Solar home project captures Energy-TV award

Canada 100% Renewable Power by 2035 envisions a decentralized grid built on wind, solar, energy storage, and efficiency, delivering zero-emission, resilient, low-cost electricity while phasing out nuclear and gas to meet net-zero targets.

Key Points

Zero-emission, decentralized grid using wind, solar, and storage, plus efficiency, to retire fossil and nuclear by 2035.

✅ Scale wind and solar 18x with storage for reliability.

✅ Phase out nuclear and gas; no CCS or offsets needed.

✅ Modernize grids and codes; boost efficiency, jobs, and affordability.

A powerful derecho that left nearly a million people without power in Ontario and Quebec on May 21 was a reminder of the critical importance of electricity in our daily lives.

Canada’s electrical infrastructure could be more resilient to such events, while being carbon-emission free and provide low-cost electricity with a decentralized grid powered by 100 per cent renewable energy, according to a new study from the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF), a vision of an electric, connected and clean future if the country chooses.

This could be accomplished by 2035 by building a lot more solar and wind, despite indications that demand for solar electricity has lagged in Canada, adding energy storage, while increasing the energy efficiency in buildings, and modernizing provincial energy grids. As this happens, nuclear energy and gas power would be phased out. There would also be no need for carbon capture and storage nor carbon offsets, the modeling study concluded.

“Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of electricity generation in history,” said study co-author Stephen Thomas, a mechanical engineer and climate solutions policy analyst at the DSF.

“There are no technical barriers to reaching 100 per cent zero-emission electricity by 2035 nationwide,” Thomas told The Weather Network (TWN). However, there are considerable institutional and political barriers to be overcome, he said.

Other countries face similar barriers and many have found ways to reduce their emissions; for example, the U.S. grid's slow path to 100% renewables illustrates these challenges. There are enormous benefits including improved air quality and health, up to 75,000 new jobs annually, and lower electricity costs. Carbon emissions would be reduced by 200 million tons a year by 2050, just over one quarter of the reductions needed for Canada to meet its overall net zero target, the study stated.

Building a net-zero carbon electricity system by 2035 is a key part of Canada’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. Currently over 80 per cent of the nation’s electricity comes from non-carbon sources including a 15 per cent contribution from nuclear, with solar capacity nearing a 5 GW milestone nationally. How the final 20 per cent will be emission-free is currently under discussion.

The Shifting Power study envisions an 18-fold increase in wind and solar energy, with the Prairie provinces expected to lead growth, along with a big increase in Canada’s electrical generation capacity to bridge the 20 per cent gap as well as replacing existing nuclear power.

The report does not see a future role for nuclear power due to the high costs of refurbishing existing plants, including the challenges with disposal of radioactive wastes and decommissioning plants at their end of life. As for the oft-proposed small modular nuclear reactors, their costs will likely “be much more costly than renewables,” according to the report.

There are no technical barriers to building a bigger, cleaner, and smarter electricity system, agrees Caroline Lee, co-author of the Canadian Climate Institute’s study on net-zero electricity, “The Big Switch” released in May. However, as Lee previously told TWN, there are substantial institutional and political barriers.

In many respects, the Shifting Power study is similar to Lee’s study except it phases out nuclear power, forecasts a reduction in hydro power generation, and does not require any carbon capture and storage, she told TWN. Those are replaced with a lot more wind generation and more storage capacity.

“There are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches. We can do either but need a wide debate on what kind of electricity system we want,” Lee said.

That debate has to happen immediately because there is an enormous amount of work to do. When it comes to energy infrastructure, nearly everything “we put in the ground has to be wind, solar, or storage” to meet the 2035 deadline, she said.

There is no path to net zero by 2050 without a zero-emissions electricity system well before that date. Here are some of the necessary steps the report provided:

Create a range of skills training programs for renewable energy construction and installation as well as building retrofits.

Prioritize energy efficiency and conservation across all sectors through regulations such as building codes.

Ensure communities and individuals are fully informed and can decide if they wish to benefit from hosting energy generation infrastructure.

Create a national energy poverty strategy to ensure affordable access.

Strong and clear federal and provincial rules for utilities that mandate zero-emission electricity by 2035.

For Indigenous communities, make sure ownership opportunities are available along with decision-making power.

Canada should move as fast as possible to 100 per cent renewable energy to gain the benefits of lower energy costs, less pollution, and reduced carbon emissions, says Stanford University engineer and energy expert Mark Jacobson.

“Canada has so many clean, renewable energy resources that it is one of the easier countries [that can] transition away from fossil fuels,” Jacobson told TWN.

For the past decade, Jacobson has been producing studies and technical reports on 100 per cent renewable energy, including a new one for Canada, even as Canada is often seen as a solar power laggard today. The Stanford report, A Solution to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Insecurity for Canada, says a 100 per cent transition by 2035 timeline is ideal. Where it differs from DSF’s Shifting Power report is that it envisions offshore wind and rooftop solar panels which the latter did not.

“Our report is very conservative. Much more is possible,” agrees Thomas.

“We’re lagging behind. Canadians really want to get going on building solutions and getting the benefits of a zero emissions electricity system.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Bitcoin Energy Debate examines electricity usage, mining costs, environmental impact, and blockchain efficiency, weighing renewable power, carbon footprint, scalability, and transaction throughput to clarify stakeholder claims from Tesla, Square, academics, and policymakers.

Key Points

Debate on Bitcoin mining's power use, environmental impact, efficiency, and scalability versus alternative blockchains.

✅ Compares energy intensity with transaction throughput and system outputs.

✅ Weighs renewables, stranded power, and carbon footprint in mining.

✅ Assesses PoS blockchains, stablecoins, and scalability tradeoffs.

There is a great debate underway about the electricity required to process Bitcoin transactions. The debate is significant, the stakes are high, the views are diverse, and there are smart people on both sides. Bitcoin generates a lot of emotion, thereby producing too much heat and not enough light. In this post, I explain the importance of identifying the key issues in the debate, and of understanding the nature and extent of disagreement about how much electrical energy Bitcoin consumes.

Consider the background against which the debate is taking place. Because of its unstable price, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. The instability is apparent. On January 1, 2021, Bitcoin’s dollar price was just over $29,000. Its price rose above $63,000 in mid-April, and then fell below $35,000, where it has traded recently. Now the financial media is asking whether we are about to experience another “cyber winter” as the prices of cryptocurrencies continue their dramatic declines.

Central banks warns of bubble on bitcoins as it skyrockets
As bitcoins skyrocket to more than $12 000 for one BTC, many central banks as ECB or US Federal ... [+] NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, and unless that changes, Bitcoin cannot serve as a global mainstream medium of exchange. Being a high sentiment beta asset means that Bitcoin’s market price is driven much more by investor psychology than by underlying fundamentals.

As a general matter, high sentiment beta assets are difficult to value and difficult to arbitrage. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard. As a general matter, there is great disagreement among investors about the fair values of high sentiment beta assets. Bitcoin qualifies in this regard.

One major disagreement about Bitcoin involves the very high demand for electrical power associated with Bitcoin transaction processing, an issue that came to light several years ago. In recent months, the issue has surfaced again, in a drama featuring disagreement between two prominent industry leaders, Elon Musk (from Tesla and SpaceX) and Jack Dorsey (from Square).

On one side of the argument, Musk contends that Bitcoin’s great need for electrical power is detrimental to the environment, especially amid disruptions in U.S. coal and nuclear power that increase supply strain.  On the other side, Dorsey argues that Bitcoin’s electricity profile is a benefit to the environment, in part because it provides a reliable customer base for clean electric power. This might make sense, in the absence of other motives for generating clean power; however, it seems to me that there has been a surge in investment in alternative technologies for producing electricity that has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. So I am not sure that the argument is especially strong, but will leave it there. In any event, this is a demand side argument.

A supply side argument favoring Bitcoin is that the processing of Bitcoin transactions, known as “Bitcoin mining,” already uses clean electrical power, power which has already been produced, as in hydroelectric plants at night, but not otherwise consumed in an era of flat electricity demand across mature markets.

Both Musk and Dorsey are serious Bitcoin investors. Earlier this year, Tesla purchased $1.5 billion of Bitcoin, agreed to accept Bitcoin as payment for automobile sales, and then reversed itself. This reversal appears to have pricked an expanding Bitcoin bubble. Square is a digital transaction processing firm, and Bitcoin is part of its long-term strategy.

Consider two big questions at the heart of the digital revolution in finance. First, to what degree will blockchain replace conventional transaction technologies? Second, to what degree will competing blockchain based digital assets, which are more efficient than Bitcoin, overcome Bitcoin’s first mover advantage as the first cryptocurrency?

To gain some insight about possible answers to these questions, and the nature of the issues related to the disagreement between Dorsey and Musk, I emailed a series of academics and/or authors who have expertise in blockchain technology.

David Yermack, a financial economist at New York University, has written and lectured extensively on blockchains. In 2019, Yermack wrote the following: “While Bitcoin and successor cryptocurrencies have grown remarkably, data indicates that many of their users have not tried to participate in the mainstream financial system. Instead they have deliberately avoided it in order to transact in black markets for drugs and other contraband … or evade capital controls in countries such as China.” In this regard, cyber-criminals demanding ransom for locking up their targets information systems often require payment in Bitcoin. Recent examples of cyber-criminal activity are not difficult to find, such as incidents involving Kaseya and Colonial Pipeline.

David Yermack continues: “However, the potential benefits of blockchain for improving data security and solving moral hazard problems throughout the financial system have become widely apparent as cryptocurrencies have grown.” In his recent correspondence with me, he argues that the electrical power issue associated with Bitcoin “mining,” is relatively minor because Bitcoin miners are incentivized to seek out cheap electric power, and patterns shifted as COVID-19 changed U.S. electricity consumption across sectors.

Thomas Philippon, also a financial economist at NYU, has done important work characterizing the impact of technology on the resource requirements of the financial sector. He has argued that historically, the financial sector has comprised about 6-to-7% of the economy on average, with variability over time. Unit costs, as a percentage of assets, have consistently been about 2%, even with technological advances. In respect to Bitcoin, he writes in his correspondence with me that Bitcoin is too energy inefficient to generate net positive social benefits, and that energy crisis pressures on U.S. electricity and fuels complicate the picture, but acknowledges that over time positive benefits might be possible.

Emin Gün Sirer is a computer scientist at Cornell University, whose venture AVA Labs has been developing alternative blockchain technology for the financial sector. In his correspondence with me, he writes that he rejects the argument that Bitcoin will spur investment in renewable energy relative to other stimuli. He also questions the social value of maintaining a fairly centralized ledger largely created by miners that had been in China and are now migrating to other locations such as El Salvador.

Bob Seeman is an engineer, lawyer, and businessman, who has written a book entitled Bitcoin: The Mother of All Scams. In his correspondence with me, he writes that his professional experience with Bitcoin led him to conclude that Bitcoin is nothing more than unlicensed gambling, a point he makes in his book.

David Gautschi is an academic at Fordham University with expertise in global energy. I asked him about studies that compare Bitcoin’s use of energy with that of the U.S. financial sector. In correspondence with me, he cautioned that the issues are complex, and noted that online technology generally consumes a lot of power, with electricity demand during COVID-19 highlighting shifting load profiles.

My question to David Gautschi was prompted by a study undertaken by the cryptocurrency firm Galaxy Digital. This study found that the financial sector together with the gold industry consumes twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin transaction processing. The claim by Galaxy is that Bitcoin’s electrical power needs are “at least two times lower than the total energy consumed by the banking system as well as the gold industry on an annual basis.”

Galaxy’s analysis is detailed and bottom up based. In order to assess the plausibility of its claims, I did a rough top down analysis whose results were roughly consistent with the claims in the Galaxy study. For sake of disclosure, I placed the heuristic calculations I ran in a footnote.1 If we accept the Galaxy numbers, there remains the question of understanding the outputs produced by the electrical consumption associated with both Bitcoin mining and U.S. banks’ production of financial services. I did not see that the Galaxy study addresses the output issue, and it is important.

Consider some quick statistics which relate to the issue of outputs. The total market for global financial services was about $20 trillion in 2020. The number of Bitcoin transactions processed per day was about 330,000 in December 2020, and about 400,000 in January 2021. The corresponding number for Bitcoin’s digital rival Ethereum during this time was about 1.1 million transactions per day. In contrast, the global number of credit card transactions per day in 2018 was about 1 billion.2

Bitcoin Value Falls
LONDON, ENGLAND - NOVEMBER 20: A visual representation of the cryptocurrencies Bitcoin and Ethereum ... [+] GETTY IMAGES
These numbers tell us that Bitcoin transactions comprise a small share, on the order of 0.04%, of global transactions, but use something like a third of the electricity needed for these transactions. That said, the associated costs of processing Bitcoin transactions relate to tying blocks of transactions together in a blockchain, not to the number of transactions. Nevertheless, even if the financial sector does indeed consume twice as much electrical power as Bitcoin, the disparity between Bitcoin and traditional financial technology is striking, and the experience of Texas grid reliability underscores system constraints when it comes to output relative to input.  This, I suggest, weakens the argument that Bitcoin’s electricity demand profile is inconsequential because Bitcoin mining uses slack electricity.

A big question is how much electrical power Bitcoin mining would require, if Bitcoin were to capture a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce. Certainly much more than it does today; but how much more?

Given that Bitcoin is a high sentiment beta asset, there will be a lot of disagreement about the answers to these two questions. Eventually we might get answers.

At the same time, a high sentiment beta asset is ill suited to being a medium of exchange and a store of value. This is why stablecoins have emerged, such as Diem, Tether, USD Coin, and Dai. Increased use of these stable alternatives might prevent Bitcoin from ever achieving a major share of the transactions involved in world commerce.

We shall see what the future brings. Certainly El Salvador’s recent decision to make Bitcoin its legal tender, and to become a leader in Bitcoin mining, is something to watch carefully. Just keep in mind that there is significant downside to experiencing foreign exchange rate volatility. This is why global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF do not support El Salvador’s decision; and as I keep saying, Bitcoin is a very high sentiment beta asset.

In the past I suggested that Bitcoin bubble would burst when Bitcoin investors conclude that its associated processing is too energy inefficient. Of course, many Bitcoin investors are passionate devotees, who are vulnerable to the psychological bias known as motivated reasoning. Motivated reasoning-based sentiment, featuring denial,3 can keep a bubble from bursting, or generate a series of bubbles, a pattern we can see from Bitcoin’s history.

I find the argument that Bitcoin is necessary to provide the right incentives for the development of clean alternatives for generating electricity to be interesting, but less than compelling. Are there no other incentives, such as evolving utility trends, or more efficient blockchain technologies? Bitcoin does have a first mover advantage relative to other cryptocurrencies. I just think we need to be concerned about getting locked into an technologically inferior solution because of switching costs.

There is an argument to made that decisions, such as how to use electric power, are made in markets with self-interested agents properly evaluating the tradeoffs. That said, think about why most of the world adopted the Windows operating system in the 1980s over the superior Mac operating system offered by Apple. Yes, we left it to markets to determine the outcome. People did make choices; and it took years for Windows to catch up with the Mac’s operating system.

My experience as a behavioral economist has taught me that the world is far from perfect, to expect to be surprised, and to expect people to make mistakes. We shall see what happens with Bitcoin going forward.

As things stand now, Bitcoin is well suited as an asset for fulfilling some people’s urge to engage in high stakes gambling. Indeed, many people have a strong need to engage in gambling. Last year, per capita expenditure on lottery tickets in Massachusetts was the highest in the U.S. at over $930.

High sentiment beta assets offer lottery-like payoffs. While Bitcoin certainly does a good job of that, it cannot simultaneously serve as an effective medium of exchange and reliable store of value, even setting aside the issue at the heart of the electricity debate.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nalcor Energy Pandemic Loss underscores Muskrat Falls delays, hydroelectric risks, oil price shocks, and COVID-19 impacts, affecting ratepayers, provincial debt, timelines, and software commissioning for the Churchill River project and Atlantic Canada subsea transmission.

Key Points

A $171M Q1 2020 downturn linked to COVID-19, oil price collapse, and Muskrat Falls delays impacting schedules and costs.

✅ Q1 2020 profit swing: +$92M to -$171M amid oil price crash

✅ Muskrat Falls timeline slips; cost may reach $13.1B

✅ Software, workforce, COVID-19 constraints slow commissioning

Newfoundland and Labrador's Crown energy corporation reported a pandemic-related profit loss from the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, along with further complications to the beleaguered Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project.

Nalcor Energy recorded a profit loss of $171 million in the first quarter of 2020, down from a $92 million profit in the same period last year, due in part to falling oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The company released its financial statements for 2019 and the first quarter of 2020 on Tuesday, and officials discussed the numbers in a livestreamed presentation that detailed the impact of the global health crisis on the company's operations.

The loss in the first quarter was caused by lower profits from electricity sales and a drop in oil prices due to the pandemic and other global events, company officials said.

The novel coronavirus also added to the troubles plaguing the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam on Labrador's Churchill River, amid Quebec-N.L. energy tensions that long predate the pandemic.

Work at the remote site stopped in March over concerns about spreading the virus. Operations have been resuming slowly, with a reduced workforce tackling the remaining jobs.

Officials with Nalcor said it will likely be another year before the megaproject is complete.

CEO Stan Marshall estimates the months of delays could bring the total cost to $13.1 billion including financing, up from the previous estimate of $12.7 billion -- though the total impact of the coronavirus on the project's price tag has yet to be determined.

"If we're going to shut down again, all of that's wrong," Marshall said. "But otherwise, we can just carry on and we'll have a good idea of the productivity level. I'm hoping that by September we'll have a more definitive number here."

The 824 megawatt hydroelectric dam will eventually send power to Newfoundland, and later Nova Scotia, through subsea cables, even as Nova Scotia boosts wind and solar in its energy mix.

It has seen costs essentially double since it was approved in 2012, and faced significant delays even before pandemic-forced shutdowns in North America and around the world this spring.

Cost and schedule overruns were the subject of a sweeping inquiry that held hearings last year, while broader generation choices like biomass use have drawn scrutiny as well.

The commissioner's report faulted previous governments for failing to protect residents by proceeding with the project no matter what, and for placing trust in Nalcor executives who "frequently" concealed information about schedule, cost and related risks.

Some of the latest delays have come from challenges with the development of software required to run the transmission link between Labrador and Newfoundland, where winter reliability issues have been flagged in reports.

The software is still being worked out, Marshall said Tuesday, and the four units at the dam will come online gradually over the next year.

"It's not an all or nothing thing," Marshall said of the final work stages.
Nalcor's financial snapshot follows a bleak fiscal update from the province this month. The Liberal government reported a net debt of $14.2 billion and a deficit of more than $1.1 billion, even as a recent Churchill Falls deal promised new revenues for the province, citing challenges from pandemic-related closures and oil production shutdowns.

Finance Minister Tom Osborne said at the time that help from Ottawa will be necessary to get the province's finances back on track.

Muskrat Falls represents about one-third of the province's debt, and is set to produce more power than the province of about half a million people requires. Anticipated rate increases due to the ballooning costs and questions about Muskrat Falls benefits have posed a significant political challenge for the provincial government.

Ottawa has agreed to work with Newfoundland and Labrador on a rewrite of the project's financial structure, scrapping the format agreed upon in past federal-provincial loan agreements in order to ease the burden on ratepayers, while some argue independent planning would better safeguard ratepayers.

Marshall, a former Fortis CEO who was brought in to lead Nalcor in 2016, has called the project a "boondoggle" and committed to seeing it completed within four years. Though that plan has been disrupted by the pandemic, Marshall said the end is in sight.

"I'm looking forward to a year from now. And I hope to be gone," Marshall said.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Electricity Grid Decarbonization outlines the IESO's net-zero pathway: $400B investment, nuclear expansion, renewables, hydrogen, storage, and demand management to double capacity by 2050 while initiating a 2027 natural gas moratorium.

Key Points

A 2050 plan to double capacity, retire gas, and invest $400B in nuclear, renewables, and storage for a net-zero grid.

✅ $400B over 25 years to meet net-zero electricity by 2050

✅ Capacity doubles to 88,000 MW; demand grows ~2% annually

✅ 2027 gas moratorium; build nuclear, renewables, storage

Ontario will need to spend $400 billion over the next 25 years in order to decarbonize the electricity grid and embrace clean power according to a new report by the province’s electricity system manager that’s now being considered by the Ford government.

The Independent System Electricity Operator (IESO) was tasked with laying out a path to reducing Ontario’s reliance on natural gas for electricity generation and what it would take to decarbonize the entire electricity grid by 2050.

Meeting the goal, the IESO concluded, will require an “aggressive” approach of doubling the electricity capacity in Ontario over the next two-and-a-half decades — from 42,000 MW to 88,000 MW — by investing in nuclear, hydrogen and wind and solar power while implementing conservation policies and managing demand.

“The process of fully eliminating emissions from the grid itself will be a significant and complex undertaking,” IESO president Lesley Gallinger said in a news release.

The road to decarbonization, the IESO said, begins with a moratorium on natural gas power generation starting in 2027 as long as the province has “sufficient, non-emitting supply” to meet the growing demands on the grid.

The approach, however, comes with significant risks.

The IESO said hydroelectric and nuclear facilities can take 10 to 15 years to build and if costs aren’t controlled the plan could drive up the price of clean electricity, turning homeowners and businesses away from electrification.

“Rapidly rising electricity costs could discourage electrification, stifle economic growth or hurt consumers with low incomes,” the report states.

The IESO said the province will need to take several “no regret” actions, including selecting sites and planning to construct new large-scale nuclear plants as well as hydroelectric and energy storage projects and expanding energy-efficiency programs beyond 2024.

READ MORE: Ontario faces calls to dramatically increase energy efficiency rebate programs

Ontario’s minister of energy didn’t immediately commit to implementing the recommendations, citing the need to consult with stakeholders first.

“I look forward to launching a consultation in the new year on next steps from today’s report, including the potential development of major nuclear, hydroelectric and transmissions projects,” Todd Smith said in a statement.

Currently, electricity demand is increasing by roughly two per cent per year, raising concerns Ontario could be short of electricity in the coming years as the manufacturing and transportation sectors electrify and as more sectors consider decarbonization.

At the same time, the province’s energy supply is facing “downward pressure” with the Pickering nuclear power plant slated to wind down operations and the Darlington nuclear generating station under active refurbishment.

To meet the energy need, the Ford government said it intended to extend the life of the Pickering plant until 2026.

READ MORE: Ontario planning to keep Pickering nuclear power station open until 2026

But to prepare for the increase, the Ontario government was told the province would also need to build new natural gas facilities to bridge Ontario’s electricity supply gap in the near term — a recommendation the Ford government agreed to.

The IESO said a request for proposals has been opened and the province is looking for host communities, with the expectation that existing facilities would be upgraded before projects on undeveloped land would be considered.

The IESO said the contract for any new facilities would expire in 2040, and all natural gas facilities would be retired in the 2040s.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Canadian Softwood Lumber Tariffs challenge British Columbia's forestry sector, strain U.S.-Canada trade, and risk redirecting critical minerals and energy resources, threatening North American supply chains, manufacturing, and energy security across integrated markets.

Key Points

Duties imposed by the U.S. on Canadian lumber, affecting BC forestry, trade flows, and North American energy security.

✅ U.S. duties strain BC forestry and cross-border supply chains

✅ Risks redirecting critical minerals and energy exports

✅ Tariff rollback could bolster North American energy security

British Columbia Premier David Eby has raised concerns that U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are prompting the province to redirect its critical minerals and energy resources, while B.C. challenges Alberta's electricity export restrictions domestically, away from the United States. In a recent interview, Eby emphasized the broader implications of these tariffs, suggesting they could undermine North American energy security and put electricity exports at risk across the border.

Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Commerce has imposed tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber imports, alleging that Canadian producers benefit from unfair subsidies. These duties have been a persistent source of tension between the two nations, coinciding with Canadian support for energy and mineral tariffs and significantly impacting British Columbia's forestry sector—a cornerstone of the province's economy.

Premier Eby highlighted that the financial strain imposed by these tariffs not only jeopardizes the Canadian forestry industry but also has unintended repercussions for the United States. He pointed out that the economic challenges faced by Canadian producers might lead them to seek alternative markets for their critical minerals and energy resources, as tariff threats boost support for Canadian energy projects domestically, thereby reducing the supply to the U.S. British Columbia is endowed with an abundance of critical minerals essential for various industries, including technology and defense.

The potential redirection of these resources could have significant consequences for American industries that depend on a stable and affordable supply of critical minerals and energy. Eby suggested that the tariffs might incentivize Canadian producers to explore other international markets, even as experts advise against cutting Quebec's energy exports amid the tariff dispute, diminishing the availability of these vital resources to the U.S.

In light of these concerns, Premier Eby has advocated for a reassessment of the tariffs, urging a more cooperative approach between Canada and the United States. He contends that eliminating the tariffs would be mutually beneficial, aligning with views that Biden is better for Canada's energy sector and cross-border collaboration, ensuring a consistent supply of critical resources and fostering economic growth in both countries.

The issue of U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber remains complex and contentious, with far-reaching implications for trade relations and resource distribution between the two nations. As discussions continue, stakeholders on both sides of the border are closely monitoring the situation, noting that Ford has threatened to cut U.S. electricity exports amid trade tensions, recognizing the importance of collaboration in addressing shared economic and security challenges.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

London Tube Strikes Economic Impact highlights transport disruption reducing foot traffic, commuter flows, and tourism, squeezing small businesses, hospitality revenue, and citywide growth while business leaders urge negotiations, resolution, and policy responses to stabilize operations.

Key Points

Reduced transport options cut foot traffic and sales, straining small businesses and slowing London-wide growth.

✅ Hospitality venues report lower revenue and temporary closures

✅ Commuter and tourism declines reduce daily sales and bookings

✅ Business groups urge swift negotiations to restore services

London's economy is facing significant challenges due to ongoing tube strikes, challenges that are compounded by scrutiny of UK energy network profits and broader cost pressures across sectors, with businesses across the city experiencing disruptions that are impacting their operations and bottom lines.

Impact on Small Businesses

Small businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, are bearing the brunt of the disruptions caused by the strikes. Many establishments rely on the steady flow of commuters and tourists that the tube system facilitates, while also hoping for measures like temporary electricity bill relief that can ease operating costs during downturns. With reduced transportation options, foot traffic has dwindled, leading to decreased sales and, in some cases, temporary closures.

Economic Consequences

The strikes are not only affecting individual businesses but are also having a ripple effect on the broader economy, a dynamic seen when commercial electricity consumption plummeted in B.C. during the pandemic. The reduced activity in key sectors is contributing to a slowdown in economic growth, echoing periods when BC Hydro demand fell 10% and prompting policy responses such as Ontario electricity rate reductions for businesses, with potential long-term consequences if the disruptions continue.

Calls for Resolution

Business leaders and industry groups are urging for a swift resolution to the strikes. They emphasize the need for dialogue between the involved parties to reach an agreement that minimizes further economic damage and restores normalcy to the city's transportation system.

The ongoing tube strikes in London are causing significant disruptions to the city's economy, particularly affecting small businesses that depend on the efficient movement of people. Immediate action is needed to address the issues, drawing on tools like a subsidized hydro plan used elsewhere to spur recovery, to prevent further economic downturn.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News