Quebec’s vast hydroelectric network was built to keep homes warm, factories running and public revenues flowing. In the 2026 provincial election campaign, however, Hydro-Québec has acquired another potential role: bargaining chip. As the Canada-U.S. trade dispute deepens, Quebec’s political leaders are debating how far the province should go in using electricity and other economic assets to answer pressure from Washington.
The disagreement is more complicated than a simple choice between keeping the power flowing and switching it off. Coalition Avenir Québec Leader Christine Fréchette has refused to rule out ending hydroelectricity sales to the United States, while rivals have proposed approaches ranging from higher export prices to broader economic retaliation. At the same time, existing contracts, export permits, provincial revenues and an increasingly interconnected northeastern power grid make electricity a powerful but potentially costly weapon.
Hydro-Québec Becomes an Election-Campaign Pressure Point
The idea of using Quebec electricity against the United States moved from trade-policy speculation into the provincial campaign when Fréchette said she would not exclude ending hydroelectricity sales south of the border. She emphasized that such a move would not be her first choice, presenting it instead as an option if the dispute escalated. Quebec Liberal Leader Charles Milliard has also suggested using the province’s energy as leverage, while Québec solidaire has advocated raising Hydro-Québec’s export rates to increase pressure on Washington. Those positions reveal an important distinction: the parties discussing electricity as leverage do not necessarily agree on whether the objective should be higher prices, reduced exports or an eventual cutoff.
Other party leaders have concentrated more heavily on the broader economic response. Parti Québécois Leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has criticized Ottawa’s broad counter-tariffs, arguing they can raise input costs for Quebec businesses already exposed to American duties. Conservative Leader Éric Duhaime, meanwhile, has argued that Quebec should make greater use of natural gas resources to strengthen its economy during the confrontation. Those competing approaches are helping turn the U.S. dispute into a test of economic strategy ahead of Quebec’s October 5 election, rather than simply a federal trade-policy question.
Cutting Electricity Is Much Harder Than Flipping a Switch
Hydro-Québec’s relationship with U.S. power markets is built on decades of contracts, interconnections and regulatory approvals. The utility has supplied New York for generations and has commitments involving several American markets. Its filings with U.S. regulators show that Hydro-Québec holds a federal Canadian permit allowing as much as 30 terawatt-hours of annual firm and interruptible electricity exports from Quebec to the United States through the end of 2030. Separate permits cover long-term arrangements, including contracts with Vermont entities extending to 2039 and New England agreements extending into the 2040s.
That does not mean every permitted megawatt must be exported, but it illustrates why political decisions about electricity can carry contractual and regulatory consequences. Hydro-Québec has also committed capacity to New York under arrangements reaching through 2030. Meanwhile, physical integration is increasing rather than shrinking. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that the new Champlain Hudson Power Express between Quebec and New York City entered commercial operation in May 2026. On July 3, New York imported 52 gigawatt-hours from Canada, the highest daily interchange between the regions since January 2025. Any move to reduce exports would therefore take place inside an energy relationship that has recently become even more interconnected.
The American Impact Would Be Regional, Not Nationwide
Electricity from Canada matters to the United States, but its importance varies sharply by region. Research cited by iPolitics estimated that Canada supplied roughly 35 terawatt-hours of electricity to the United States in the previous year, amounting to less than two per cent of total U.S. electricity generation. That relatively small national share helps explain why an electricity cutoff would not have the same effect everywhere. New York and parts of New England have much deeper connections with Canadian suppliers than states farther from the border.
For New York, the relationship is especially visible. Hydro-Québec has long provided both energy and capacity to the state, while the new transmission connection to New York City increases the amount that can move south. iPolitics reported that Quebec and Ontario together account for about six per cent of New York’s electricity supply. Under normal grid conditions, U.S. operators can compensate for reduced Canadian flows by calling on other generators or imports, but doing so may increase costs, particularly during extreme heat, cold or periods of tight supply. That distinction matters politically: electricity can create concentrated pressure in individual states without necessarily creating a nationwide shortage, making its potential value as leverage different from commodities such as crude oil or natural gas.
Quebec Would Also Be Giving Up Valuable Revenue
Using Hydro-Québec exports as leverage would impose costs on the other side of the border, but Quebec would not escape the financial consequences. Hydro-Québec recorded 11.8 terawatt-hours of electricity sales outside Quebec in 2025. Revenue from electricity sold in Canada and the United States outside the province reached C$1.703 billion, up from C$1.499 billion in 2024 even though the amount of electricity exported declined amid unusually low water inflows. The company’s regulatory filing says U.S.-related revenue across its ordinary activities amounted to C$1.24 billion in 2025.
Those figures put the political argument into perspective. Electricity exports are not the largest part of Hydro-Québec’s business—sales inside Quebec reached 184.9 terawatt-hours in 2025—but external markets provide a source of income that ultimately matters to provincial finances. Hydro-Québec reported net income of C$2.9 billion for 2025 and a C$4.4-billion contribution to Quebec government revenue. Export policy also has to account for water conditions: Hydro-Québec said low runoff since 2023 forced it to manage reservoir levels cautiously and reduce export volumes during 2025. A decision to restrict U.S. sales for political reasons would therefore interact with commercial strategy, reservoir management and Quebec’s own fiscal interests rather than producing a cost-free negotiating advantage.
Trump’s Tariffs Have Made the Debate Much More Immediate
The electricity debate is occurring against a rapidly changing tariff environment. Quebec’s government says U.S. duties imposed under Section 338 took effect on August 22, 2026, including 50 per cent tariffs on a range of Canadian products. Canada responded on September 8 with counter-tariffs of 15, 25 or 50 per cent on various U.S. goods. Quebec businesses also continue to face sector-specific American measures covering products such as steel, aluminum and automobiles. The provincial government’s tariff guidance was updated again on September 15 as additional U.S. measures came into force.
The dispute has continued spreading beyond conventional border tariffs. On September 16, the White House announced a memorandum directing U.S. officials to identify steps toward removing Canadian-origin goods from federal civilian procurement, saying the action was a response to Canadian and provincial purchasing restrictions. Quebec, meanwhile, has expanded efforts to favour domestic and Canadian suppliers and offers financial programs aimed at helping tariff-affected businesses preserve liquidity, productivity and access to new markets. The competing measures demonstrate why Quebec leaders are thinking beyond traditional retaliatory tariffs. With each new restriction potentially triggering another response, electricity has entered the discussion because it is one of the province’s most strategically visible exports.
The Parties Are Really Arguing Over How Much Risk Quebec Should Accept
Fréchette’s position attempts to keep maximum flexibility without committing immediately to the most disruptive option. She has argued that Quebec and Canada need to identify areas where the United States is economically sensitive while also emphasizing diversification toward other markets. Her opponents, however, have challenged both the CAQ government’s economic record and its response to the tariff confrontation. Milliard has emphasized cooperation with the rest of Canada while describing Quebec energy as possible leverage. Ghazal’s proposed increase in Hydro-Québec export prices represents a more graduated form of pressure than terminating sales altogether.
St-Pierre Plamondon’s criticism focuses on another risk: retaliation that unintentionally hurts Quebec companies through more expensive American inputs. His party has argued for more targeted measures aimed at finished U.S. products rather than broad duties affecting production materials. Duhaime has approached the economic question from the opposite direction, arguing for greater resource development rather than restricting energy trade. None of these approaches eliminates economic exposure; they distribute the risks differently. That is why the Hydro-Québec question has become politically useful. It forces every party to explain not simply whether Quebec should confront Washington, but how much revenue, economic disruption and retaliatory risk it is prepared to accept while doing so.
The Trade Fight Is Becoming Part of the Choice Voters Face
The first two televised leaders’ debates on September 15 and 16 showed how much the external trade conflict has entered a campaign that is also being fought over affordability, health care, public finances, immigration, language and Quebec sovereignty. The Canadian Press described the U.S. trade dispute as an “X-factor” in the campaign, with Fréchette presenting her governing experience as an argument for stability while opposition leaders contend that Quebec needs a different approach. A third major leaders’ debate is scheduled for September 23 before voters go to the polls on October 5.
For Quebec, the electricity dispute captures the unusually difficult balance created by the current Canada-U.S. relationship. Hydroelectric power gives the province something Washington and northeastern states value, but the same cross-border links also generate income for Quebec and are supported by contracts and infrastructure built over decades. Restricting exports could therefore demonstrate economic leverage while also sacrificing revenue and inviting further retaliation. Keeping exports untouched could preserve commercial relationships but leave critics asking whether Quebec is declining to use one of its strongest negotiating assets. The campaign debate is ultimately exposing that trade-off rather than resolving it—and the intensifying tariff confrontation is ensuring that Quebec voters are hearing the arguments in real time.
