Take my power utility, please

Some complain that New Brunswick’s sovereignty has been compromised, though it’s hard to see how

by Andrew Coyne on Monday, November 9, 2009 11:27am - 22 Comments

Take my power utility, pleaseIn the wake of Hydro-Québec’s astonishing $4.8-billion deal to take over New Brunswick’s electric power utility, I have just one question: would Hydro-Québec please take over Ontario’s next? As long as elephantine, debt-ridden provincial power utilities are taking over other elephantine, debt-ridden provincial power utilities, why should New Brunswick have all the fun? If the taxpayers of Quebec are generous enough to underwrite another province’s expensive energy policy mistakes alongside their own, then I say Ontario should be next in line.

NB Power got itself into trouble for much the same reason Ontario Hydro did, before its breakup a decade ago, as indeed did Hydro-Québec: it overexpanded, over-invested in capital plant, overpaid its over-manned workforce, and financed it all by over-borrowing—and undercharging consumers, effectively subsidizing demand to justify its own expansion. The combination of political ownership and monopoly control of the market proved all too prone to abuse, as it always does, the scale of the folly obscured by the usual cowboy accounting. It is, in short, a costly, politicized mess: $4.8 billion in debt, and groaning under the weight of its very own rundown, over-budget, behind-schedule nuclear fiasco, the Point Lepreau plant, beside which the Darlington disaster looks almost economic.

So you would think the deal would be popular among New Brunswickers. In return for the distribution grid, the transmission lines, and most (though not all) of its generating capacity, Hydro-Québec will assume responsibility for all of the utility’s debts, and freeze residential and commercial electricity rates for five years in the bargain (they had previously been scheduled to increase by three per cent annually). Industrial rates would be cut to levels comparable with those in Quebec. And with the utility’s liabilities erased from its balance sheet, the province’s debt would be reduced at a stroke by 40 per cent.

Yet the deal is proving hugely controversial in the province. For one thing, there’s the matter of Liberal Premier Shawn Graham’s 2006 election promise that the utility would be maintained in public ownership, though that is easily answered: NB Power will, in fact, remain publicly owned—just by another province’s public. Others complain that the province’s sovereignty has been compromised, though it’s hard to see how. Yes, the utility will no longer be owned by the province, but it will continue to be regulated by it, the same as any corporation, domestic or foreign, that operates within its borders. If anything, that ought to mean more effective regulation, since the province will no longer be in the conflict of interest of regulating itself.

If the deal is controversial in New Brunswick, it is simply toxic in Newfoundland, whose premier, Danny Williams, smells a plot to block power exports from the planned Lower Churchill hydroelectric project from reaching their intended markets in the American northeast, with Hydro-Québec instead using its newly acquired New Brunswick lines to deliver its own. With not only NB Power but possibly other provincial utilities in its clutches, he warns, Quebec would have a “stranglehold” on the region’s energy supply.

Again, these fears seem overblown. Perhaps Williams is disinclined to accept the government of New Brunswick’s assurances that it will maintain open access to its transmission lines, in its continuing role as the regulator of the utility. But he doesn’t have to believe them. If Hydro-Québec wants to sell into the U.S. market, it is required to abide by U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules requiring the owners of power lines to give equal access to competing power suppliers. (Newfoundland would have to pay the going rate to wheel its power through New Brunswick, but it could not be discriminated against.) One might prefer that the Canadian common market were safeguarded from provincial conspiracies in restraint of trade by Canadian authorities, but in the absence of that merest expression of national will, the Americans will suffice.

If anyone ought to be leery of the deal, rather, it would seem to be Quebecers. Hydro-Québec has a history of ill-advised mega-projects spurred by grandiose visions of export riches, James Bay among them. It’s not at all clear that those northeastern states are thirsting for megawatts of imported hydroelectric power, given declining demand and plummeting natural gas prices. As the energy policy analyst Tom Adams has observed, Newfoundlanders may come to be thankful their own provincial power utility is not in the same position, trying to unload great whacks of additional power on an already saturated market.

Indeed, it’s still not clear this is a great deal even for New Brunswick. Yes, it has found a buyer for its bloated, listing power utility. But is Hydro-Québec the right buyer? Could it have fetched a higher price from a competitive bidding process? Rather than accepting payment in the form of the promised rate freeze—the province estimates the savings to consumers at $5 billion—why not demand the cash equivalent, and let rates float where they may, that is, according to the laws of economics, rather than politics? And rather than simply transfer control of the province’s electricity generation from one monopoly to another, whatever happened to opening the market to competition, promised in 2004 but never delivered?

Bookmark and Share
  • the realist

    Increased rates would make greater efficiency more economical etc. As it stands there is little incentive to save energy.

  • wallace mclean

    What a poorly research article by Andrew Coyne. If he's going to comment on an issue he may as well be interested in it and take the time to learn some of the background. The contract between NB power and HQ requires New Brunswick to harmonize it's regulatory regime with Quebec's – that doesn't sound like sovereigny to me. As for Quebec being obliged to provide access to markets NL has been trying to obtain permission to transmit power through Quebec and has encountered nothing but politicised bureaucratic stopping-up of the process; this has been going on for years and will likely not change anytime soon.

    Quebec has propogated the idea that it's friendly to competitors for hydro export and that it abides by domestic and U.S. regulations requiring open transmission. Coyne has swallowed Quebec's rhetoric whole..

    • http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

      "NL has been trying to obtain permission to transmit power through Quebec and has encountered nothing but politicised bureaucratic stopping-up of the process"

      Nothing could be further from the truth.

      http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/2009/exec/…

      • wallace mclean

        Hey Mark, you seem to be a confused. You see the 300MW of recall power that NL was able to transmit through Quebec, in the deal referred to in your link, was part of the Upper Churchill contract and there was little QC could do to really hold back the sale of a relatively small amount of power that NL recalled from that hydro development. There's a wide gulf of difference between that small deal and the Lower Churchill project. Are you actually naive enough to believe that QC would facilitate the transmission of a competitor's power direct to market without using every measure or tactic available to them to: a) screw the competitor on transmission tariff b) make it as difficult as possible to reach any kind of deal at all? You actually think QC/HQ is going to be all chipper and helpful in regards to NL's efforts to develop a competing energy source? Grow up and stop apologizing for a province and corporate entity that is at the best of times hostile and anti-competitive.

        • http://www.gov.nl.ca Steve

          (a) Get a dictionary.
          (b) Look up the word sarcasm.

  • Will

    People should not write articles about subjects they do not understand. Macleans could have saved themselves a bunch of money by just printing the Liberal talking points straight from their site. While on the surface this does seem like a good deal for NB, any investigation into the details shows that there are numerous loopholes and unknowns that could cost New Brunswickers very dearly for the lifetime of this deal (which just happens to be eternity).

  • Dot

    March 9, 1998
    (Executive Council)

    FRAMEWORK IN PLACE FOR CHURCHILL RIVER HYDRO DEVELOPMENTS

    http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/1998/exec/…

  • Dot

    Btw, I know Tom Adams has a great deal of experience opposing nuclear development both in Ontario and NB. Not sure if he has ever intervened against HydroQuebec's Gentilly-2 Nuclear Generating Station, though.

    While all the comments about out of control spending, excessive debt etc may very well be true, these inefficiencies should come out in the wash in the regulated rates charged to customers.

    If you compare NB residential customer rates with other utilities, they don't appear to be that out of line (caveat – these are NB Power graphs):
    http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/residential/rates/…

    Same with business rates:
    http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/business/rates/com…

    What is quite apparent, however, from those charts is that HQ is undercharging (subsidizing) their customers – selling below local market rates elsewhere.

    http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/business/rates/com…

  • Guest

    Oh boy, Andrew. You are in for a vitriolic whack of comments from the anti-French, anti-Quebec, big-labour and Tory nutjobs who've been inundating, threatening and scaremongering NBers with their rhetoric for the past two weeks.

  • Educated in Math

    While I normally like Andrew Coyne's work, I am in agreement that these observations are a bit lacking in depth.

    If there are costs to be recovered – referring to the MOU – they go on the backs of New Brunswick rate payers and not the other way around.

    NBPower is capbable of charging New Brunswick higher power bills, so what would we need another company to do that for?

    • Richard

      Easy. New Brunswickers can't vote out the Quebec government out of anger over their electricity rates. Something every New Brunswick politican will be thankful for in the long run.

  • Educated in Math

    People know that Quebec got in a dispute with NL and this is their way of dealing with it…they seem to have a reputation for not playing very nice when they don't get their way. The five year rate freeze is enough to get them to 2016 when the original NL contract is up for renewal and there is some evidence the remaining years were tacked on under duress, so we will see how that pans out if Danny decides to launch a court case.

    There is no such thing as a whack of additional power either…that's completely farcical. Upstate New York and New England needs power. Even if there is additional the rate would return the cost.

    Well, I won't stop reading your articles Andrew, but best not make believe good things about this deal. It is too obvious that there is a motive and too many loose ends for this to be a rose tinted love affair between NB and Quebec. There won't be any sparks when the honeymoon is over.

  • JAWZ

    Andrew Wrote: "Hydro-Québec will assume responsibility for all of the utility’s debts"

    No, this is factually wrong. HQ assume nones of NB Power's debt, as explicitly stated in the MOU.

    HQ is paying $4.75b for the face value of the NBPower assets they desire (and leaving the ones they do not for NB) – that's it.

    Read the MOU.

    • Dot

      Dated generation facilities using older fuels (coal, oil) often meet the end of their economic life and are shutdown in many jurisdictions. As the economics change (perhaps through competing technologies, or external taxes for carbon) these are reclassified as "stranded assets", Not surprising that HQ would not invest in these assets as they may now be economically unviable. They have no value, in today's market. Time to write them off, and shut them down.

  • Mulletaur

    I've always thought that instead of subsidizing farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Canadian government should lease the land and farms to Cargill for $1 a year. I'm glad Coyne is in favour.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Tridus Tridus

    I'm pretty disappointed this article glosses over the many holes in the deal, but even more disappointed at how it also glosses over how the Liberals campaigned explicitly on NOT selling NB Power. Remember that whole democracy thing? Now they're trying to ram this through before an election in the face of overwhelming public opposition.

    • Guest

      That is the point everyone seems to be missing. The Liberals won on a promise of making NB an energy hub. Now, they are arguing they have to do this because of the province's financials. They have the same financial information now that they had access when they made their election promises.
      HQ will end up shutting down all power generation facilities in NB, mark my word.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/booyakasha booyakasha

    andrew coyne doesn't know what he's talking about. poorly researched article. this idiot likes to hear himself talk.

  • Manny

    No one wrote that NB has been purchasing Quebec's electricity for decades. And also electricity from Maine, NY, NS, etc. Electricity is bought and sold second by second.

    I am a people of NB and customer of NB Power and, like the majority of us, am totally against that sale. It would be more acceptable if NB Power sold all its production facilities and become a mere electricity broker. But to become obligatory customers of Quebec's production sucks. It reeks of politics and we do not like this smell.

    If the NB Libs are reading these comments, I suggest they start preparing for a miserable collapse at the next election. If the NB Conservatives are reading, I call on them to block this sale until the elections. The rest will be very easy.

  • Jason

    Please know more about what is really going on before writing an article. One might want to read the MOU a couple of times

  • Conor Mullally

    I enjoy reading comments about this deal. Hydro-Quebec lost the contract for Northeastern US after it was perceived to have caused a blackout in 2003 that shut down cities such as New York. Hydro Quebec needs a backup power supply for making economical its planned expansion in wind energy sites in Gaspe which, if the utility built their own plants for that region, would cost a lot more than 5 billion dollars. New Brunswick Power contracted out to a central Canadian firm the refurbishment of its nuclear power generator and a subcontractor dropped a integral piece of the reactor in Saint John Harbour causing long delays. Assets central to the European Steel and Coal Community, once integral to the sovereignty of that continent, are now in the gentle hands of a conglomerate on the Indian subcontinent. No one decried a potential energy monopoly in that instance and none should be decried for the transfer of NB coal/generation plants from one public companies' portfolio to another.

    • Allen Lebraun

      HQ did not cause that blackout. HQ is isolated from the NY system with AC:DC|DC:AC interties. The blackout to which you refer began in Ohio and propagated throughout much of the NE and Ontario. Not Quebec. It stayed up an healthy and because it was up and healthy the rest of the NE system was more quickly restored.
      The only thing that Coyne got right in his entire article was the conflict of self regulation point.

From Macleans