Senator Corker says ash flood is 'wake-up' call

Quebec Hydropower Export Retaliation examines using electricity exports to counter U.S. tariffs amid Canada-U.S. trade tensions, weighing clean energy supply, grid reliability, energy security, legal risks, and long-term market impacts.

Key Points

Using Quebec electricity exports as leverage against U.S. tariffs, and its economic, legal, and diplomatic consequences.

✅ Revenue loss for Quebec and higher costs for U.S. consumers

✅ Risk of legal disputes under trade and energy agreements

✅ Long-term erosion of market share and grid cooperation

As trade tensions between Canada and the United States continue to escalate, with electricity exports at risk according to recent reporting, discussions have intensified around potential Canadian responses to the imposition of U.S. tariffs. One of the proposals gaining attention is the idea of reducing or even halting the export of energy from Quebec to the U.S. This measure has been suggested by some as a potential countermeasure to retaliate against the tariffs. However, experts and industry leaders are urging caution, emphasizing that the consequences of such a decision could have significant economic and diplomatic repercussions for both Canada and the United States.

Quebec plays a critical role in energy trade, particularly in supplying hydroelectric power to the United States, especially to the northeastern states, including New York where tariffs may spike energy prices according to analysts, strengthening the case for stable cross-border flows. This energy trade is deeply embedded in the economic fabric of both regions. For Quebec, the export of hydroelectric power represents a crucial source of revenue, while for the U.S., it provides access to a steady and reliable supply of clean, renewable energy. This mutually beneficial relationship has been a cornerstone of trade between the two countries, promoting economic stability and environmental sustainability.

In the wake of recent U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, some policymakers have considered using energy exports as leverage, echoing threats to cut U.S. electricity exports in earlier disputes, to retaliate against what is viewed as an unfair trade practice. The idea is to reduce or stop the flow of electricity to the U.S. as a way to strike back at the tariffs and potentially force a change in U.S. policy. On the surface, this approach may appear to offer a viable means of exerting pressure. However, experts warn that such a move would be fraught with significant risks, both economically and diplomatically.

First and foremost, Quebec's economy is heavily reliant on revenue from hydroelectric exports to the U.S. Any reduction in these energy sales could have serious consequences for the province's economic stability, potentially resulting in job losses and a decrease in investment. The hydroelectric power sector is a major contributor to Quebec's GDP, and recent events, including a tariff threat delaying a green energy bill in Quebec, illustrate how trade tensions can ripple through the policy landscape, while disrupting this source of income could harm the provincial economy.

Additionally, experts caution that reducing energy exports could have long-term ramifications on the energy relationship between Quebec and the northeastern U.S. These two regions have developed a strong and interconnected energy network over the years, and abruptly cutting off the flow of electricity could damage this vital partnership. Legal challenges could arise under existing trade agreements, and even as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects among some stakeholders, the situation would grow more complex. Such a move could also undermine trust between the two parties, making future negotiations on energy and other trade issues more difficult.

Another potential consequence of halting energy exports is that U.S. states may seek alternative sources of energy, diminishing Quebec's market share in the long run. As the U.S. has a growing demand for clean energy, especially as it looks to transition away from fossil fuels, and looks to Canada for green power in several regions, cutting off Quebec’s electricity could prompt U.S. states to invest in other forms of energy, including renewables or even nuclear power. This could have a lasting effect on Quebec's position in the U.S. energy market, making it harder for the province to regain its footing.

Moreover, reducing or ceasing energy exports could further exacerbate trade tensions, leading to even greater economic instability. The U.S. could retaliate by imposing additional tariffs on Canadian goods or taking other measures that would negatively impact Canada's economy. This could create a cycle of escalating trade barriers that would hurt both countries and undermine the broader North American trade relationship.

While the concept of using energy exports as a retaliatory tool may seem appealing to some, the experts' advice is clear: the potential economic and diplomatic costs of such a strategy outweigh the short-term benefits. Quebec’s role as an energy supplier to the U.S. is crucial to its own economy, and maintaining a stable, reliable energy trade relationship is essential for both parties. Rather than escalating tensions further, it may be more prudent for Canada and the U.S. to seek diplomatic solutions that preserve trade relations and minimize harm to their economies.

While the idea of using Quebec’s energy exports as leverage in response to U.S. tariffs may appear attractive on the surface, and despite polls showing support for tariffs on energy and minerals among Canadians, it carries significant risks. Experts emphasize the importance of maintaining a stable energy export strategy to protect Quebec’s economy and preserve positive diplomatic relations with the U.S. Both countries have much to lose from further escalating trade tensions, and a more measured approach is likely to yield better outcomes in the long run.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Tesla Supercharger Billing Update details kWh-based pricing that now includes HVAC, battery thermal management, and other HV loads during charging sessions, improving cost transparency across pay-per-use markets and extreme climate scenarios.

Key Points

Tesla's update bills for kWh used by HVAC, battery heating, and HV loads during charging, reflecting true energy costs.

✅ kWh charges now include HVAC and battery thermal management

✅ Expect 10-25 kWh increases in extreme climates during sessions

✅ Some regions still bill per minute due to regulations

Tesla has updated its Supercharger billing policy to add the cost of electricity use for things other than charging, like HVAC, battery thermal management, etc, while charging at a Supercharger station, a shift that impacts overall EV charging costs for drivers. 

For a long time, Tesla’s Superchargers were free to use, or rather the use was included in the price of its vehicles. But the automaker has been moving to a pay-to-use model over the last two years in order to finance the growth of the charging network amid the Biden-era charging expansion in the United States.

Not charging owners for the electricity enabled Tesla to wait on developing a payment system for its Supercharger network.

It didn’t need one for the first five years of the network, and now the automaker has been fine-tuning its approach to charge owners for the electricity they consume as part of building better charging networks across markets.

At first, it meant fluctuating prices, and now Tesla is also adjusting how it calculates the total power consumption.

Last weekend, Tesla sent a memo to its staff to inform them that they are updating the calculation used to bill Supercharging sessions in order to take into account all the electricity used:

The calculation used to bill for Supercharging has been updated. Owners will also be billed for kWhs consumed by the car going toward the HVAC system, battery heater, and other HV loads during the session. Previously, owners were only billed for the energy used to charge the battery during the charging session.

Tesla says that the new method should more “accurately reflect the value delivered to the customer and the cost incurred by Tesla,” which mirrors recent moves in its solar and home battery pricing strategy as well.

The automaker says that customers in “extreme climates” could see a difference of 10 to 25 kWh for the energy consumed during a charging session:

Owners may see a noticeable increase in billed kWh if they are using energy-consuming features while charging, e.g., air conditioning, heating etc. This is more likely in extreme climates and could be a 10-25 kWh difference from what a customer experienced previously, as states like California explore grid-stability uses for EVs during peak events.

Of course, this is applicable where Tesla is able to charge by the kWh for charging sessions. In some markets, regulations push Tesla to charge by the minute amid ongoing fights over charging control between utilities and private operators.

Electrek’s Take
It actually looks like an oversight from Tesla in the first place. It’s fair to charge for the total electricity used during a session, and not just what was used to charge your battery pack, since Tesla is paying for both, even as some states add EV ownership fees like the Texas EV fee that further shape costs.

However, I wish Tesla would have a clearer way to break down the charging sessions and their costs.

There have been some complaints about Tesla wrongly billing owners for charging sessions, and this is bound to create more confusion if people see a difference between the kWhs gained during charging and what is shown on the bill.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Fukushima Daiichi decommissioning delay highlights TEPCO's revised timeline, spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2, safety enclosures, decontamination, fuel debris extraction by robot arm, and contaminated water management under stricter radiation control.

Key Points

A government revised schedule pushing back spent fuel removal and decommissioning milestones at Fukushima Daiichi.

✅ TEPCO delays spent fuel removal at Units 1 and 2 for safety.

✅ Enclosures, decontamination, and robotics mitigate radioactive risk.

✅ Contaminated water cut target: 170 tons/day to 100 by 2025.

The Japanese government decided Friday to delay the removal of spent fuel from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant's Nos. 1 and 2 reactors by as much as five years, casting doubt on whether it can stick to its timeframe for dismantling the crippled complex.

The process of removing the spent fuel from the units' pools had previously been scheduled to begin in the year through March 2024.

In its latest decommissioning plan, the government said the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings Inc., will not begin the roughly two-year process (a timeline comparable to major reactor refurbishment programs seen worldwide) at the No. 1 unit at least until the year through March 2028 and may wait until the year through March 2029.

Work at the No. 2 unit is now slated to start between the year through March 2025 and the year through March 2027, it said.

The delay is necessary to take further safety precautions such as the construction of an enclosure around the No. 1 unit to prevent the spread of radioactive dust, and decontamination of the No. 2 unit, even as authorities have begun reopening previously off-limits towns nearby, the government said. It is the fourth time it has revised its schedule for removing the spent fuel rods.

"It's a very difficult process and it's hard to know what to expect. The most important thing is the safety of the workers and the surrounding area," industry minister Hiroshi Kajiyama told a press conference.

The government set a new goal of finishing the removal of the 4,741 spent fuel rods across all six of the plant's reactors by the year through March 2032, amid ongoing debates about the consequences of early nuclear plant closures elsewhere.

Plant operator TEPCO has started the process at the No. 3 unit and already finished at the No. 4 unit, which was off-line for regular maintenance at the time of the disaster. A schedule has yet to be set for the Nos. 5 and 6 reactors.

While the government maintained its overarching timeframe of finishing the decommissioning of the plant 30 to 40 years from the 2011 crisis triggered by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami, there may be further delays, even as milestones at other nuclear projects are being reached worldwide.

The government said it will begin removing fuel debris from the three reactors that experienced core meltdowns in the year through March 2022, starting with the No. 2 unit as part of broader reactor decommissioning efforts.

The process, considered the most difficult part of the decommissioning plan, will involve using a robot arm, reflecting progress in advanced reactors technologies, to initially remove small amounts of debris, moving up to larger amounts.

The government also said it will aim to reduce the pace at which contaminated water at the plant increases. Water for cooling the melted cores, mixed with underground water, amounts to around 170 tons a day. That number will be brought down to 100 tons by 2025, it said.

The water is being treated to remove the most radioactive materials and stored in tanks on the plant's grounds, but already more than 1 million tons has been collected and space is expected to run out by the summer of 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Atlantic Canada Energy Regulatory Reform accelerates smart grids, renewables, hydrogen, and small modular reactors to meet climate targets, enabling interprovincial transmission, EV charging, and decarbonization toward a net-zero grid by 2035 with agile, collaborative policies.

Key Points

A policy shift enabling smart grids, clean energy, and transmission upgrades to decarbonize Atlantic Canada by 2035.

✅ Agile rules for smart grids, EV load, and peak demand balancing

✅ Interprovincial transmission: Maritime Link, NB-PEI, Atlantic Loop

✅ Supports hydrogen, SMRs, and renewables to cut GHG emissions

Atlantica Centre for Energy Senior Policy Consultant Neil Jacobsen says the future of Atlantic Canada’s electricity grid depends on agile regulations, supported by targeted research such as the $2M Atlantic grid study, that match the pace at which renewable technologies are being developed in the race to meet Canada’s climate goals.

In an interview, Jacobsen stressed the need for a more modernized energy regulatory framework, so the Atlantic Provinces can collaborate to quickly develop and adopt cleaner energy.

To this end, Atlantica released a paper that makes the case for responsive smart grid technology, the adaptation of alternative forms of clean energy, the adaptation of hydrogen as an energy source, petroleum price regulation in Atlantic Canada and small modular reactors.

Jacobsen said regulations need to match Canada’s urgency around reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent by 2030, achieving a net-neutral national power grid by 2035 and ultimately a net-zero grid by 2050 in Canada – and the goal that 50 percent of Canadian vehicle sales being electric by 2030.

“It’s an evolution of policy and regulations to adapt to a very aggressive timeline of aggressive climate change and decarbonization targets,” said Jacobsen.

“These are transformational energy and environmental commitments, so the path forward really requires the ability to introduce and adapt and move forward with new clean renewable energy technologies.”

Jacobsen said Atlantica’s recommendations are not a criticism of existing regulations– but an acknowledgment that they need to evolve.

He noted newer, clearer regulations will make way for new energy sources – particularly a region that has the countries highest rates of dependency on fossil fuels and growing climate risks, with Atlantic grids under threat from more intense storms.

“We have a long way to go, but at the same time, we have a lot to celebrate. Atlantic Canada is leading the country in reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jacobsen.

“There are new ways of producing energy that requires us to be able to be much more responsive and this is an opportunity to create a higher level of alignment here, in Atlantic Canada.”

Jacobsen said Atlantica is looking to aid interprovincial cooperation in providing power, echoing calls for a western Canadian grid elsewhere, through projects like the 500-megawatt, 170-kilometre Maritime Link that transports power from the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam in Labrador, through Newfoundland and across the Cabot Strait, to Nova Scotia – or NB Power’s export of electricity to P.E.I., via sub-sea cables crossing the Northumberland Strait.

He noted streamlined regulations may allow for more potential wider-scale partnerships, like the proposed Atlantic Loop project, aligning with macrogrid investments that would involve upgrading transmission capacity on the East Coast to allow hydroelectric power from Labrador and Quebec to displace coal use in the region.

Atlantic Canada has led the way with adaption new renewable technologies, noted Jacobsen, referring to nuclear startups Moltex Energy and ARC Nuclear Canada’s efforts to develop small modular nuclear reactor technology in New Brunswick, as well as the potential of adopting hydrogen fuel technology and Nova Scotia’s strides in developing offshore renewable energy.

“I don’t think we have any choice other than to be forceful and aggressive in driving forward a renewable energy agenda.”

Jacobsen said cooperation between the Atlantic provinces is crucial because of how challenging it is to meet energy demand with heavy seasonal and daily variations in energy demand in the region – something smart grid technology could address.

Smart Grid Atlantic is a four-year research and demonstration program testing technologies that provide cleaner local power, support a smarter electricity infrastructure across the region, more renewable power, more information and control over power use and more reliable electricity.

“It can be challenging for utilities to meet those cyclical demands, especially as grids are increasingly exposed to harsh weather across Canada. Smart girds add knowledge of the flow of electrons in a way that can help even out those electricity demands – and quite frankly, those demands will only increase when you look at the electrification of the transportation sector,” he said.

Jacobsen said Atlantica’s paper and call for modernized regulations are only the beginning of a conversation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

DARPA RADICS Power Grid Security targets DoD resilience to cyber attacks, delivering early warning, detection, isolation, and characterization tools, plus a secure emergency network to protect critical infrastructure and speed grid restoration and communications.

Key Points

A DoD/DARPA initiative to detect, contain, and rapidly recover the U.S. grid from sophisticated cyber attacks.

✅ Early warning separates attacks from routine outages

✅ Pinpoints intrusion points and malware used

✅ Builds secure emergency network for rapid restoration

The U.S. Department of Defense is growing increasingly concerned about hackers taking down our power grid and crippling the nation, reflecting a renewed focus on grid protection across agencies, which is why the Pentagon has created a $77-million security plan that it hopes will be up and running by 2020.

The U.S. power grid is threatened every few days. While these physical and cyber attacks have never led to wide-scale outages, attacks are getting more sophisticated. According to a 494-page report released by the Department of Energy in January and a new grid report card, the nation’s grid “faces imminent danger from cyber attacks.” Such a major, sweeping attack could threaten “U.S. lifeline networks, critical defense infrastructure, and much of the economy; it could also endanger the health and safety of millions of citizens.” If it were to happen today, America could be powered-down and vulnerable for weeks.

#google#

The DoD is working on an automated system to speed up recovery time to a week or less — what it calls the Rapid Attack Detection, Isolation, and Characterization (RADICS) program. DARPA, the Pentagon’s research arm, originally solicited proposals in late 2015, asking for technology that did three things. Primarily, it had to detect early warning signs and distinguish between attacks and normal outages, especially after intrusions at U.S. electric utilities underscored the risk, but it also had to pinpoint the access point of the attack and determine what malicious software was used. Finally, it must include an emergency system that can rapidly connect various power-supply centers, without any human coordination. This would allow emergency and military responders to have an ad hoc communication system in place moments after an attack.

“If a well-coordinated cyberattack on the nation’s power grid were to occur today, the time it would take to restore power would pose daunting national security challenges,” said DARPA program manager John Everett, in a statement, at the time. “Beyond the severe domestic impacts, including economic and human costs, prolonged disruption of the grid would hamper military mobilization and logistics, impairing the government’s ability to project force or pursue solutions to international crises.”

DARPA plans to spend $77 million on RADICS, while DOE funding to improve the grid complements these initiatives. Last November, SRI International announced it had received $7.3 million from the program. In December, Raython was granted $9 million. The latest addition is BAE Systems, which received $8.6 million last month to develop technology that detects and contains power-grid threats, and creates a secure emergency provisional system that restores some power and communication in the wake of an attack — what is being called a secure emergency network.

According to the military news site Defense Systems, BAE’s SEN would rely on radio, satellite, or wireless internet — particularly as ransomware attacks continue to rise — whatever is available that allows the grid to continue working. The SEN would serve as a wireless connection between separate power grid stations.

While the ultimate goal of the RADICS program will be the restoration of civilian power and communications, the SEN will prioritize communication networks that would be used for defense or combat, so the U.S. government can still wage war while the rest of us are in the dark.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Nunavut electricity rate increase sees QEC raise domestic electricity rates 6.6% over two years, affecting customer rates, base rates, subsidies, and kWh overage charges across communities, with public housing exempt and territory-wide pricing denied.

Key Points

A 6.6% QEC hike over 2018-2019, affecting customer rates, subsidies, and kWh overage; public housing remains exempt.

✅ 3.3% on May 1, 2018; 3.3% on Apr 1, 2019

✅ Subsidy caps: 1,000 kWh Oct-Mar; 700 kWh Apr-Sep

✅ Territory-wide base rate denied; public housing exempt

Ahead of the Nunavut government's approval of the general rate increase for the Qulliq Energy Corporation, many Nunavummiut wondered how the change would impact their electricity bills.

QEC's request for a 6.6-per-cent increase was approved by the government last week. The increase will be spread out over two years, a pattern similar to BC Hydro's two-year rate plan, with the first increase (3.3 per cent) effective May 1, 2018. The remaining 3.3 per cent will be applied on April 1, 2019.

Public housing units, however, are exempt from the government's increase altogether.

The power corporation also asked for a territory-wide rate, so every community would pay the same base rate (we'll go over specific terms in a minute if you're not familiar with them). But that request was denied, even as Manitoba Hydro scaled back increases next year, and QEC will now take the next two years reassessing each community's base rate.

#google#

So, what does this mean for your home's power bill? Well, there's a few things you need to know, which we'll get to in a second.

But in essence, as long as you don't go over the government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit, you're paying an extra 3.61 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh).

To be clear, we're talking about non-government domestic rates — basically, private homeowners — and those living in a government-owned unit but pay for their own power.

The basics

First, some quick terminology. The "base rate" term we're going to use (and used above) in this story refers to the community rate. As in, what QEC charges customers in every community. The "customer rate" is the rate customers actually pay, after the government's subsidy.

The first thing you need to know is everyone in Nunavut starts off by paying the same customer rate, unlike jurisdictions using a price cap to limit spikes.

That's because the government subsidizes electricity costs, and that subsidy is different in every community, because the base rate is different.

For example, Iqaluit's new base rate after the 3.3 per cent increase (remember, the 6.6 per cent is being applied over two years) is 56.69 cents per kWh, while Kugaaruk's base rate rose to 112.34 cents per kWh. Those, by the way, are the territory's lowest and highest respective base rates.

However, customers in both Iqaluit and Kugaaruk will each now pay 28.35 cents per kWh because, remember, the government subsidizes the base rates in every community.

Now, remember earlier we mentioned a "government-subsidized monthly electricity usage limit?" That's where customers in various communities start to pay different amounts.

As simply as we can explain it, the government will only cover so much electricity usage in a month, in every household.

Between October and March, the government will subsidize the first 1,000 kilowatt hours, and only 700 kilowatt hours from April to September. QEC says the average Nunavut home will use about 500 kilowatt hours every month over the course of a year.

But if your household goes over that limit, you're at the mercy of your community's base rate for any extra electricity you use. Homes in Kugaaruk in December, for instance, will have to pay that 122.34 cents for every extra kilowatt hour it uses, while homes in Iqaluit only have to pay 56.69 cents per kWh for its extra electricity.

That's where many Nunavummiut have criticized the current rate structure, because smaller communities are paying more for their extra costs than larger communities.

QEC had hoped — as it had asked for — to change the structure so every community pays the same base rate. So regardless of if people go over their electricity usage limits for the government subsidy, everyone would pay the same overage rates.

But the government denied that request.

New rate is actually lower

The one thing we should highlight, however, is the new rate after the increase is actually lower than what customers were paying in 2014.

For the past seven months, customers have been getting power from QEC at a discount, whereas Newfoundland customers began paying for Muskrat Falls during the same period, to different effect.

That's because when QEC sets its rates, it does so based on global oil price forecasts. Since 2014, the price of oil worldwide has slumped, and so QEC was able to purchase it at less than it had anticipated.

When that happens, and QEC makes more than $1 million within a six month period thanks to the lower oil prices, it refunds the excess profits back to customers through a discount on electricity base rates — a mechanism similar to a lump-sum credit used elsewhere — the government subsidy, however, doesn't change so the savings are passed on directly to customers.

Now, the 6.6 per cent increase to electricity rates, is actually being applied to the discounted base rate from the last seven months.

So again, while customers are paying more than they have been for the last seven months, it's lower than what they were paying in 2014.

Lastly, to be clear, all the figures used in this story are only for domestic non-government rates. Commercial rates and changes have not been explored in this story, given the differences in subsidy and rate application.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News