Posted at 12:00 p.m.
The agreement between Hydro-Québec and Énergir, which aims to electrify the heating of buildings but keeping natural gas in winter, has been defended by many experts and analysts in recent days. This strategy, which involves a fossil fuel subsidy paid by electricity consumers, would, according to them, be the most likely to protect electricity prices while allowing some reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. (GES).
These arguments, if they are intrinsically correct, ignore the main issue: the incompatibility of this approach with Quebec’s climate objectives. By proposing to let Énergir manage its peak, Hydro-Québec is deliberately choosing an action plan that goes against the GHG reduction targets adopted by the National Assembly in 2016 and maintained by the current government.
Quebec has committed to reducing its GHG emissions by 37.5% compared to 1990 by 2030 and is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050. GHG emissions have only decreased by 2.3% between 1990 and 2019 , Quebec must reduce its current emissions by 35% in just under eight years, an essential milestone to reach its target, and by 100% (carbon neutrality) in less than 30 years.
As numerous studies show, including our recent Canadian Energy Outlook, this short timeline does not allow for the use of transition technologies.
The scale of the transformations needed to achieve climate goals requires that every investment be compatible with carbon neutrality.
All these studies also show that the decarbonization of our society requires a massive electrification of our economy and increased production of clean energy. It is absolutely impossible for Quebec to achieve its objectives solely through energy efficiency or state-of-the-art natural gas management, without increasing electricity production.
Since transportation (43% of Quebec’s emissions) cannot change quickly, other sectors will have to achieve a short-term reduction in GHG emissions that far exceeds 35%, closer to 80 to 90%. Among these sectors, buildings (10% of Québec emissions) and industrial combustion (15%) should be leaders.
However, Hydro-Quebec is content to do less than the minimum: the agreement with Énergir will, at best, reduce emissions from the building sector by 6%, or 0.6% (!) of Quebec’s emissions. This agreement will also have the effect of strengthening the role of natural gas over the long term, while increasing the price of electricity to compensate for Énergir’s losses.
The exchanges we have with actors on the ground show that they will only engage in deep decarbonization if they receive a clear signal that the rest of society will move in the same direction.
This is the opposite message that Hydro-Québec is sending today, by working to undermine natural gas exit projects, through agreements that promote dual energy and limit the electrification of our economy.
No one denies that achieving Quebec’s climate targets will require significant risk-taking and a reorganization of electricity rates. In the face of a crisis of the magnitude of the climate, however, inaction is not the solution.
Governments have acted strongly in the face of the pandemic by deploying measures and programs aimed at reducing the economic impact on the most affected citizens. The approach for the energy transition must be similar: it is necessary to take the necessary actions to achieve the climate objectives and put in place measures to mitigate the inequalities that could result.
Protecting the status quo by defending this agreement between Hydro-Québec and Énergir, on the grounds that a price increase will erode support for the transition in the population, is a call for inaction that cannot be justified economically, socially or environmentally when the need to act immediately is more glaring than ever in history.
On the contrary, the agreement will have the effect of reinforcing the perception that natural gas is an important part of the solution, when it is not, which will make it more difficult to abandon it later. Our society certainly has the capacity for innovation necessary to achieve the energy transition, without stifling the weakest. That’s where we have to put our efforts, not in defending the status quo.
* Co-signatories: Simon Langlois-Bertrand and Florian Pedroli, research associates at the Trottier Energy Institute, Polytechnique Montréal; Louis Beaumier, Executive Director at the Trottier Energy Institute, Polytechnique Montréal.