Ontario's Electricity Export Surcharge Is $0/MWh, but the Rule Remains
Ontario's electricity export surcharge is $0/MWh, but CT 1830 and CT 1880 remain in IESO's settlement system. A written ministerial request and IESO implementation must supply the amount, start, and end dates before exporters treat the charge as active.
Primary lensTrade policy
Sub-topicPolicy monitoring
Evidence base13 records used
Use casePolicy monitoring
Ontario's electricity export surcharge is $0/MWh. The rule and settlement lines that carried it are still in place.
That distinction is easy to miss in this week's trade news. On August 17, Canada announced nearly C$70 billion of generation and transmission projects in Labrador, backed by up to C$10 billion in federal support. The package is substantial, but it cannot change cross-border power flows in this week's negotiations. The new 2,700-megawatt Gull Island facility is expected online in 2036 or 2037, and the remaining projects are likewise long-term infrastructure.
Ontario already has a more immediate instrument. Its Tariff Response Charge for electricity exports to the United States remains built into the Independent Electricity System Operator's market rules and settlement system. No charge is now being collected, but the charge types and the published route for changing the rate remain.
As of 6:25 p.m. Eastern on August 17, the IESO's live imports and exports page still described the charge as suspended at zero. A political warning does not change that number. A market participant should look for a ministerial direction, an IESO rate notice, and an effective settlement hour before changing a bid, schedule, invoice, or exposure model.
The rate is zero, but the machinery is live
Ontario imposed the charge on March 10, 2025. The minister directed the IESO to use $10/MWh, which the province described at the time as approximately 25 percent of the average price of exported power. One day later, after Ontario and the United States resumed discussions, the minister directed the IESO to reduce the rate to zero.
The second direction changed the price. It did not repeal the underlying regulation or remove the market-rule amendment. Market Rule RUL-23 section 4.6 permits the IESO to administer the charge upon the minister's written request. The minister establishes the amount, commencement date, and end date; the IESO implements the charge through settlement. Ontario Regulation 25/25, which expanded the IESO's objects to include a U.S. export surcharge and responses to U.S. tariffs, also remains on the province's current law site.
The current IESO settlement books show the same architecture. Part 5.5 of the market manual retains Tariff Response Charge for Exports, CT 1830, and Tariff Response Charge for Exports Balancing Amount, CT 1880. The April 2026 charge-types register lists both among active charge types.
The term active has a limited meaning here: the settlement lines still exist, but a zero rate produces neither a current surcharge nor a current revenue stream. The useful operating description is live architecture with a zero setting.
The old 25 percent headline was a fixed dollar rate
The 2025 shorthand can distort a 2026 cost model. Ontario called its measure a 25 percent surcharge, but the IESO implemented it as $10/MWh, not as a percentage that automatically moved with the hourly electricity price.
At an export price of $40/MWh, another $10/MWh is 25 percent. At $25/MWh, it is 40 percent. At $80/MWh, it is 12.5 percent. Those examples do not predict the next rate. They show why a trader should preserve the rate as a separate dollars-per-megawatt-hour input rather than type 25 percent into a tariff field.
The distinction also changes what must be monitored. A new written request must establish the amount, commencement date, and end date. It could restore $10/MWh or choose another amount. The IESO's March 2025 rule notice records the two actual instructions: $10/MWh on March 10 and $0/MWh on March 11. Nothing in that history turns the political percentage label into a standing formula.
For a current forecast, the first field is the official rate. The second is the commencement date and first applicable hour. The third is the end date. The fourth is the scheduled U.S.-bound quantity. Without all four, the cost is not ready for a settlement model.
CT 1830 lands on the exporter's settlement statement
CT 1830 is an hourly charge on the market participant exporting electricity from Ontario to a U.S. intertie. The IESO calculates it from the scheduled export quantity and the applicable rate.
CT 1880 performs a different job. It is the hourly uplift charge paired with CT 1830, and the current manual says the resulting amount is disbursed as directed by the minister. It should not be modeled as a second surcharge on the same exporter.
Indirect routes need schedule and destination evidence
Market Rule RUL-23 section 4.6 applies the charge to a registered market participant with an interchange schedule for energy destined for the United States, whether the electricity moves there directly or through another Canadian jurisdiction. The route therefore cannot be classified from the first intertie name alone.
For an indirect transaction, the working record is the interchange schedule and the participant's third-party delivery arrangements. Chapter 10 makes the transmission customer responsible for arrangements with other control areas or third parties needed to deliver the energy outside the IESO-controlled grid. If those records do not establish the final destination, the participant should seek written IESO guidance before assuming that a schedule into Manitoba or Quebec is outside CT 1830.
Buyers need the contract bridge
The direct charge falls on the registered market participant. The final commercial burden may move under a power contract, trading arrangement, or price response, but that cannot be inferred from the IESO line.
U.S. buyers and Canadian exporters should identify the party that receives the IESO settlement statement and then locate the contract provision governing a new government charge. The review should capture the notice deadline, the rate used, the megawatt-hours covered, the first affected delivery hour, and the supporting settlement record. The market rule answers who the IESO charges. It does not rewrite the contract between the parties.
A speech is not the activation record
For companies, the record divides into instruction, implementation, and settlement.
Record
What it establishes
What it does not establish
Ontario ministerial written request
Amount, commencement date, and end date
Actual settlement on a specific transaction
IESO public notice and current rate page
IESO implementation status and effective rate
Contract pass-through to a U.S. buyer
CT 1830 settlement line
Charge applied to the participant's scheduled export for the hour
A change to a federal export permit
CT 1880 balancing line
Hourly uplift that balances the amount collected under CT 1830
A second exporter surcharge
The first two records should move the forecast. The settlement statement should confirm the actual transaction. A premier's interview, a negotiating report, or a reference to every option being available can prompt monitoring, but it does not supply the rate or effective hour.
The path is much faster than building generation or transmission, but a political announcement alone does not activate the charge. The operative sequence is a written ministerial request followed by IESO implementation. The IESO record marks the shift from threat to market charge.
The CER permit remains a separate file
Canada's federal regulator and Ontario's system operator control different parts of an electricity export. The Canadian Energy Regulator Act requires federal authorization for electricity exports. The federal regulator also authorizes international power lines. The IESO operates Ontario's wholesale market and settles exports scheduled through it.
A nonzero CT 1830 would change the economics of an authorized export. It would not, by itself, issue, amend, suspend, or revoke the federal authorization. A trader should therefore keep the permit or licence number, quantity limits, term, and conditions in a federal file, while keeping the IESO rate and settlement treatment in the Ontario market file.
The same separation prevents an overstatement about an electricity cutoff. Ontario's current tool is a price charged through market settlement. Raising that price could discourage exports. It is not proof that transmission has stopped or that the federal permission to export has disappeared. Any future announcement about limiting physical flows would need its own authority, operating instruction, scope, and effective time.
Section 338 and CT 1830 require separate tracking
The three U.S. actions scheduled for August 19, Proclamation 11046, Proclamation 11047, and Proclamation 11048, do not list electrical energy. The White House fact sheet describes energy as excluded from these actions. That is action-specific, not a general exemption in Section 338. CT 1830 is an Ontario market charge, not a CBP entry line. Traverse's prior Analysis examines Section 338 retaliation and exclusion risk. For this electricity file, the operative records are the ministerial written request, IESO implementation, interchange schedule, and CT 1830 settlement line.
Why this is new
The August 17 Labrador announcement changes Canada's long-term electricity and industrial capacity. It does not change CT 1830 tonight. Ontario's existing settlement switch is the nearer operational fact, and its current setting is zero.
The record answers a narrower operating question: Ontario's settlement mechanism is already installed at $0/MWh, and a new written request followed by IESO implementation would supply the next amount and effective period.
What exporters and buyers should do
An exposure sheet can preserve the current position without pricing a political threat as a completed action:
Record $0/MWh as the current CT 1830 rate and timestamp the source.
Identify direct and indirect U.S.-bound schedules that the IESO rule can reach.
Watch the IESO ministerial-directives page and current rate page for a written change.
Capture the amount, commencement date, first applicable hour, and end date before updating bids or invoices.
Reconcile CT 1830 on the affected exporter's daily settlement statement. Track CT 1880 separately as the IESO-level balancing and disbursement record.
Leave CER authorization and U.S. customs treatment in their own files.
What would change the calculus
A written ministerial request setting a nonzero amount, commencement date, and end date would move the charge from a zero-rated line to a current cost once the IESO implemented it. An announcement that changes physical export scheduling, intertie operation, or federal authorization would open a separate question that this settlement rule does not answer. A U.S. measure that expressly reaches electrical energy would likewise require a separate customs analysis.
Caveats
The $0/MWh finding is time-stamped to the IESO record at 6:25 p.m. Eastern on August 17. It can change faster than a long-term project schedule, so companies should confirm the live IESO page and any new ministerial direction before relying on this article for a transaction. Contract pass-through depends on the governing agreement, and this analysis does not determine Ontario's authority to order a full physical cutoff.
Ontario does not need to invent a new settlement mechanism to make U.S.-bound electricity more expensive. It would need to change a rate that is currently zero. That is why the surcharge is dormant, not gone, and why the document that matters next is a rate direction rather than another negotiating headline.
Free account
Keep reading with a free account.
Today's analysis is open to everyone. A free account opens the full archive and full tool output. No card required.