Hydro‑Québec and New England utilities clash over halted power deliveries

Last winter a biting cold front swept across Quebec and New England, freezing pipes, snapping power lines and, eventually, prompting a surprising move by the province’s biggest hydropower producer. Hydro‑Québec, citing “emergency reliability curtailments,” halted electricity shipments to three Massachusetts utilities for a total of 12 days.

It wasn’t a casual decision. The utility says the extreme weather qualified as a force‑majeure event, freeing it from its obligations under a 20‑year power‑purchase agreement that had been feeding the region through the New England Clean Energy Connect line. In Hydro‑Québec’s view, the grid’s safety came first.

From the other side of the border, the utilities—Eversource, National Grid and Unitil—were not pleased. They filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court on September 8, accusing Hydro‑Québec of breaching its contract by delivering “non‑firm” power and doing so in a “discriminatory, discretionary and non‑transparent” manner. The plaintiffs are chasing roughly US$40 million in damages, arguing that they were forced to buy pricier electricity from oil‑fired generators to keep the lights on.

Hydro‑Québec responded in kind, filing its own claim the same day and demanding payment for more than one million megawatt‑hours of electricity—about US$50 million worth—that it says the Massachusetts utilities have deliberately withheld.

Both parties claim the other is playing hardball. The Canadian utility maintains the interruptions were legal and necessary, while the Massachusetts firms insist the contract required firm, uninterrupted deliveries. “The electricity was delivered and received, so it must be paid for,” said Lynn St‑Laurent, a spokesperson for Hydro‑Québec, in an email.

Despite the legal tangle, power continues to flow across the border. Hydro‑Québec asserts it remains a reliable supplier of renewable energy to the Northeast, pointing to other long‑term agreements with Vermont and New York— the latter now using the Champlain‑Hudson Power Express line that went commercial in May.

The dispute does more than pit two sides against each other; it threatens the broader climate‑friendly partnership that has been building between Quebec and its U.S. neighbours. Critics ask whether Quebec should have signed such export deals at all, given dwindling water reservoir levels—the lowest since the 1960s—and rising domestic demand.

At its core, the clash is a reminder that even clean‑energy agreements can become flashpoints when extreme weather tests the limits of infrastructure and contracts. Whether the courts will force a payment, compel further deliveries, or simply end up with a costly settlement remains to be seen.