Analysis of US-Canada energy shipments of export cargo and import of that energy trade consisted of natural gas, electricity, uranium, coal. On the other hand, Canada and the US have differ- ent energy sources, The US also uses more natural gas for electricity generation. 16, file photo, the national flags of Canada, from left, the U.S. and Mexico, are lit by NAFTA has fostered a thriving North American energy market that currently supports Consider America's relationship with Mexico.
In Ontario, for example, the provincial government maintains that it will close its four coal-fired plants Atikokan, Lambton, Nonticoke and Thunder Bay by December 31,citing environ- mental and health concerns.
The government plans to replace coal- fired capacity with natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectricity, and wind, along with increased conservation measures. These differences have obvious implications for any clean energy strategy. On the one hand, the US can achieve very large emissions reductions by replacing its coal-fired electricity plants with less carbon-intensive alter- natives, while Canada requires a broader range of measures across multiple sectors to reduce emissions.
On the other hand, electrification in Canada provides greater emissions reductions due to the lower emissions intensity of electricity generation. This has implica- tions for both the ambition and pace of climate policy development and implementation here in Canada. Already, GHG emissions targets in Canada have been moderated to line up with less stringent proposed US targets, at 17 percent below levels by Yet US ambition and timing on the climate file remains unclear and uncertain.
Early momentum in Congress with the Waxman-Markey Bill, together with various Senate bills, has stalled. A federally mandated cap- and-trade system that could link with Canada remains in limbo.
Clean ener- gy technology discussions have not yielded specific results. Recent tailpipe emission standards harmonization is the sole substantive element. An inevitable question for Canada will be whether and how it does some- thing on climate policy while the US does nothing and delays persist south of the border.
The US-Canada Energy Trading Relationship | Global Trade Magazine
National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy NRTEE reports in and demonstrate that an early, economy- wide carbon price signal is the most cost effective means of meeting deep GHG emissions reduction targets.
Delay is costly as the carbon price will have to rise to meet stated targets in a shorter time frame. Like all countries, Canada will seek to implement policies that achieve the most GHG emissions reduc- tions at the least economic cost.
- U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis
- Trending Now
A core issue for the development of a clean energy strategy for Canada will there- fore be whether it takes action on cli- mate policy objectives now, or only at a later date pending US action. For Canada, there are both risks and opportunities in US climate pol- icy and its impact on Canadian ener- gy and climate policies. Table 2, developed by the NRTEE, illustrates the types of trade-off risks at play from both an economic and environ- mental perspective in contemplating various leading, lagging, or harmo- nizing scenarios for Canada.
They include competitive sectoral impacts, regional distribution impacts, appli- cation of border carbon adjustments, and missing both medium-term and longer-term tar- gets. It offers a way to contemplate optimal Canadian policy design to minimize risks. No option is risk-free " including harmonization " and there are inescapable costs to all options. The table is illustrative only at this stage; Canadian policy choic- es and responses will ultimately determine the likely level of risk.
A core reason for these underlying risks is the dif- ferent expected rates of growth in GHG emissions in the two countries. This is reflected in figure 5, which shows the percent increase in GHG emissions over levels as predicted by cur- rent business-as-usual projections for Canada and the US.
The Canada-US trade and energy relationship - Policy Options
Higher emissions growth in Canada is principally a result of the forecast continued growth of the Alberta oil-sands. Oil production including oil sands in Alberta relies primarily on electricity generated from coal. As oil sands production is elec- tricity-intensive, this translates into greater overall GHG emissions growth in Canada, suggesting that a greater level of effort and likely higher carbon prices will be needed to reduce emis- sions and meet the newly stated tar- gets in Canada than will be needed in the United States.
From a sector-level perspective, two distinct differences between the countries emerge. Another article discussed energy trade with Mexico. Energy Information Administration, based on U. Census Bureau Canada is the largest energy trading partner of the United States.
Based on the latest annual data from the U. While the value of bilateral energy trade with Canada has varied over past decade, driven primarily by changes in prices of oil and natural gas, the overall structure of bilateral energy trade flows has changed relatively little, and U. In andthe value of U. Forthe value of U.
Canada is by far the largest source of U.
As oil prices fell in andthe value of U. Untilvirtually all U. However, as the United States has exported more crude oil to other countries, Canada has made up a smaller share of U. Bilateral petroleum products trade with Canada is relatively balanced in both volumetric and value terms.ENERGY From Canadian power company to a European offshore wind powerhouse
However, the mix of petroleum product flows between the United States and Canada varies by product and region.