zlacker

Ontario to Slap Export Tax on Electricity to U.S.

submitted by JumpCr+(OP) on 2025-03-04 15:59:39 | 32 points 32 comments
[view article] [source] [links] [go to bottom]
replies(6): >>Bunsan+W3 >>fredop+G8 >>cholli+H9 >>graype+N9 >>1970-0+Qa >>jaunty+nf
1. Bunsan+W3[view] [source] 2025-03-04 16:15:43
>>JumpCr+(OP)
Good.

I hope provinces extend this to all critical exports, including potash, nickle, uranium and oil.

The US deserves to suffer for this trade war. You guys elected this dictator from Temu, you should bleed as much as he's going to make Canada bleed.

replies(1): >>bryanl+Yc
2. fredop+G8[view] [source] 2025-03-04 16:34:31
>>JumpCr+(OP)
When the talk about tariffs started I wondered why no one was doing something like this. With exporting there's a risk that people will find ways around it but infrastructure for power, oil, gas, etc takes years to build so it's not like the US has a viable short term alternative for some of these.
3. cholli+H9[view] [source] 2025-03-04 16:39:31
>>JumpCr+(OP)
The problem with this is that its almost all blue states that are in the North East, so its Trump's "enemies" that will feel the bulk of this in the form of higher energy prices.

Oddly its Mexican tariffs that will have a bigger deterrent to Trump as his base is the red southern region of the US that take more Mexican imports.

Looks like inflation is back on the table for the US, and this time they've done it to themselves via higher prices from tariffs.

One other thing to watch is that this is currently weakening the Canadian dollar and Mexican peso, which means the USD is getting stronger which is the opposite of what Trump wants ultimately.

So far the markets in all countries just hate this news.

China has taken the following actions as well this morning

- China to Levy Tariffs on Some US Products Including Chicken

- China to Impose up to 15% Tariff on Some US Goods

- China to Levy Tariffs on Some US Products Including Soybean

- China Adds 10 US Firms to Unreliable Entity List

Smart as this targets the US farmers, so Trump is almost certainly going to do what he did last time and just print money and hand it out like candy to the US farmers.

The worst case outcome and one that analysts at all major sell site institutions are now considering to be a possibility is worldwide stagflation.

Normally the economy of one or two powerhouses is humming along while others are going through cyclical downturns which helps smooth things over.

The United States seems very determined to crash the entire worlds economy at the same time, which will mean all major economies will be printing and spending cash all at the same time in an effort to prop up their economies.

The US has just started their printing press, and Beijing has been doing so for a year to try and fix their already hurting economy.

The world is in for a lot of pain in the next 2 years.

replies(3): >>graype+6b >>tayo42+wd >>bitshi+RQ
4. graype+N9[view] [source] 2025-03-04 16:39:55
>>JumpCr+(OP)
Has Québec made any similar arrangements? HydroQuébec feeds into a lot of the New England region power grid as far as I know.
5. 1970-0+Qa[view] [source] 2025-03-04 16:43:44
>>JumpCr+(OP)
EVs in those states just became 25% more expensive to recharge. But that will be tomorrow's story.
replies(1): >>jeffbe+ad
◧◩
6. graype+6b[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 16:44:47
>>cholli+H9
While this does affect home electricity prices, doesn't this also affect costs in manufacturing? If trump's administration wants to promote american industrial manufacturing, the rust belt would be the place to do it, and this only makes it harder than it currently is.
◧◩
7. bryanl+Yc[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 16:53:52
>>Bunsan+W3
Potash, Uranium & Oil are from Saskatchewan & Alberta. Those provinces won't put on an export tax because that would be "unfair" to those two deeply conservative provinces. There are a lot of MAGA supporters in those two provinces.
replies(2): >>cholli+ki >>carbin+aC4
◧◩
8. jeffbe+ad[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 16:54:54
>>1970-0+Qa
Usually retail prices are regulated so it will be the utilities eating the difference, won't it?
replies(1): >>1970-0+jg
◧◩
9. tayo42+wd[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 16:57:01
>>cholli+H9
I think the power only targets New York, Michigan and Minnesota

and upstate NY is all republican voters which borders Canada. Id think that's the area that actually effected? Blue/Red state is misleading, you need to look at smaller areas to see how people voted. Its urban vs rural for the most part.

10. jaunty+nf[view] [source] 2025-03-04 17:05:34
>>JumpCr+(OP)
New England has been trying to build an 1.2MW ~150mi interconnect from Canada through Maine down to Massachusetts for many years now, and was hoping to wrap the project up this year. https://www.bangordailynews.com/2025/01/03/business/business...

Its been very controversial, especially because most of the land gows through Maine, cutting a line across it. Without doing much to improve Maine's grid. Mainer's passed a ballot initiative to halt the project, but courts ruled that Mainer's didn't have any right to halt the project.

So, the Central Maine Power (the power company) Corridor - officially called the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) - was back on. With various rounds of tax increases for various states & federal grants. Total cost has gone from $1B to over $1.5b.

Conceptually seems like a good idea! It's so unfortunate that it's such a visible cut through & across the land. And now, with this madness, who knows what the future holds.

replies(1): >>jeffbe+Jl
◧◩◪
11. 1970-0+jg[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 17:10:00
>>jeffbe+ad
Yes, but that buffer cannot and will not last.
◧◩◪
12. cholli+ki[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 17:20:59
>>bryanl+Yc
Tariffs are put on at the federal level, not the provincial level, but your misunderstanding is very common.

The US themselves are tariffing potash at 25% from Canada coming into the US.

In Canada

> Section 91(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives Parliament exclusive jurisdiction over “the regulation of trade and commerce.”

replies(2): >>bryanl+4k >>wasabi+t41
◧◩◪◨
13. bryanl+4k[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 17:29:01
>>cholli+ki
The province of Ontario is in the headline of this article.
replies(1): >>cholli+Iq
◧◩
14. jeffbe+Jl[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 17:37:51
>>jaunty+nf
Did you mean GW?
replies(1): >>jaunty+6v1
◧◩◪◨⬒
15. cholli+Iq[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 18:07:12
>>bryanl+4k
Ah, I see our disconnect. You are talking about export taxes and I am talking about the federal government.
replies(1): >>bryanl+Ot
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
16. bryanl+Ot[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 18:22:11
>>cholli+Iq
You still might be right. Ontario might be able to adjust electricity export prices because it's a highly regulated provincially regulated market. Alberta might not be able to unilaterally add an "export tax" to oil the same way.

OTOH, if Alberta asked for one, the federal government would comply.

replies(1): >>bryanl+gjh
◧◩
17. bitshi+RQ[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 20:49:15
>>cholli+H9
Is there any solid empirical evidence that tariffs cause inflation? They increase prices for some things, but they don't increase the money supply.
replies(1): >>fredop+Q61
◧◩◪◨
18. wasabi+t41[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 22:31:57
>>cholli+ki
However Trudeau has repeatedly emphasized working closely with the Premiers to ensure that tariffs aren't discriminatory against some provinces and favouring others. It seems to imply that despite his legal power, the federal government would not impose those tariffs as it would come at the cost of Canadian unity.
◧◩◪
19. fredop+Q61[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 22:57:54
>>bitshi+RQ
Can you clarify the definitions you're using? How is inflation different from increasing prices?
replies(1): >>bitshi+k81
◧◩◪◨
20. bitshi+k81[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 23:12:38
>>fredop+Q61
In the sense that you can measure it as a whole, such as what governments do with CPI reports. For example, if prices go up for a widget A, then maybe consumers switch to widget B. Prices for something went up, but inflation depends on the whole of things people actually buy.
replies(1): >>seanmc+f91
◧◩◪◨⬒
21. seanmc+f91[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 23:21:11
>>bitshi+k81
American steel companies just raised prices a week ago in anticipation of tariffs (not even passed tariffs), and the tariffs wouldn't even effect them. Everyone is going to want their share of higher pricing power, so expect domestic producers to follow higher import prices (well, its already happened).

If there was a lot of domestic suppliers and (more importantly) a lot of domestic competition, inflation might be avoided. But none of that exists, so expect consumers to pay for the tariffs directly and then more.

https://www.cato.org/blog/more-costly-steel-tariffs-horizon

replies(1): >>bitshi+Ya1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
22. bitshi+Ya1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 23:37:06
>>seanmc+f91
My question was about the evidence. For example, Trump introduced a 25% tariff on steel in early 2018, and yet we didn't see any unusual inflation until after the COVID stimulus.
replies(2): >>seanmc+4c1 >>fredop+WE1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
23. seanmc+4c1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-04 23:46:29
>>bitshi+Ya1
No, I think you remember it wrong. US steel companies raised prices back in 2018 as well. It was just that it was one tariff at the one time, and many companies were able to avoid it by moving production overseas (the tax didn't apply to goods made with steel, just steel itself).

This time, there are more tariffs coming at the same time, and the trick of moving production abroad to avoid steel tariffs is no longer viable.

replies(1): >>bitshi+Xd1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
24. bitshi+Xd1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 00:08:25
>>seanmc+4c1
In this comment chain, I have already clarified that by "inflation," I'm not referring to how an items price goes up after it becomes subject to a tariff. I'm referring to overall inflation in goods and services. You can see the rate of inflation from March of 2018 to the beginning of the COVID stimulus here: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPIAUCSL
replies(1): >>seanmc+4f1
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
25. seanmc+4f1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 00:19:37
>>bitshi+Xd1
If you tariff a small section of the economy, you aren't going to see much movement. Producers can adjust by moving production abroad (to avoid raw input tariffs) and by moving production to home (to avoid final assembly tariffs) (often a combination of both).

Trump's 2018 tariffs were narrow enough that they were easy to digest. Trump's 2025 tariffs are fairly broad and we won't be able to move production around in multiple places to deal with it, so much of the economy is going to eat the cost directly. So if money supply stays the same, Americans simply reduce their lifestyle to compensate (buy 25% less stuff, eat 25% less food), but I don't think that Trump (as someone who is addicted to excess) will see that as viable, so money is going to be printed and injected into the economy somehow.

◧◩◪
26. jaunty+6v1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 03:08:00
>>jeffbe+Jl
I did! Thank you! I translated 1200 MW in my head to 1.2 GW but forgot to M->G by the time it came to post.

1.2MW is ~1600 HP, or two modern EV's at peak power. Let's hope that's not what all the fuss is for! :)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
27. fredop+WE1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 04:25:32
>>bitshi+Ya1
I was able to find an article[0] showing job losses from Trump's first term tariffs but nothing concrete about inflation.

Despite not having concrete proof, I think there's a fairly plausible chain of events from tariffs to broader price increases. Trump's tariffs include a 10% tariff on Canadian oil and gas. If you're in a region that relies heavily on these things coming from Canada you're going to see prices go up on your monthly energy bills, fuel for your vehicle, etc. This also affects local businesses and directly increases their costs. Businesses can only absorb so much of an increase before they raise prices. Now you're able to buy even less between your increased monthly expenses and the higher prices in stores. This makes you go to your boss and ask for a raise just so you can keep up with what your purchasing power used to be. If your boss gives you that raise, the business sees their expenses go up again and may need to raise prices as a result.

In the scenario I described above, what step do you think won't happen that allows us to prevent higher energy prices from leading to inflation?

[0] https://carnegieendowment.org/china-financial-markets/2021/0...

replies(1): >>bitshi+Nn3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
28. bitshi+Nn3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 17:11:43
>>fredop+WE1
I believe taxes in general have a cooling effect on the economy and are ultimately deflationary. I also think it's possible we could enter a recession. If so, it would trigger fiscal expansion, which usually triggers inflation in turn. But tariffs in a vacuum: deflationary to neutral once the economy has time to react and adjust.
replies(1): >>fredop+Pw3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
29. fredop+Pw3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 17:57:17
>>bitshi+Nn3
I'm going to rephrase your position to make sure I understand it correctly. Please feel free to correct anything I get wrong below.

Tariffs result in higher costs to consumers in the short term due to the additional tax consumers have to pay. This extra tax is harmful to the economy. The reduction in economic growth is deflationary and sufficient to counter inflationary pressure from higher prices on tariffed goods. As a result, tariffs should lead to deflation or have at most a neutral effect on inflation.

Did I sum that up correctly?

replies(1): >>bitshi+mE3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
30. bitshi+mE3[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 18:34:03
>>fredop+Pw3
> and sufficient to counter inflationary pressure from higher prices on tariffed goods.

I'm not sure there is overall inflationary pressure from the higher prices on tariffed goods, but yes. It's a dynamic system, and I believe that people change their behavior and buying patterns in response to taxes. This is my belief, and I have no real evidence other than the fact that the rate of CPI growth did not increase after the 2018 tariffs until after the COVID stimulus came into effect.

◧◩◪
31. carbin+aC4[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-05 23:18:17
>>bryanl+Yc
Not anymore. Conservatives in Western Canada are just as anti-Trump as Liberals now.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
32. bryanl+gjh[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-03-10 17:31:13
>>bryanl+Ot
And that looks like it applies here as well. Today's announcement was a joint announcement between the provincial and federal government.
[go to top]