In its energy bill, the government plans to raise the threshold from 50 to 100 megawatts that will allow the private sector to build and operate electricity production facilities. This is very worrying, since it opens the door to the unbridled construction of “small” hydroelectric power stations throughout the territory, already since the current threshold of 50 MW corresponds to a dam as large as the one in place on the Rivière des Prairies in north of Montreal and operated by Hydro-Québec.
I studied dozens of projects of this type during the 1990s. Dozens of private developers then got their hands, through different stratagems, on as many sites to be developed on our rivers, which caused a scandal and led to the 1997 investigation report from the Commission of Inquiry into Hydro-Québec’s electricity purchasing policy from private producers at the end of a year of hearings chaired by Judge Doyon.
This report noted numerous slippages in the awarding of contracts to producers of all kinds, with very little government control, without competition on prices and with very lucrative conditions which still remain today, more than twenty years later. In 1995, I had access to all the contracts negotiated with private developers and I discovered that there were anomalies on more than 50 of these contracts, which the Doyon commission subsequently confirmed.
Today, Hydro-Québec refuses to reveal the prices and purchase conditions that it negotiates with each of them over the counter, and it is impossible for the public to verify whether the contracts were negotiated at the best possible price. possible conditions. The report contains 103 recommendations that should be followed or adapted before any reopening of the market to the private sector and even deciding to move forward with such arrangements.
Today, we seem to have forgotten everything and, already, promoters are positioning themselves to take advantage of the coming windfall with at least two hydroelectric power station projects, one in Témiscamingue on the Kipawa River and the other in Outaouais on the Gatineau River. The promoters, whether private, First Nations, municipalities or MRCs, want above all to benefit from these projects, seeing in them an unexpected windfall if Hydro-Québec negotiates the purchase prices instead of proceeding by call for tenders. ‘offers.
Political pressures will inevitably prevail in these negotiations since Hydro-Québec will not be able to assess a fair price due to not having all the design data in hand. Hydro is then diverted from its mission of providing electricity at the best price and becomes an instrument for distributing public funds to organizations lucky enough to have a river in their backyard.
What is the government’s decision to raise the threshold to 100 MW based on? Is there a single report stating Hydro-Québec’s inability to carry out such projects? Doesn’t the reduction in calls for tenders constitute a major risk of increasing costs, knowing moreover that these are purchase contracts over several decades?
And how does the energy transition justify destroying the last places still containing hidden treasures, beaches at the foot of falls in the middle of the forest, idyllic places conducive to the outdoors and hiking and health? Do we want to destroy our landscapes in order to compensate for the increase in greenhouse gases caused by highway developments?
What right does the private sector, associated with local communities, have to destroy our common wealth made up of landscapes, resources and quality of life in 2024? Hasn’t there been enough devastation by now? There remains only one large natural waterfall with a drop of more than 100 meters still accessible to the population of southern Quebec: that of the Maskinongé River park in Sainte-Ursule, saved at the last minute from the last liberal call for tenders. in 2010.
Let’s be clear: a wild west is coming in energy development with this opening of the floodgates in all directions to the private sector and local communities. The Parti Québécois ended small power plant programs in 2002 with the adoption of its National Water Policy. This policy prevented any new dams on virgin sites.
The experience of the last twenty years in the field demonstrates, on the other hand, that we cannot count on the public consultations of the Office of Public Hearings on the Environment to call into question the relevance of government projects. When the BAPE gets involved, it is too late: the plans and specifications are submitted, the partnership agreements signed, and financial commitments made. Only a few modalities on wildlife development and monitoring are sometimes dealt with. It is better to have prior generic hearings for such major orientations.
Under the pretext of accelerating energy production, Bill 69 opens the door to privatization of production without adequate control, and this once again threatens our environment, our economy and social peace.