Hydro-Québec’s big boss, Michael Sabia, appeared before a parliamentary committee this week armed with a warning. Premier François Legault thought he was free from the outspokenness of his resigning minister Pierre Fitzgibbon. That was underestimating the temerity of the head of the Crown corporation, who is just as willing to publicly expose his own disagreement with the government. A clash of visions with a decisive impact on the energy transition, of which Mr. Sabia seems to better grasp the balance required to ensure its success.
The appearance of the CEO of Hydro-Québec during the study of the bill on energy management had started off on a good note. Both Mr. Sabia and Mr. Legault and his new Minister of Economy and Energy, Christine Fréchette, are now hammering home, together, that the increase in electricity rates will remain limited. As unsustainable as it may be, this position, which Mr. Fitzgibbon did not share, has become consensual.
The allocation of clean energy to pave the way to carbon neutrality, on the other hand, is not the subject of the same common ground. Thus, Mr. Sabia wasted no time in accusing the government — first and foremost Mr. Fitzgibbon — of having erred by granting the majority of the electricity blocks made available to them to new industries, many of them foreign, rather than to existing companies seeking to decarbonize right here on Quebec soil. “I think we need to rebalance things,” he said.
This is reminiscent of the criticisms made by his predecessor, Sophie Brochu, who said she feared that Quebec would become nothing more than an “electricity Dollarama” sold at low prices to foreign companies that the state-owned company would then struggle to supply. Mr. Fitzgibbon was right tome Brochu, but Hydro-Québec, through the voice of its new CEO, has not yet said its last word.
To Mr. Legault’s mercantile vision, for whom economic growth is paramount, Mr. Sabia opposes his own government’s eco-energy objective of decarbonizing Quebec by 2050. To do this, he points out, it is still necessary to provide the clean energy necessary for active businesses that are just waiting to make the leap.
Since the decision on connections was repatriated into the hands of the Minister of Energy for blocks of more than 5 megawatts last year, less than a quarter of the authorized projects aim to decarbonize current activities, reveals the journalist from Duty Alexis Riopel. The remaining megawatts were awarded to new projects. However, Hydro-Québec’s action plan provides that 75% of its new electricity be used to decarbonize Quebec first, including 35% exclusively for our industries.
In addition to economic nationalism, which in theory would favour SMEs with a presence here, there is eco-energy nationalism. Although necessary for the transition, the battery sector – which benefited from two-thirds of the energy blocks allocated last year, according to the HEC Montréal Chair in Energy Sector Management – remains destined for foreign markets. Its contribution to the decarbonisation of Quebec is indirect.
Having just arrived in office, Minister Fréchette seemed to want to adjust this distribution, now speaking of “ensuring a good balance”.
But his boss maintains the same discourse, disarmingly simplistic, preferring the creation of jobs “at $50 an hour” and companies with “the greatest impact for Quebecers.” Even before appointing Mr.me Fréchette in his new role, Mr. Legault had warned that regardless of the minister, energy policy “requires the agreement of the Prime Minister.” Bill 69 further stipulates that the minister’s energy management mandate must be done with a view to transition, but also “economic development.” Mr. Legault’s latitudeme Fréchette appears to be amputated from the outset.
François Legault’s first love of economic development as a businessman risks continuing to outweigh the energy challenges of tomorrow. And overconsumption of energy is likely to be ignored by his government, which refuses to drive an inevitable change in behavior.
Bill 69 (PL69) provides for some progress, but many concerns have also been raised: illusory sustainability of a freeze on the increase in electricity rates, opening the door to the distribution of surplus by a private producer to its neighbours, requests for full partnerships for the First Nations.
The road to carbon neutrality may have been announced, but the path to achieve it has not been carefully considered. The societal choices it imposes cannot be decided behind the closed doors of a government or on the minefield of an upcoming election campaign. The time to debate it, and to rebalance Bill 69 in light of these collective decisions, is now.