
    4. Technology and industry
    Support made-in-BC solutions to all the above policy directions. Subsidies / incentives should be enhanced when consumers buy local. Incentives should be offered when local businesses export their clean energy vehicle technology know-how to other jurisdictions.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Many good suggestions. Particularly the 5% gas/diesel tax that increases annually with the proceeds going directly to offset the cost of EV rebates. I’d also like a sales tax on gas/diesel autos with it increasing based on size of the engine.

    Essentially any effort that reduces combustion engine auto sales while at the same time promoting electric vehicle sales is what we desperately need

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Graham

    Why not follow the best practices mentioned in the article? Increase incentives to 25 percent (5% of all new light-duty vehicle sales), announce plans to limit or eliminate sale of ICE vehicles on a schedule, increase access to public transport,

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tom

    Encourage charging infrastructure. Encourage EV ownership (See Norway). Improve green electricity generation – hydro, nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, etc.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    Encourage small covered electric vehicles for city usage, like cartogo and other rental vehicles. Would like an electric bike/trike with a method for staying dry when it is raining.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Todd

    All private vehicle sales should be EV or zero emissions. Only long haul,heavy transport, and air travel should be fossil fuel. Even they should be phased into low or zero emmisions. This needs to be in conjunction with population control. The over population completly unchecked is the problem! Kinds of vehicles does not matter if you dont fix the Problem TO MANY PEOPLE on earth period. Please deal with or at least talk about the problem and then the solutions for the problems symptoms.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Cecilia

    Provide incentives for manufacturers to mass produce clean fuel vehicles, so prices will be more affordable for the average consumer.
    Continue to provide monetary incentives (or increase the amount) to consumers(in the form of rebates) so demand will increase.
    Set stronger emission restrictions for car manufacturers .

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    No bail out of auto companies. They’ve had enough taxpayer money.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Robyn

    We bought an EV 18 months ago and it is one of the best purchases my family has ever made. The rebates on buying a new EV and trading in our ancient gas-powered car clinched the deal for us. I expect that within 5-10 years as technology improves, gas-powered cars will be a thing of the past, but in order for this to happen, the infrastructure MUST be in place. Charging stations along highways and in small towns are a necessity. I am increasingly anxious about the state of our planet . We must move away from dependancy on oil/coal and into a cleaner future.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mark

    Require charging infrastructure in new apartment and condo buildings, and rebates for adding charging infrastructure to existing multi-unit buildings. Add rebates for electric vehicles, similar to Norway.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Brad

    Rebates on ZEV vehicle purchase. Ban on new gasoline/diesel by 2040 or earlier. Ongoing revenue-neutral carbon taxes are probably even more important.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Robert

    Expanding charging infrastructure is key to expansion of EV use.
    Progressive carbon taxing of low efficiency internal combustion engine vehicles.
    Expanding and encouraging use of public transit (no charge for riding or for parking at park and ride) however, is the most important component of reducing carbon use and reducing private auto use.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Andrew

    I believe electric cars are the future and every tax dollar spent on encouraging the public to switch is a wise investment because it will save money in the long run improving health and climate. I agree the Norwegian practices is the way to go. Free parking and ferries, tax breaks for electric cars are why 50% of the Norwegian population has switched over. You need to show you are serious about helping the public to give up the antiquated gas engine. The benefit outweighs the cost.

    9
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Andrew is so right. No sales tax, a decent rebate, HOV access and free parking and ferry rides. If BCNDP and BCGreens got serious and did this, there would be a monumental shift toward EVs and it would happen almost over night. In fact, the biggest impediment would be dealers having enough EV inventory to meet demand.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Terri-Lynne

    I completely support this initiative. I drive a hybrid myself and my next vehicle will be an ZEV. I made the decision to go Hybrid at this time because of cost and the worry of not enough charging stations. I know this resource is improving in he lower mainland and all around BC and this is why I will go full EV next time. live on Bowen Island and travel to Langley and the Okanagan frequently.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Julie

    Educating the public on ZEVs would be the key to increase awareness of what vehicles are out there to purchase, how they work, what the chargers look like etc. Information is not readily available unless you are actively researching on the internet.

    There is an EV Experience centre in the UK at a mall where there are actual ZEV cars, charging stations and educated staff to educate the public more about EVs. They are not a dealership but they do have a fleet of ZEVs for people to test drive as well. I think this is totally doable even if you have a travelling EV Experience going to each mall or even at the PNE. The EV Experience store would be a friendlier way of educating the public about EVs without the intense pressure to buy.

    Please check out the link: https://evexperiencecentre.co.uk/

    Do not include PHEVs as ZEVs as they do still have an internal combustible engine.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Terry

    Billions of dollars in subsidies go to the oil industry every year plus tax breaks to oil companies. This money should go to supporting electric vehicles, solar and wind energy and education about reducing green house gases. We could also have electric buses, electric ferries and electric delivery trucks and trains. Education about reducing methane by eating less meat.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Carol

    YES, we must go forward with this initiative. The challenges are the long distances we have from place to place in BC and the cars themselves that take so long to charge.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ullrich

    It is time to ban sales of new gas-guzzlers as soon as humanly possible. The issue is getting increasingly urgent as witness the annual spate of disastrous wildfires threatening to wipe out most of the province’s forests over the next few years. The same issue is facing every other former temperate zone area in the world. Maybe the deadline could be moved to 2025 or even earlier.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ian

    The incentive system in BC is not set up fairly.

    The current system will leave low to medium income Canadians behind. Current policy provides incentives for vehicles/lights/etc. based on price and savings.

    But many are not able to take advantage of that savings, the purchasing decision is based on the up front cost and limited family/household incomes. It is quite amazing that BC is offering incentives on vehicles worth $70,000 (a luxury vehicle)!

    California is setting a better example of how not to leave low to medium income families behind with their Single-family Affordable Solar Homes (SASH) and Multi-family Affordable Solar Homes (MASH) programs. Here is a link;

    https://www.lowincomesolar.org/best-practices/single-family-california/

    We need to ensure that these programs are equitable and don’t increase the inequality gap. Which has grown tremendously over the past 20 years……link below;

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bcs-inequality-gap-widens-and-shapes-the-electioncampaign/article34857613/

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bruce

    Incentives across all price ranges makes sense because their purpose is to change buying behavior. If someone can afford a $70,000 vehicle, we want them to buy a clean one. The price of an EV reflects the cost of the battery, not luxury features. If a buyer only cares about luxury, they can get more bang for their buck with a gas car. We don’t want them to make that choice.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Terry

    There are electric vehicles that are only about $30,000, not $70,000. Most cars that people buy these days are much more in cost such as trucks and SUV’s. The real savings will be in reducing costs from not buying gas and oil and almost no maintenance. Long term savings are great. There are also costs from severe storms, wild fires, floods, asthma, etc. caused by burning fossil fuels.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Gideon

    I’m in favour of increased incentives for BEV’s but not for hybrids. Hybrids are very expensive and complex to build and fix. I would also like to see legislation to ticket people who park in charging locations if they are not charging. I see this a becoming a major issue already and it will only get worse.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Great suggestions. I also agree that hybrids should not be included in incentives. For the past decade, hybrids were a good bridge toward pure electric vehicles, but now battery technology has advanced to the point pure EVs can travel 500kms before recharging so there is really no need for hybrids now.

    Multiple automakers make pure electric cars now so it’s not like the incentives would favor 1 autobrand over another… Tesla Model 3, Nissan Leaf, Hyundai Ioniq, BMW i3 and Chevy Bolt are all good examples of pure EVs and many more are on the way (Jaguar iPace). Given this, I believe we should end incentives for hybrids to maximize the incentives for pure EVs.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Trent

    Interesting that electric assist bicycles are not mentioned anywhere as “vehicles”. They have the ability to revolutionize personal urban transportation, particularly if infrastructure investments that encourage cycling are made. Any zero emissions transportation planning should include active transportation (waking and cycling). Gouvenment support needs to take the form of infrastructure funding (and legislation to support/encourage municipalities to make similar infrastructure planning decisions. Ebikes need to have similar (or larger) purchase incentives to ZEVs; this too is a role for government.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ullrich

    I’ve been looking for an affordable alternative to my 250cc gas powered SYM motor scooter for years now. There are a couple of companies making equivalent powered electric motorcycles, but they are about 3x the cost of an equivalent performance gas powered bike. Perhaps including such vehicles (which would be even lower total CO2 generating than electric cars) in the incentive programs would address this need.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] R.Freeman

    There is no initiative for decades and all of a sudden “switch to zero”.
    – Cities and towns were not designed for efficient life style so we have to waste our time and fuel to compensate this miscalculation
    – On contrary to other parts of the world, vehicles engines are huge. We don’t need 3000 cm3 engine to drive 3-5 kilometres away supermarket and buy spinach, milk etc…

    Since we cannot go backward to fix these. My suggestion at this point would be:
    – Introduce carbon tax on big engines because they are wasting our environment, money and limited resources (fuel) and use this money to lower greenhouse gases such as prevent/decrease wildfires which are larger greenhouse gas contributors or make public transport better
    – Plan/design new development areas by considering walk score
    – Do not establish commercial areas apart from residential areas so people do not have to drive
    Thank you for your time reading my opinions
    Regards,

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Arthur

    With the unexpected rapid advance of climate change, these targets need to be more aggressive to avoid some of the worst effects. Regarding the statistical trajectory of EV uptake in our province, BC has the popular interest to back a full ban on internal combustion cars by 2031. By setting such standards we will be continuing our early lead on EV infrastructure and encourage industry pioneers to take an interest in setting up business here.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    I agree… 5% target seems awfully weak… In Norway, 50% of new car sales are EVs and they still offer incentives. At minimum, we should raise it to 25% and ban internal combustion cars by 2031

    10
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Don

    I am very much in favour of incentives for EVs but think that it should be much lower, or phased out, for hybrids. Most of the latter have no better fuel economy ratings than subcompacts, and some even worse. The current efforts at installing charging stations in shopping areas is welcome. In the interior many have been on the outskirts of towns. Not convenient.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Agreed. No incentives for hybrids

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ted

    * Rebates & cash incentives have been proven to work to encourage the purchase of EVs.
    * Also, incentives to help with the installation of public and private charging stations would be very helpful ( such as the one that was sponsored by PluginBC ).
    * More fast chargers throughout BC to encourage travel by EV ( thanks to BC Hydro for beginning this ).
    * More money could be designated for the ScrapIt program.
    * Reduced rates for EVs on BC Ferries.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    We need to look at sales tax… I’m trying to do my part to reduce my personal C02 emissions to ensure the world is a habitable place for my kids and the govt is charging me $15,000 in taxes for the EV I’m about to purchase.

    No taxes on pure EVs please

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dick

    Gradually increase the tax on engine capacity to the point where there is no point in buying a pick up truck if a smaller vehicle will do the job. Charge more for pick up trucks on BC Ferries.They take up more deck space anyway. Re-instate vehicle inspection with new teeth to affect emission standards.
    Continue the subsidy for electric vehicles and charging outlets. Gradually replace diesel busses with new fuel efficient and electric ones, bring back trolley busses where they have been retired.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Don

    Please don’t use Norway as an example we can follow for EV subsidies.

    • Norway’s government is debt free and has a US$1.1 Trillion sovereign wealth fund from years of selling North Sea oil, thus they have a lot more money to play with than we do.
    • A small country with 5 M people, they produce 1.5 M barrels a day of crude oil. If the CO2 emissions from burning that amount of crude was included in Norway’s CO2 emissions inventory, they would be over 50 tonnes/year/capita, more than double us.
    • Norway has enormous taxes on regular automobiles, from purchase taxes that can double the cost a vehicle to annual taxes and tolls running into thousands of dollars per year. Thus their EV incentive of being tax free is very lucrative, more than US$20,000 for a Nissan Leaf. Our taxes on automobiles are far smaller so making EVs tax free wouldn’t help much.
    • If you look at the life time savings in CO2 emissions from buying an EV rather than a hybrid, the saving over 12 years at 12,000 miles per year is about 28 tonnes of CO2, or US$722 (CAD$940) per tonne of CO2 avoided with the Norway subsidy. There are much less expensive ways of avoiding CO2 emissions available to us in Canada, like wind power replacing coal or natural gas power with costs from US$0 to US$40/tonne.

    So I say good on Norway for getting EVs on the road in their country, but they do not provide a model that others can use.

    2
    3
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Steve

    Increase consumer awareness of:
    Operating costs (less maintenance, cheaper energy costs, less brake wear)
    Real-world range (most people still think it’s only 50km)
    How to charge and where

    Stop all subsidies to Fossil fuels
    Mandate Translink to use electric busses, there by demonstrating that EVs work.
    Mandata that all taxis/rideshare must be EV or Hybrid (many are anyway)

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    Agree. As BC Hydro’s recent survey reveals, over 90% of British Columbians drive less than 50km a day, so any of the EVs currently on the market work for the vast majority.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Andrew

    Increasing rebates to cut down the high cost of purchase and a government funded installation program for anyone who buys a plug-in car and requires a charging station.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Cara

    I agree that we need to make them more accessible and affordable. It takes a long time to get a Chevy bolt or Tesla, the prices are prohibitive and our dealer doesn’t even have one on the lot. Our family really wants a medium-longer range higher clearance electric vehicle to meet our needs so we can go all electric (we already have a Leaf) but the only vehicle that fits the bill is the Tesla model X which is 120,000! Also, dealer supports are inadequate in the southern interior. When our Leaf needed repair we had to wait over a month as the only certified technician was on medical leave and our range doesn’t allow us to take our car out of town. I think people need to be assured they can rely on prompt repairs to make it viable for the average person to buy an electric car.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jennifer

    BC govt must stop oil & gas subsidies and create & invest in electric car manufacturing plant.
    Are secret deals preventing this?

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] L

    Yes, We should design and build our own electric vehicles, here in Canada.
    I’d like to know quality ratings for brands of solar panels that can be installed on an existing home or condo roof. I can’t afford to risk poor quality.
    Gov’t guidelines and standards need to be widely available and mandated.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Carol

    5% is too low a target to end rebates, they need to continue and perhaps consider a surcharge/ tax on non-zev in the future to further encourage zev and move toward phasing new non-zev. The goal should be 100% and in a reasonable period of time, on par with the other countries mentioned.
    There is a need for public education to highlight the benefits – cost of operation, use of hov lanes, etc
    Manufacturers need to play an active role so that consumers have equal access to zev options – not having to wait 6 months or more for zev compared to driving off the lot same day with non- Zev.
    New homes and condo projects should be built with charging infrastructure for all parking spots so it is easy to activate when plug in car ratios increase- needs to be in place before people will buy the cars. It can’t be a hassle to install a charging centre. Remove that barrier by requiring it as part of all building plans. If everyone can charge at home then many people won’t need to charge in the community and worry about range or an available spot when they are out for the day.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Colin

    -Mandate condos and apartments to begin installing charging in parking lots
    -Allow ZEV use in HOV lanes with only one driver
    -Aggressive rebates programs
    -Heavy investment in infrastructure to overcome “range anxiety”
    -Reduced fares on ferries
    -Free fares at highway tolls

    8
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Lorne

    Fossil fuel powered cars should not be sold after 2025.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Agreed. Ban fossil fuel cars with an aggresive timeline. It’s time BC starts leading

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Amanda

    Phasing out investments after 5% ZEV sales……not enough! There also needs to be reassurance for people in rural communities or who travel around the province that there will be ample charging stations outside city centres.
    People need to be shown in hard numbers that ZEVs are truly better than conventional fuel-based transportation in terms of dependence on oil and gas, which is a reality in the manufacture of materials including batteries etc. This is the number one argument I hear again ZEVs.
    Finally, educate the general public on the cost of charging or the impact to their hydro bill if they charge at home. Many people are afraid that gas is ultimately cheaper!

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Christine

    I agree with a mandate which would require automakers to supply ZEVs for the light duty vehicle market. As an EV owner, I don’t understand the comment “The price gap between ZEVs and gasoline vehicles is anticipated to close in the mid-2020s”? In my opinion, if you are considering purchasing a new EV vs a new ICE car, there are equivalent choices available. In other words, you don’t have to spend more to buy an EV if the government continues the $11,000 rebate off the purchase of a new EV. In the used EV market, BC has more than its fair share of used EVs because people have already figured out they are more affordable than gasoline cars and are importing them from the United States. More charging infrastructure will only increase the popularity of EVs.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bruce

    EVs generally cost more than an equivalent ICE car, unless you factor in incentives. Incentives should continue until that price gap is closed.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Jesse

    Make it easy for anticipated zero emission vehicles to achieve homologation in BC and publicize how people can homologate any existing types of zero emission vehicles.

    Specific example: The Twike [1], which was first showcased at Expo86.

    [1]:http://www.twike.com/en_GB/vehicles/twike-3/

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Reinhard

    The question of this Discussion is “How can B.C. encourage the use of clean vehicles? What are some of the challenges and how could they be addressed?” Perhaps you can add a different Discussion, addressing the question “how B.C. can encourage the use of public (clean) transport.”

    In fact, under Section 3.3, “Cleaner Transportation Systems,” you state your intent of “expanding and exploring ways to make vehicle use more efficient, such as vehicle co-ops …”

    This is my situation. I live in Metro Vancouver. I do not own a vehicle, use Skytrain and bus to get to work, but twice a month I want a vehicle for shopping and leisure. In the off season, the rates of rental car companies are affordable (if you use credit card insurance), but about five months a year, I have to shell out close to $100 per rental day, and more during peak season. Vehicle co-ops rent out for around $100 (incl. insurance, taxes, and gas for ~200 km) as well. Sometimes, I find myself on the fence of buying a vehicle, but I already know, if I go that route, I’ll be hooked and off public transport for good.

    You may provide incentives for the occasional local driver not to purchase a private vehicle in the first place. You may work with vehicle co-ops to offer local residents not owning a vehicle discounted rental days every year. If I could buy a block of 10 discounted rental days (tiny car and ~200 km per day included) for say $50 a day, that would certainly help me not think about a car purchase. It would also give vehicle co-ops guaranteed income, which in itself would help them reduce their cost structure.

    In areas of high population density, I believe, making vehicle sharing more affordable to the average Joe could get many people off the road.

    8
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Reinhard

    Also, use car sharing approach to reduce parking requirements in new buildings around transit hubs.

    Metro Vancouver struggles to build affordable purpose-built rental buildings at transit hub locations. Underground parking is extremely expensive. The construction of a parking lot costs more than $35,000, according to a recent Metro Vancouver study “Analysis of the Financial Viability of New Purpose Built Rental Housing at Transit-Oriented Locations in Metro Vancouver.” Currently, the ratio of parking lots to residential units in those towers is beyond 1.1.

    The study’s recommendation includes: “Reduce requirements for structured parking. It is not necessary to eliminate all parking (a large part of the first level of underground parking is made up of excavation and foundation costs that would be absorbed anyway), but reducing requirements to eliminate extra levels of parking is a significant gain.”

    Reduce parking requirements by half for purpose-built rental towers around transit hubs. Instead, provide an efficient car sharing system for tenants in a neighborhood, allowing them to access cars in different buildings.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Joan

    I have several ideas to add to the proposed actions. I’m not sure which category they fit into so I’ll propose them here.

    First, the Province should make public transportation free. This could be implemented on a test basis by 1) implementing it within a discrete area, such as downtown Vancouver and Victoria 2) implementing it in specific transit modes, such as the skytrain or the #50 buses that take commuters to and from the Western Communities or 3) implementing it for a limited time – 60 days, six months, whatever.

    The concept underlying free public transport is this: People like me can be trained to use better/best practices if it’s not too inconvenient and doesn’t cost anything. Do not underestimate cumulative collective power.

    I will use cloth bags as an example.

    I will forget the Clean Transportation Intentions because it’s just the government acting, not me, and it doesn’t apply to me because I can’t afford a new car. But I can show I am part of the “fight against climate change war effort”, and instead of paying money (bleah) I just have to learn a new habit: using cloth bags. It has taken me several years to switch to cloth bags when I shop, just like it took time to get everyone to wear seatbelts, but I’m pretty good at using them all the time now.

    I still have my Buy BC cloth bag from the last ad campaign. It has the colourful BC/rising sun logo printed on it, and when I use it I feel a tiny positive reinforcement: I’m showing people I choose BC products in the grocery store. I’m boasting, in a subtle way. It doesn’t cost me anything. All I have to do is remember the bag is in my car and use it. I remember it better because the bag is aesthetically pleasing.

    Like, I also have a sturdy small bag from Tile Town but I flinch a tiny bit when I choose it because it’s not cute and it means I’m giving Tile Town some free advertising (at a minimum, that Tile Town is good because it provides free cloth bags when I buy its products. I don’t mind helping to promote that idea, which is based on “bandwagon” motivation that says “See? even Tile Town uses cloth bags!”) but I prefer my bag with the BC/rising sun logo.

    This is an example of something I can do when I can’t afford a new zero-emission car. I become personally engaged in a collective effort to be a good citizen and everyone knows it because I use cloth bags.

    And consider this: The bag probably costs less than the dumb plastic orange bracelet with “NDP – Jagmeet!” printed on it I received and wore at the recent Pride Parade and will never wear again. Now add up the cost of externalities – using plastic to manufacture it, transporting it from China or wherever, disposing of plastic – to calculate the cost of the “free” bracelet that just sits in a drawer. I have a negative reaction every time I see it – what a waste and I don’t even like orange, but it’s new, clean, and maybe I can figure out some way to use it for something.

    But I would reuse an NDP bag. The same would apply to people who were given bags with the BC logo. A bag also also complements the reinstitution of the “Buy BC” program.

    In addition, if the government made bags that are uniquely useful and fill a vacant niche they would be even more popular with the public. So make the lightweight bags that can fold up into a tiny package that people can keep in a purse/car/briefcase and use when they forget a regular cloth bag or make an unanticipated purchase (oops, I only meant to buy a liter of milk but saw a few other things I need).

    My point is that the BC government is spending money on a unique BC-branded item and I can display my participation and support for fighting climate change without paying anything (except taxes for the government to provide bags).

    To use another analogy, consider how much money each British Columbian saved because back in the late 1980’s the Utilities Commission ordered BC Hydro to devise and implement demand-side management instead of building Site C dam. I was involved in getting the BCUC to issue that order and remember very well how our client groups were portrayed as nutbars howling in the wilderness. What? Put on a sweater instead of building a Big Dam?

    The result was the Powersmart program BCH implemented. Not only was the cost of developing supply-side energy deferred for 25 years, but the Powersmart program was so successful that it was spun off into a collateral enterprise that sells the program and know-how around the world.

    Now apply those concepts to transportation. The BC government is in a unique position as the source of funding public transport. Make public transportation free and at the same time implement an advertising program that shows a net cost benefit for each British Columbian – even those who don’t pay taxes.

    I would take the bus (less convenient than my car) because it’s free and it would show I’m contributing to the fight against climate change.

    And just like the big graph United Way uses in its fundraising campaign, the Government website can make the net savings accessible, current and visible. Use a visual aid to keep track of how many transit users there were on a given day and transpose that onto a graph or something that shows how many tax dollars were saved by those transit users.

    Make this visual aid dynamic like my Twitter feed – it’s always changing as people add Likes, Retweets and Comments. I find it mesmerizing.

    So when the free enterprisers object to the cost of free transportation, you can point them to the graph that shows the cumulative savings obtained because somebody took public transit instead of driving their car.

    The direct connection is critical because it uses a price signal – it shows that person’s contribution that day, i.e., it cost $X to give that person a free ride to town but it saved $X in the net cost of one less commute. You can monetize the cost savings of the commute: add up externalities like ghg emissions avoided by one car doing one commute PLUS how much the commuter saved in gas, car mileage, tolls, even time. So my tax dollars spent on free transportation in Surrey come back to me in brownie points like lower ghg emissions, cost/health savings, etc. even though I live in Langford, and my tax dollars come straight back to me if I use a free bus to get from Langford into Victoria.

    To summarize my proposal, do something radical that results in demonstrable cost savings across the population. This worked when BC instituted a carbon tax, and it was a TAX. Make the radical step into a movement that individuals can join so that they feel engaged in the war effort without it being unpleasantly inconvenient or costly. Praise these efforts and display the achievements. If the Recycle Return It program can do it with TV ads where funny creatures shake their fingers at miscreants and you hear the three notes of “You are Naughty” – Duh Duh Duuuh – the BC Government can do it too.

    3
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Heidi

    A lot of great ideas have been mentioned already. I drive an EV and I love it! The grant incentive provided by the province helped make it affordable for us when we needed to buy a new car anyways. Perhaps some more incentives like the Scrap It program to help folks get rid of their current ICE vehicle. With the high cost of gas now it boggle my mind that more people aren’t buying electric. With my daily commute from Langley to downtown Vancouver I figure I save about $4000-$5000 in fuel alone per year. Add in the low maintenance costs (no oil changes ever!) and it will pay for itself before I need to buy another car. More education and awareness is needed. My friends and family are always surprised at how easy my EV is. Yes we need more charging stations but I am rarely inconvenienced by a low battery, in fact probably way less than you may be inconvenienced by a need to stop and line up at a gas station…most of my fueling up happens when I sleep or when I’m at work!

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Kody

    EVs are great. As are bikes and e-bikes. We should have tax and purchase incentives to purchase e-bikes and bikes.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    Similar to ” Sustainable Development” coined in the late 80’s which made us all feel better and directly led to the climate crisis we are currently facing, Clean Growth is an oxymoron and “clean” vehicles may even increase our carbon footprint and have a negative effect on our planet. My practical observations learned over 50 years in 4 successful careers may be of no value to those reading this but I live in hope that this isn’t about re-election as it was in Gordon Campbell’s case (the drop in CO2 emissions cited had far more to do with the 08- 12 financial crisis than the carbon tax). Encouraging electric vehicles without adding in the massive ecological cost from Site C, independent power producers, the building of the vehicles/batteries/chargers and thus continued road/bridge/parking infrastructure is simply smart corporate marketing of different personal vehicles and delaying actually doing something about the climate and peak everything crisis. In my town there are over a 100 evs and instead of driving less (which I do or ride my bike/walk) they buzz around demanding more charging stations, driving to town more often (read the John Jeavons principle from the nineteenth century paraphrased to modern day that describes how actually smaller cars and now evs encourage people to drive more not less). We have an air advisory warning today caused by forest fires around the globe – People need to carpool, drive less, use public transport, grow their own food to reduce transportation and environmental costs caused by megafarming, and stop buying stuff including any new vehicles whether pushed by batteries, gas or diesel. Old ideas and not sexy like a new hi tech ev but unfortunately the only solution we have.

    6
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Terry

    I agree that bicycles are a good clean source of transportation, however, almost everyone I know who uses a bike for transportation also owns a vehicle so those people should consider having an electric car and an electric bicycle.

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dug

    Why wait……Fleet rebuilding to electric is available today.

    Most industrial and commercial fleet vehicles receive significant upgrades and rebuilds over the course of their useful life. By replacing the diesel engine, fuel system and ehaust system early with a fully integrated electric drive system (either fully battery electric or hydrogen electric), many industries can see a significant reduction in their GHG emissions, a ROI based on life cycle costs as well as an increase in the useful life of the vehicle, among many, many other benefits.

    This capability is native to BC at FVT Research Inc.
    FVT has recently opened an Ontario location due to the demand being seen in that jurisdiction.
    It would be nice to have a made in BC solution benefit people in BC.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pamela

    Kudos to BC NDP for really getting to work and engaging the public on the need to green BC! How about electric ferries? We have a BC company that’s behind some of the tech already. Norway, Sweden, even Seattle are changing over to electric ferries. https://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/27/feasible-replace-70-norwegian-ferries-battery-hybrid-ferries-study/?utm_content=buffer035ef&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Doug

    Think small. Low speed vehicles (LSV), which are like golf carts but a little faster, should be made legal on streets with a speed limit of 50kph. That would take care of 80% of my driving needs. This is the low hanging fruit. Just allow us.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Ullrich

    I partially agree with this idea, but it should be limited to bicycle lanes and the rightmost lane of roads with at least 3 lanes in each direction, otherwise, it will cause massive traffic jams. Maybe the LSVs could also be driven on sidewalks at reduced speeds from their top speed of (typically) 20km/hr

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Richard

    Municipalities should also be given the authority to set blanket speed limits below 50 km/h. This would make it safer to use Low speed vehicles (LSV), bicycles and to walk. Plus cut down on crashes and ICBC costs.

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mario

    Studies have shown that operating busses and trucks on hydrogen are cheaper than diesel in the long run. Vancouver has several fuel cell companies, and some of the best fuel cell technology. It seems logical that BC should be investing in hydrogen infrastructure and purchase fuel cell busses/ trucks for fleet use such as public buses on routes where the electric buses can not be used. Hydrogen stations could be installed at trucking depots to encourage the use of hydrogen trucks.

    1
    5
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    Hydrogen (H2) is created from fossil fuels (reforming fracked LNG mainly) and thus are not sustainable. Even when created from renewable electricity through electrolysis, H2 is less than 40% as efficient as battery electric vehicles (BEV).
    H2 is just another fossil industry boondoggle

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    No to Hydrogen fuel. Please watch this video which explains why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Howard

    Sounds good, until you realize this goverment is offering foreign companies more than 7 billion dollars worth of tax subsidies to produce more fossil fuels. Last year we paid natural gas companies to take our gas, yes you read that right. We used to make billions on our resources now we subsidise their removal. So now we carbon tax joe lunch bucket who after inflation has not had a real pay increase in 15 years to keep our corporate masters happy, priceless. We can’t fix this until we stop the fossil fuel tax payer subsidies which the corporate dictatorship we live under insists on through our politicians.

    10
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mario

    One of the big obstacles to owning an electric car in Vancouver is the lack of charging units in apartment buildings and stratas. If parking stalls for electric car owners were grouped together inside the apartment building, it would be easier to install a bank of charging stations into these buildings.

    9
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mohammad

    Or just support technologies like Plugz.io and enable any outlet to be used effectively as an EV charger.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Eilene

    There is a need for even more free fast charging stations that is reserved for EV only.
    Pointless to have charging stations that allows non EV to park. Should be a provincial law. Free EV charging stations every mall, university, public buildings… every 2 blocks

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Randall

    These are good ideas but we also need to improve transit service throughout our urban areas.

    10
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Tim

    The cost of gas and diesel is really too low. Efforts to end fossil fuel subsidies are required. With the being done the advantage of EVs will be self evident. As more EVs are sold, the cost should come down. We need fast chargers throughout the province, in rural as well as urban areas.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] S

    No mystery here. When subsidies exist sales are robust. The bigger the subsidies the more the sales. Have to reach critical mass . Remove gasoline subsidies. Raise awareness of gasoline environmental damage to by adding a pollution tax to annual vehicle registrations ( where electric and or hybrid vehicle options are available ).

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Michael

    Install FREE fast chargers at municipal buildings such as public libraries, city halls etc.

    An array of BC Hydro fast chargers at these facilities would also encourage municipal citizens to visit these facilities more often.

    Also, when traveling in British Columbia one could reliably depend on finding a fast EV charger at these government locations.

    Would also would be a perk for the municipal citizens.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Mike

    Adopt all of Norway’s EV policy measures, effective immediately.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pamela

    Agreed. We need to be far more aggressive: stop subsidizing fossil fuels and ban sales of fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 not 2040.

    4
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Agreed. Norway has laid out the path for us. All we got to do is follow it.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Graeme

    Enhance the CEV program to provide greater discounts for people, possibly using a progressive system where it is tied to a car buyer’s tax rate. This would allow EV’s to be more available to a greater percentage of the car buying public.

    Implement a target date for a ban on private gasoline and diesel vehicles.

    5
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    If the objective is to push as many people toward electric vehicles over gas vehicles, then I don’t see how tying incentives to a buyers tax rate helps that. In fact, I think it would do the opposite. All pure electric vehicles should have access to the incentive

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pamela

    Agreed. Ban sales of gas/diesel vehicles by 2030 not 2040. The auto industry will respond. Also, essential to demand that car dealers keep EVs on lots and actually have them for sale. They’re avoiding having them available and require government encouragement (read: regulation).

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    As a sailor, I’d like to see the same concepts in transitioning to a clean low-carbon future applied to marine transportation, since BC is a coastal province and most islands are water access only. The amount of diesel and gasoline burned on the water each summer for just recreational purposes is staggering.

    12
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Cara

    Yes!!!

    I was visiting the Shuswap last week and was reminded just how much fuel is wasted on recreational boating. In addition to the usual boats, now people are going across the lakes at high speeds in jet boats. I can’t imagine how much fuel that takes but it must be substantial and is completely unnecessary.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pamela

    How about incentives for electric motors to replace gas motors?

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Frank

    Make it compulsory for car dealers throughout BC to have on hand at least a variety of 6 electric display models — THAT ARE ACTUALLY FOR SALE, and that dealers should be forced to sell , even at sale prices one electrict vehicle per month.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pamela

    Agreed. Dealer after dealer says they “can’t get hold of EV’s.” I don’t believe it. They need government pressure as the companies want to sell gas vehicles then profit further when folks later buy electric.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Sharon

    We have wanted to buy a full electric car locally, but the dealerships are reluctant to sell them because they would have to spend thousands of dollars to upgrade their service department repair shops to accommodate the EV technology. Our closes repair shop would be Lethbridge.
    Perhaps if more people had incentives to purchase EV’s the smaller city dealerships would find it worthwhile to upgrade their shops.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Rolf

    About fast charging
    We have driven our EV with a camping trailer from Victoria to St John’s NFLD, Miami, San Diego and back. 33,000km. We have driven it also to Florida and back, California and back multiple times, Red Deer Alberta and back, and many other medium trips. Really long trips are only possibly without sacrifices on the Tesla Supercharger network so far. We have seen the other fast charging networks expand in many areas, but not fast enough and rarely with the right intentions, with the exception of Quebec.
    The short comings of most DC charging networks, except Tesla Supercharger network:
    1. Other networks concentrate their fast chargers in metropolitan areas so you are still a ‘prisoner’ on an island. Tesla installed the initial network along major highways. Only now does Tesla start placing them in cities. These are meant for EV owners, who can not charge at home or at work. Over three years ago we were able to travel from Victoria to Florida and back without the feeling of having to plan ahead. Just get in, tell the computer where you want to go and it told you what to do. – NEED DC FAST CHARGERS ALONG ALL HIGHWAYS.
    2. Most commercial charger locations only have 1 fast charger. If it is blocked or used for hours by another car than you are screwed if you are travelling through, since every other L3 charger will be out of range for you. Also, many of these chargers seem to be prone to break down so the percentage of time being offline is high. NEED MULTIPLE REDUNDANT DC FAST CHARGERS AT THE SAME LOCATION.
    3. Charging with DC takes time. 30 minutes is the minimum. 95%+ of the hundreds of times we fast charged we combined it with a coffee or meal or visit to the mall. Tesla Super Chargers almost always are located at malls and similar locations, making your time spent charging valuable.Malls also already have a big power pipe from Hydro – LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION. Existing gas stations would be the worst place to use.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dale

    I agree with everything said here. Going to Alberta in anything but a Tesla is a constant stress. Doing trips to the coast on any time frame is a gamble with broken down quick chargers and the chance of someone else parked for an hour and a half charging. A 4.5 hr drive can easily end up taking ten hours as I have experienced.

    1
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] David

    20 years ago BC was the worlds leader. We had Ballard Hydrogen cells being built in Burnaby. We had a Carbon Tax on the horizon. The force of government could have been a force for good. We could have begun to manufacture larger fuel cell engines in BC. Fast forward today. The complete absence of leadership over the past 16 years means our emissions are going up. Aside from our Hydro legacy our efforts are near invisible. The easiest measure we can take is to ban combustion transport. Combine that with a manufacturing incentive to move production to BC. I support a ban on passenger combustion transport by 2025 and commercial by 2030. Take back the railroads. Build the fuel cell engines. Use our hydro advantage to attract manufacturing.

    4
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    Hydrogen (H2) is created from fossil fuels (reforming fracked LNG mainly) and thus are not sustainable. Even when created from renewable electricity through electrolysis, H2 is less than 40% as efficient as battery electric vehicles (BEV).
    H2 is just another fossil industry boondoggle

    2
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Pamela

    Now, implementing these ideas would be bold, progressive, and powerful for the people of B.C.

    0
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Bruce

    I respectfully point out that the transportation intention papers are missing the huge potential of transportation demand management initiatives, and in particular “closer commutes”. Over 5% of single occupancy use (SOV) trips could be eliminated within two years, without creating new infrastructure and with cost savings for employers.
    Eliminating so many unnecessary trips should be a no-brainer. Doing so does not, of course, lessen the value or need for the other ideas presented in the intention papers.
    Please contact me for full documentation.
    bruce.batchelor@gmail.com . 250-380-0998

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Dale

    The recharging infrastructure is a key to the successful growth of ev’s on the road. Having made long distance trips to the coast and Alberta I have found dysfunctional or lack of charging stations at key locations to be the biggest frustration. (Golden is a key location on the transcanada and and ev’s need that location for any trips into calgary ab). Other key locations could use a second charge station; Hope, Kelowna, Kamloops. The north also needs to be opened up with quick chargers to entice users further north.

    3
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Glenn

    First off, kudos for the initial efforts to date on BEVs with incentives and infrastructure.
    Going forward the following will help both our environment and economy (applies to all vehicle types):
    1) ICE Sales Ban- 2035 is doable;
    2) ZEV Mandate- 2019 at 5% and increasing 2% per year with a review in 2030;
    3) BEV PST Removal- on all full EVs with 4 seats or more regardless of price;
    4) BEV Incentives- 20% of vehicle cost up to $80K (pre tax) including (but reduced) used BEV;
    5) Fire NCDA- as their words and deeds show, they are in a conflict of interest;
    6) Hire ICBC- they are province wide, see everyone, every year, and can use their systems to administer programmes fairly;
    7) Expand Scrap-It; target diesels with higher incentives;
    8) Deincentivise Pollution- have sunset clauses on older, more polluting vehicles, and “Carbon Tax” ICE vehicles in lump sums at time of insurance renewal based on pollution profile (and it must hurt);
    9) EV Charging in Building Codes- all new build with L2 to each parking slot and L1 in all older buildings (5 year enactment); and,
    10) PUBLIC EDUCATION- PSA’s on the true costs of EV ownership over an 8 year period; that 95% of citizens drive less than 50km/day; that BC can “fuel” it’s transport structure within it’s own borders, and that our health, autonomy, and economy are all improved in an electric (near) future.
    P.S.- also drop any support for Hydrogen infrastructure (we can buy 20 L3 chargers for every 1 H2 filler) as it is both polluting (H2 comes from LNG reforming) and is only 25% as efficient as BEV.

    Thanks and good work so far.

    7
    0
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] Chris

    Wow, yes Glenn. 100% agreed on everything you said.

    0
    1
    permalink
    User avatar
    [-] ZEV

    1. ZEV mandate must focus on zero emissions, not partial zero emissions such as 4kWh BMW x5s and their counterparts.
    2. Follow Norway’s example: tax credit, bus lane incentive and free park incentives to be phased out when vehicle sales reach 50% of all sold.
    3. Uncap the ZEV purchase price and stop pandering to legacy dealers. Fact, no Range Rover owner is buying a leaf, to get gas guzzling vehicles off the road any vehicle that is zero emissions is better for our air , health and environment. Decouple cevforbc management from dealership interests and have it run by ministry of environment and not new car dealers.

    6
    0
    permalink
    User avatar