The intentions expressed last week by the new Minister of Energy, Pierre Fitzgibbon, to achieve greater energy sobriety are about to hit the wall of reality.
Some of Mr. Fitzgibbon’s assumptions are downright contradictory, while others are only partially feasible and would result in little or no energy savings because they are based on assumptions that are unfounded, according to experts consulted by The Canadian Press.
The two most important measures put forward by Mr. Fitzgibbon, who was also reappointed Minister of the Economy, are dynamic or modulated pricing and the reduction of heating at night or during the day when the inhabitants of a home do not are not at home.
Dynamic pricing
Dynamic pricing consists mainly of significantly increasing the price of electricity during peak hours during the week, i.e. between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m., especially during extremely cold periods when Hydro-Québec struggles to supply on demand and must import electricity at a high price.
“The main counterpart is that everyone has the same rush hour. Everyone showers between 6:00 and 8:00 in the morning. Everyone makes supper between 5 and 7 p.m.,” says Charles Côté, director of technical services at the Corporation of Master Pipe Mechanics of Quebec, who are experts in heating systems in the construction sector.
The expression “everyone” is not an exaggeration. According to Statistics Canada, only 1.7% of the labor force works at night and 6.4% in the evening, 69.3% work day with regular hours and the remaining 22.6% have irregular hours, but the most are daytime.
Rush Hour Prisoners
It is therefore the overwhelming majority of the population who will have no choice but to pay more for their electricity because they are trapped during peak hours, a measure that would hit the less well off hard.
“Modulated tariffs are particularly penalizing for low-income households who have even less control over their energy consumption,” underlines Sylvie De Bellefeuille, budget and legal adviser at Option consommateurs.
“Unfortunately, low-income or modest-income households do not have control over their bill and it is not as if we had the choice to consume electricity or not”, she adds, qualifying the measure of “regressive”.
Worse, underlines Professor Michaël Kummert, expert in energy efficiency of buildings at the Institut de l’énergie Trottier of Polytechnique Montréal, this dynamic pricing could have a perverse effect.
“If Hydro-Québec, for example, charges you 5 cents during the day, but from 4 p.m. it becomes 10 cents, it is better, for an hour or two before it becomes expensive, that you heat more than normal, say 24 degrees, even if you’re not there. That way, as soon as the price goes to the most expensive, you turn off the heating, let it go down and then consume less in this period, ”he argues.
So, rather than having used less electricity, you will have used if not more than usual, at least as much.
Heating: gains canceled at the worst time
The idea of lowering the heating may be attractive, but it presents two major problems, the first being the impact, precisely, on the famous peak hours.
“It is certain that it will make the problem worse because if everyone who left the normal heating on all night put it at 18 degrees Celsius and turn it up at 6 a.m., right in the tip of Hydro-Quebec , it’s going to hurt more than anything else, ”underlines Mr. Kummert.
“And the second peak, from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m., it’s the same thing. If people come home from work at 6 p.m. and they left the house at 15 degrees and they suddenly go back to 21, it’s going to be worse than before, ”he continues.
The hypothesis of lowering the heating outside peak hours, as well intentioned as it may be, in fact implies a very strong increase in the demand for electricity exactly at the peak hour, i.e. at the moment when the objective is to reduce it. There is no gain for the Crown corporation. On the contrary ; this would aggravate his loss of earnings during very cold weather.
Price shock
In a context of modulated tariffs, the practice of reducing heating outside the peak period would necessarily lead to a price shock for consumers since not only would electricity be more expensive at peak times, but it would also require more electricity to bring the house back to the desired level than if the temperature had been maintained at the normal level.
Also, notes Charles Côté, it will be necessary to take teleworking into account. “With teleworking, people put more demands on the systems. Before, people lowered the temperature until 3:30 or 4:00 p.m., but by staying at home two or three days or more a week, they do not want to work at home at 17 degrees. »
This reality is not insignificant: according to Statistics Canada data, 26% of Canadian workers are working from home full-time (14.7%) or part-time (11.3%).
Very unequal economies
The second problem relates to the anticipated savings that would be obtained by lowering the heating. Even in the absence of dynamic pricing, can we really save money by turning down the heating at night and during the day when no one is around?
“There are real savings to be made in a hot air system with a single heat source or in a baseboard system,” explains Charles Côté. Except that the nights when they announce very cold, it is preferable not to do it. Because you won’t be comfortable getting up in the morning unless you leave at 3am. »
“With a single source hot air system, you will be able to save money. But avoid making too big returns. Five degrees is still a lot. I would rather suggest three degrees to prevent the device from being overworked in the morning.
“Will the savings be as fabulous as some say? I have a lot of difficulty moving forward. Too often, promising savings generates more of a promise of disappointment. The savings are something that remains difficult to quantify,” argues Mr. Côté.
No savings with dual energy or hydraulics
But these savings disappear in several cases, starting with dual-energy heating systems with heat pumps, explains Professor Kummert.
“Most heat pump systems — especially older ones — interpret a sudden change in setpoints, like going up from 18 to 21, as that they can’t. As they think they can’t do it, they trigger the auxiliary system which can be fuel oil, the electric furnace or other,” he specifies.
If the auxiliary system is an electric furnace, it will require more electricity than the heat pump to bring the heat back to normal, so no savings, neither for Hydro nor for the consumer. If it’s an oil-fired furnace — which is destined to disappear — there will be no demand for electricity, which is a saving for Hydro, but at $2.04 per litre, the consumer will be losing.
As for hot water systems, Charles Côté is unequivocal: no, especially because of the time it takes to heat up cast iron heaters. “In this case, going back at night is not worth it. The equipment will work great too. »
“We are on the wrong target”
“There are limits to the measures we can take to make it effective,” says Sylvie De Bellefeuille. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t save energy, no one is against virtue, but at the same time, you have to be realistic. How far will it really have an impact?
“Measures should be taken so that the biggest energy consumers contribute to the reduction of energy consumption. We are on the wrong target,” she said.
Pierre Fitzgibbon also vaguely alluded to business customers, saying that “businesses that want power, maybe we’ll tell them: at the peak, you won’t get any. Or we will lower it”.
Because the residential sector, ultimately, only consumes 32% of Hydro-Québec’s production. The commercial, institutional and industrial sectors (large and small industry) consume close to 50% and 17% is exported.
“We can make a collective effort up to a certain point, but this effort must not be limited only to consumers. The consumer has a broad back”, drops Sylvie De Bellefeuille with spite.