This article originally appeared in Business in Vancouver.
By Jerome Gessaroli, May 11, 2026
British Columbia’s NDP government says it wants alignment with Ottawa on zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs). Yet it is still running a separate mandate with its own rules and enforcement.
The government must answer a simple question: Will B.C.’s system deliver emissions reductions beyond the federal framework? If not, repeal it and use the federal system.
Start with supply.
Automakers plan ZEV production and allocation at the national level. The federal government accepted this during its own consultations with industry and chose not to impose regional mandates. If supply is set nationally, a provincial rule does not increase the number of ZEVs in Canada. It changes where they are sold. That is redistribution, not additional emissions reduction.
The province has eased some targets and compliance rules to make the transition more practical. But that does not answer the central question of whether a separate provincial system delivers additional emissions reductions. Making the mandate easier to meet does not show it delivers additional results. The province also maintains a separate compliance system alongside the federal one. Manufacturers must track credits twice, report twice, and manage two enforcement processes.
Compliance with one system does not satisfy the other. That duplication raises administrative costs for industry and government, and those costs are passed onto consumers and taxpayers.
The system also cuts against another provincial priority: reducing internal trade barriers. A B.C.-specific mandate fragments the Canadian vehicle market and acts as a non-tariff barrier. Firms must adjust product mix and distribution to meet local rules, which limits availability and forces a shift in the sales mix away from vehicles produced in Ontario toward vehicles not currently produced there.
B.C.’s policies work at cross-purposes. The provincial government calls for more interprovincial trade, yet its separate ZEV regime creates a non-tariff barrier. Even more important, B.C. is forgoing the main advantage of the federal approach.
Ottawa is moving toward a technology-neutral standard that lets firms meet emissions targets through any mix of vehicle sales, including conventional and plug-in hybrids, more efficient gasoline models and fully electric vehicles.
But B.C.’s policy is not technology-neutral in practice. It still operates as a sales mandate, with minimum ZEV shares and class requirements and credit rules that favour some qualifying vehicle types over others, while excluding efficient conventional hybrids.
Firms cannot meet targets through any mix of vehicles. That keeps the policy more prescriptive, limits flexibility, reduces consumer choice and delivers fewer benefits than a technology-neutral approach that lets consumers choose vehicles that better match their needs, often at lower cost.
These rules also affect households unevenly. When ZEV mandates outpace what people actually want, firms adjust prices and supply. Lower-cost gasoline vehicles become harder to find or more expensive. That burden falls hardest on lower- and middle-income buyers, especially those without access to home charging. They must rely on more expensive public charging and may see little of the expected cost savings. A policy that raises costs should deliver clear benefits. Here, the benefits are unclear. B.C. justified its ZEV mandate by acting early and setting stricter targets to push national policy in the same direction.
That argument depends on staying ahead of Ottawa.
As B.C. moves toward alignment, that rationale fades. If B.C. is not doing more than Ottawa, why have a separate system? If ZEV supply is set nationally, costs are higher, and the provincial policy limits the benefits of a technology-neutral approach, the case for a separate mandate is weak. The NDP government must show that its separate regime delivers measurable emissions reductions beyond what the federal framework would achieve. If not, it should rescind the mandate and rely on the federal system. A policy that adds cost must add results. If it cannot show what it adds, it should not remain.
Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and author of a recent report on B.C.’s ZEV mandate for the Energy Futures Institute.
