With his cryptic statements, Energy Minister Pierre Fitzgibbon is not always easy to follow.
Last summer, he declared that “half as many” vehicles would be needed for Quebec to be carbon neutral in 2050… knowing full well that the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) has no objective of reducing the vehicle fleet.
Last May, he said that taxes on gasoline should be increased… before explaining that it was a joke. Really ? However, it would be full of common sense, if only to finance the repair of our roads in poor condition.1.
This week, with the tabling of Bill 69, we once again felt like he was sitting between two chairs.
Take dynamic pricing which would encourage households to reduce their electricity consumption during winter peaks.
“Modulation is logic itself, we see it everywhere in the world,” said the minister. But a moment! We’re not going to force anything. In fact, we are going to “force the debate”. Ultimately, it is not clear what the bill will change, since Hydro-Québec already has the optional Hilo program.
The minister’s ambiguity also emerges regarding the increase in residential rates that the CAQ had capped at 3% per year, a threshold determined in a completely arbitrary manner and disconnected from Hydro-Québec’s costs.
We therefore welcome the decision to give the Régie de l’énergie the mandate to set rates independently. But beware ! If the increase exceeds 3%, the government will compensate from behind. At least until the next election. Then, it remains to be seen…
In any case, this complicated mechanism is an illusion, because it is the taxpayers who will pay the excess. And households will not have the price signal which would encourage them to reduce their consumption.
But before imposing difficult decisions, Pierre Fitzgibbon believes that we must be more transparent with Quebecers and take the time to hold a public debate. With this in mind, the minister will present an integrated energy resources management plan (PGIRE).
This is excellent news.
The government must take leadership to achieve carbon neutrality in 2050. Today, dirty energy represents half of Quebec’s consumption. The entire industry will have to be reconfigured. The shift will not happen alone.
This plan will therefore be very welcome. But it is crucial that it is not designed in isolation by the minister, in collaboration with Hydro-Québec and Énergir. Experts from all walks of life – employers, unions, environmental groups, university researchers – should enrich this crucial exercise for the future of Quebec.
And above all, the entire population should be involved as soon as possible. Acceptability is built upstream. The discontent against the Northvolt battery factory has unfortunately proven this.
Quebec should therefore organize real general meetings on the energy transition, such as The Press has already pleaded2. It is by taking the time to develop a solid social consensus that the government will then be able to move forward with all the legitimacy required.
But Bill 69, tabled just one day before the end of the parliamentary session, leaves us afraid that the CAQ does not want to shine the spotlight too much on the difficult questions that we will have to ask ourselves.
Here are a few…
— To what extent are we ready to reduce our consumption?
It can be very pleasant to relax in a warm spa in the middle of winter, but we are still far from the days when our parents told us in their great wisdom: “Close the door, we’re heating outside!” »
Adopting better consumption discipline would reduce waste and create collective wealth.
— What energy sources will be able to meet our needs?
But moving away from polluting energies will nevertheless require a major increase in our clean energy production capacity, which will have consequences on our territory.
A backyard spa is more popular than a wind turbine. We saw this in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield where a wind turbine project fell through because residents felt rushed.
Do we prefer a dam that distorts a river? Nuclear power which presents security risks? As a society, we will have to determine which option suits us best.
—And then, who will pay the bill?
Currently, households pay only 86% of the real cost of their electricity, while businesses cover 134% of the bill.
This form of “subsidy” will only increase if Quebec persists in capping residential rates, because the cost of developing new sources of supply (easily 10 to 12 cents per kilowatt hour) is higher than the rates paid by households (around 8 cents per kilowatt hour on average).
But the good news that we too often overlook is that we already pay very dearly for the dirty energy we want to replace, around 25 billion per year. These expenses will disappear from our budget with the green transition.
Quebec is at a time of choice. We can no longer sit between two chairs.
1. Read “The mega pothole we refuse to fill”
2. Read “We need general states on energy”