The government and Hydro-Québec must quickly clarify their orientations regarding the place of gas in our development and support municipalities in the decarbonization of buildings instead of criticizing them. Confusion currently reigns and it undermines the expectation of our climate objectives.
Over the past 50 years, Hydro-Québec has been a powerful ally in our social and economic development. Our state corporation has also enabled economic development that is less dependent on fossil fuels than other nations. It is therefore logical to think that this collective asset is certainly one of the best levers for quickly and drastically reducing our carbon footprint. However, the news of the last few weeks concerning Énergir, Hydro-Québec’s gas partner, and fairly widespread confusion in the municipal world, seem to indicate the opposite.
A few municipalities, including Montreal, Prévost and the City of Laval, have announced in recent months their intention to ban gas in new homes. However, our state corporation does not look favorably on such announcements.
Indeed, while the Mayor of Laval insists on the importance of moving away from fossil fuels by focusing on electricity, the reaction of Hydro-Québec was to criticize the approach of Mayor Stéphane Boyer. “The City of Laval is on the wrong track”, nothing less! The decarbonization of buildings is presented by Hydro-Québec as an obstacle to economic development. It would even be utopian because of the limited capacity of the network during the winter peak period.
Confusion in the municipal world
As an elected official convinced that the climate emergency morally imposes on us the rapid exit from fossil fuels, I wanted my city to make this shift, especially since a project of 3,885 housing units at Promenades St- Bruno is in planning. I then understood to what extent the discourse of Hydro-Québec was widespread among players in the municipal world. Same thing with the promoters of the huge project at Promenades St-Bruno. They maintain that they have to work in partnership with Hydro-Québec and Énergir on the pretext that the state corporation does not have sufficient energy capacity during peak periods.
That’s how I was told that although everyone is for virtue, you have to be realistic.
Frustrated by this “reality”, I sought to understand why we had come to believe that the decarbonization of buildings was a utopia, only to finally realize that it was not!
If such is the case, why did I manage to obtain the assurance from Hydro-Quebec that it could connect the 3885 dwellings in Saint-Bruno without the use of fossil gas? I also discovered that efficient and generously subsidized technologies made it possible to counteract the challenges of the peak period (cf. the LogisVert program). This is without taking into account that Article 76 of the Energy Board Act obliges Hydro-Québec to accept requests for connection to the electrical network.
What is disturbing and abnormal is that if I had not doubted this ambient discourse and invested time to see more clearly, Saint-Bruno would be imposed fossil gas which the municipal council does not want. It is far from trivial! All this confusion gives the impression that Hydro-Québec is acting as a brake on the decarbonization of buildings instead of being the historic ally of Quebecers in the face of the challenge of our century, which is climate change. This fairly widespread confusion is detrimental to the achievement of our GHG reduction objectives. To be realistic today is above all not to plead for the use of fossil fuels. Rather, it means being responsible and following the recommendations of the IPCC by supporting cities in their efforts to decarbonize buildings.