Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

The Northeast Braces for a Possible Power Shock From Trump’s Tariffs

Whether Canadian tariffs would even apply to electricity is still a question — but if they did, things could get expensive.

The Northeast Braces for a Possible Power Shock From Trump’s Tariffs
Illustration by Simon Abranowicz

Donald Trump reemphasized on Friday that he intends to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico beginning February 1, and while that date is rapidly approaching, the details remain sparse. Although the president has suggested the duties will be sweeping, covering everything from cars to lumber to oil, their impact on one key commodity — electricity — is very much in question.

The U.S. imports thousands of gigawatt hours of electricity from Canada every year, worth in the billions of dollars. While electricity from Canada makes up less than 1% of our nationwide power consumption, it’s a significant and growing source of low-cost, low-carbon power for some regions, especially the Northeast. Ontario Premier Doug Ford has threatened to cut off power exports into the U.S. entirely in retaliation for the tariffs. But even if he doesn’t, if the tariffs apply to electricity imports, then power flows across the border would still likely decline. That’s because domestic natural gas-fired power would suddenly become much more economical.

“Electricity from Canada competes against natural gas power plants,” Pierre-Olivier Pineau, a professor at the University of Montreal’s business school who studies electricity markets, told me. “The gas power plants would be so happy to have these tariffs.”

But whether the tariffs would or could apply to the trade of electricity is still a big open question. While it would be technically and administratively feasible to tax imports of electricity, Pineau told me, there’s no system set up to do that right now. “Electricity doesn’t go through customs,” he said.

Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.

* indicates required
  • The U.S. International Trade Commission, the federal agency that advises on international trade and tariffs, told me it was not “able to speculate on tariffs being applied to electricity or how that would be done.” The public affairs officer sent me a report from the Commission, however, which confirmed that it would be unprecedented. It states that “imports of electrical energy are not considered to be subject to the tariff laws of the United States.”

    Regardless, officials in Maine and Massachusetts began warning about the impacts of potential tariffs on electricity last week. Governor of Massachusetts Maura Healey told business leaders that tariffs could increase electricity costs by $100 million to $200 million statewide, as approximately 5% to 10% of the electricity New England consumes comes from Canada. (I reached out to the Independent System Operator for New England, but the grid operator had no more clarity on whether or how tariffs on power imports would work. “We do not have expertise in international trade, and we’d be looking for guidance if or when a tariff is implemented. Beyond that, we’re not able to speculate at this time.”)

    The U.S. generally imports electricity from Canada in two different ways. Some of it is part of a “firm contract.” For example, the New York grid operator has a contract with Hydro-Quebec, a Canadian hydropower company, through 2030, to import up to 900 megawatts of capacity at a fixed rate. Hydro-Quebec also has an agreement with Vermont to supply about 25% of its annual electricity needs through 2038. John-Thomas Bernard, an energy economist at the University of Ottawa, told me that for those contracts, if the 25% tax applied, it would be passed directly onto customers.

    But most of the electricity the U.S. consumes from Canada is purchased in a daily or hourly market, where U.S. grid operators just buy whatever is cheapest. Tariffs would essentially force Canadian producers out of that market, Bernard said. “The bulk of what would have to be replaced on the U.S. side will come from gas.”

    Whether this would produce a noticeable cost increase for consumers would largely depend on the price of natural gas. In 2023, imports to New York from Quebec dropped precipitously because a drought reduced hydropower capacity, but natural gas prices were also especially low, so electricity prices were not significantly higher.

    Low natural gas prices are not guaranteed in the long term, of course. “Natural gas prices are very market driven, and the more we are reliant on natural gas in the northeast, the more demand you put on that supply, the more those prices are going to go up,” Daniel Sosland, president of the New England-based environmental nonprofit the Acadia Center, told me.

    And if the tariffs remained in effect in 2026, New Yorkers would be hit much harder. That’s when the Champlain Hudson Power Express, a power line that will deliver 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower into New York City, is expected to be completed. The line will supply some 20% of New York City’s electricity demand.

    “I don’t know what the point of all this is,” Sosland told me. Electricity trade between the U.S. and Canada brings mutual benefits, he said. “The idea of tariffs and trying to create a fence along the system is going to be very destructive to customer cost, to clean air, to power reliability, because it’s going to foreclose all these other options that are on the table right now that provide benefits on both sides.”

    The exception to all of this is a small population of about 58,000 ratepayers in the state of Maine who live near the border and get virtually all of their electricity from New Brunswick, Canada. William Harwood, the public advocate for Maine, estimates these communities could see an increase of $6 to $7 per month on their electricity bills. Harwood didn’t have any additional insight into whether the tariffs would or could apply to electricity — he was merely looking into the impacts on constituents if they did. “They are electrically part of Canada,” he said.

    Editor’s note: This story originally misstated a unit of energy when referring to Canada’s energy exports. It’s gigawatt hours, not gigawatts. It’s been corrected.

    This story also has been updated to reflect Trump’s continued emphasis that tariffs will begin February 1.

    You’re out of free articles.

    Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
    To continue reading
    Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
    or
    Please enter an email address
    By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
    Politics

    The Fiscal Contradictions of Trump’s Energy Policy

    The administration seems to be pursuing a “some of the above” strategy with little to no internal logic.

    Donald Trump.
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    The Department of Energy justified terminating hundreds of congressionally-mandated grants issued by the Biden administration for clean energy projects last week (including for a backup battery at a children’s hospital) by arguing that they were bad investments for the American people.

    “Following a thorough, individualized financial review, DOE determined that these projects did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars,” the agency’s press release said.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Spotlight

    Wind Farm Trump Killed Derails a Major Transmission Line

    The collateral damage from the Lava Ridge wind project might now include a proposed 285-mile transmission line initially approved by federal regulators in the 1990s.

    The western United States.
    Heatmap Illustration/Library of Congress, Getty Images

    The same movement that got Trump to kill the Lava Ridge wind farm Trump killed has appeared to derail a longstanding transmission project that’s supposed to connect sought-after areas for wind energy in Idaho to power-hungry places out West.

    The Southwest Intertie Project-North, also known as SWIP-N, is a proposed 285-mile transmission line initially approved by federal regulators in the 1990s. If built, SWIP-N is supposed to feed power from the wind-swept plains of southern Idaho to the Southwest, while shooting electrons – at least some generated from solar power – back up north into Idaho from Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. In California, regulators have identified the line as crucial for getting cleaner wind energy into the state’s grid to meet climate goals.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Yellow
    Hotspots

    Solar Threats, Quiet Cancellations, and One Nice Thing

    The week’s most important news around renewable project fights.

    Solar Threats, Quiet Cancellations, and One Nice Thing
    Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

    1. Western Nevada — The Esmeralda 7 solar mega-project may be no more.

    • Last night I broke the news that the Bureau of Land Management quietly updated the permitting website for Esmeralda 7 to reflect project cancelation. BLM did so with no public statement and so far, none of the companies involved — NextEra, Invenergy, ConnectGen, and more — have said anything about it.
    • Esmeralda 7 was all set to receive its record of decision as soon as July, until the Trump administration froze permitting for solar projects on federal lands. The roughly 6.2 gigawatt mega-project had been stalled ever since.
    • It’s unclear if this means all of the components within Esmeralda 7 are done, or if facilities may be allowed to continue through permitting on a project-by-project basis. Judging from the messages I’ve fielded this morning so far, confusion reigns supreme here.

    2. Washoe County, Nevada – Elsewhere in Nevada, the Greenlink North transmission line has been delayed by at least another month.

    Keep reading...Show less
    Yellow