Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak today.
I want to address a central challenge facing Canada's electric vehicle availability standard, which is the trade-off between speeding up zero-emission vehicle adoption and creating uneven costs for households in regions.
No one disputes the importance of lowering transportation emissions, but the pace the EVAS imposes can create affordability pressures. To be effective, the transition must work for all households. The concerns I highlight cover income, access and region.
Number one is that EV mandates can raise costs for families with limited means. Mandates require automakers to sell a fixed share of EVs, even when consumer demand lags. Manufacturers may respond by reducing the supply of lower-priced gas models, which drives up prices for gas vehicles. This raises the costs for drivers who cannot yet switch to an EV.
We often hear that the average EV price will soon match gas vehicle prices, but this comparison is misleading. Lower-income families typically shop below the average price point, putting EVs out of reach. Moreover, higher new vehicle prices spill into the used vehicle market, where most lower-income families buy cars. As used vehicle prices rise, many households will keep older, higher-emitting vehicles longer.
Number two is that EV benefits are not yet shared evenly across income groups. EVs offer lower operating costs, especially for drivers with home charging, but access to those savings is very uneven. Higher-income households are more likely to buy new EVs and have a garage or driveway for charging. Renters and lower-income families often lack both home charging and affordable credit.
In B.C., electricity for home charging costs less than eight cents per kilowatt hour, while public fast charging costs roughly four to eight times more. Over 10 years, a renter could pay about $7,000 more for electricity than a homeowner driving the same distance. Many lower-income households simply cannot afford the upfront cost of financing for a new EV. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that EVs still cost roughly $7,000 to $11,500 more than gas vehicles, pricing out the very households that could benefit most from lower operating costs.
Number three is about rural and remote communities. Longer driving distances, cold climates, towing requirements and sparse charging networks all reduce EV practicality in rural and northern regions. Meeting federal goals would require building roughly 98 new public charging ports every day until 2035, highlighting how uneven the rollout could be for communities with the weakest charging access. Mandates also raise prices and reduce the availability of these vehicles that communities rely on, creating regional disparities. Urban areas may see more early benefits from electrification, while rural and remote communities face higher costs and fewer viable options.
Number four is about how the tension is ambition versus affordability. If we push EV adoption faster than consumers, budgets and infrastructure can support it, the uneven impacts will fall most heavily on households with fewer resources, especially renters and rural residents. As it is currently designed, the tension within the EVAS falls too much against affordability, so achieving electrification fairly will require substantial adjustments and a more realistic timeline.
A more balanced approach would include aligning mandates with realistic consumer demand and infrastructure rollout; mandates acting as a guide or a nudge, not compelling automakers into costly adjustments; and focusing on emission outcomes, rather than prescribing technologies. Ultimately, what matters is cutting GHG emissions efficiently. The market can determine the most efficient mix of technologies.
In closing, we all want to reduce GHG emissions, but not at the cost of wider economic divides. Recognizing these impacts is essential to a fair transition.
Thank you.
