1. Hydro-Québec has lost 1.4 billion in revenue since 2015 due to the discounted electricity rates given to aluminum producers.
2. The current rate paid by aluminum producers is lower than Hydro-Québec's "tarif L" rate, which is deemed profitable for large industrial customers.
3. The Quebec government is considering introducing a green premium to the electricity rates for aluminum producers, but there are questions about whether international buyers will be willing to pay more for Quebec's green aluminum.
This article provides an in-depth analysis of the discounted electricity rates given to aluminum producers in Quebec and the potential impact on Hydro-Québec's revenues. The article presents data from Hydro-Québec that shows that since 2015, aluminum producers have been paying a lower rate than the "tarif L" rate deemed profitable by Hydro-Quebec for large industrial customers, resulting in a loss of 1.4 billion for Hydro-Quebec over 8 years. The article also discusses the potential introduction of a green premium to the electricity rates for aluminum producers and raises questions about whether international buyers will be willing to pay more for Quebec's green aluminum.
The article appears to be well researched and provides detailed information on the issue at hand, including data from Hydro-Quebec and insights from interviews with relevant stakeholders such as Pierre Fitzgibbon, Minister of Economy, Innovation and Energy. However, it should be noted that some of the claims made in the article are not supported by evidence or sources, such as when it states that "Hydro-Quebec has lost 1.4 billion in revenue since 2015". Additionally, while some counterarguments are explored (such as whether international buyers will be willing to pay more for Quebec's green aluminum), other counterarguments are not explored (such as whether there could be other factors influencing Hydro-Quebec's losses). Furthermore, while some risks associated with introducing a green premium are discussed (such as whether international buyers will be willing to pay more), other risks are not discussed (such as potential impacts on consumers). Finally, it should also be noted that while both sides of this issue are presented fairly equally throughout most of the article, there is a slight bias towards supporting the introduction of a green premium towards the end of the article when discussing Pierre Fitzgibbon's views on this issue without providing any opposing views or counterarguments.