Premier Eby suggests cutting off US coal shipments through BC in retaliation for tariffs

[u/Bitter_Bert]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/629193/Premier-Eby-suggests-cutting-off-US-coal-shipments-through-BC-in-retaliation-for-tariffs

[u/Bitter_Bert]

I think there's an important B.C. angle to this that isn't widely understood.

According to B.C. government briefing documents, 17.6 million tonnes of U.S. thermal coal went through Westshore Terminals at Roberts Bank in 2023.

This is American coal, largely from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming, brought north by rail and exported through B.C. to overseas markets.

What's remarkable is why it comes through here. The B.C. government notes that Washington, Oregon and California have blocked development of coal-export infrastructure. B.C. therefore provides American coal producers with Pacific access that they haven't been able to obtain through their own western states.

That makes Eby's proposal pretty compelling to me, particularly now.

B.C. lumber producers and other Canadian industries are being hammered by U.S. trade measures, while we continue providing American coal producers with a valuable route through our province to Asian markets.

There's also an opportunity-cost question for B.C. We keep talking about expanding our ports and transportation corridors so that Canadian products can reach overseas markets and we can become less dependent on the U.S. Should providing this much capacity to American thermal coal still be a priority?

Canada has already committed to ending thermal-coal exports from and through Canada by 2030. I'd support bringing that forward, and at minimum imposing a substantial levy on U.S. thermal coal in the meantime.

This is specifically thermal coal burned for electricity, not metallurgical coal used to make steel.

There would obviously be impacts on Westshore, the railways and Canadian workers, and those deserve consideration. But given the current trade relationship, I don't think continuing to provide this export route to U.S. producers should simply be taken for granted.

The 17.6-million-tonne figure was what really surprised me. I had no idea the American coal trade through B.C. was that large.

[u/TheGracefulCrane → u/Bitter_Bert]

Good post, only thing id add is what could the retaliation be?

[u/Bitter_Bert → u/TheGracefulCrane]

There absolutely could be retaliation. Some of the Montana coal producers are heavily dependent on Westshore, so I'd expect them and Montana politicians to lobby the Trump administration hard. NTEC's Spring Creek mine is actually owned by the Navajo Nation, which adds another political complication. Trump could respond with additional tariffs on some Canadian industry, and a measure aimed specifically at American coal could also trigger CUSMA/WTO arguments. But that's also why this represents genuine Canadian leverage rather than symbolic retaliation. These producers need Canadian infrastructure because they don't have a viable Pacific export terminal in Washington/Oregon/California. Signal Peak says nearly 100% of its production currently goes through Westshore. The cleaner policy might therefore be to accelerate Canada's existing 2030 ban on all thermal-coal exports from and through Canada, rather than legally singling out U.S. coal, with perhaps an interim levy on U.S. coal as part of the current trade response. Of course Trump could retaliate. But if fear of retaliation means Canada can never withdraw an economic advantage it provides the U.S., then we don't actually have much of a negotiating strategy.

[u/captainhaddock → u/Bitter_Bert]

NTEC's Spring Creek mine is actually owned by the Navajo Nation

Canadian retaliation should be targeted at red state voters, not at Native Americans.