At various times the leader of Hydro-Quebec and the Sûreté du Québec and the general manager of Montreal, Coulombe was described as Quebec's "go-to mandarin on tough issues.
[8] In December of the same year, he oversaw the sale of a thirty-five per cent equity interest in Marine Industries Ltd. of Sorel to the French firm Alsthom-Atlantique.
[9] René Lévesque appointed Coulombe as president and chief executive officer of Hydro-Quebec in late 1981, with a term beginning on January 15, 1982.
[11] He released a revised capital spending program shortly thereafter, indicating that the agency would avoid significant new projects over the next five to six years due to a recession and reduced demand.
[13] Coulombe introduced another revised plan in 1983 that further downgraded capital spending in light of ongoing difficulties selling surplus energy to neighbouring markets.
[14] In mid-1985, Coulombe criticized a plan by Robert Bourassa (then the leader of the opposition in the Quebec legislature) to export twelve thousand megawatts of power to the United States of America.
[15] Although Coulombe also favoured increased sales to the United States, he argued that Bourassa's strategy could lock Quebec into unfavourable rates and was too risky in the long term.
[18] The following year, he announced that Hydro-Quebec would invest between twenty and twenty-seven billion dollars to construct new dams and transmission lines over the next decade, mostly to export energy to the United States.
[20] Coulombe left Hydro-Quebec in April 1988, at around the same time that Premier Bourassa introduced his plans for the massive Great Whale Hydro Project in northern Quebec to provide energy for New York State.
[34] Considered close to Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, Coulombe helped ensure the amalgamation of Montreal with its suburban communities on a strong central governance model.
The commission concluded that the forests were over-harvested, recommended a 20 per cent cut in production, and argued for a more ecologically sound and decentralized approach.
[38] The panel concluded in March 2006 that the plan "deserve[d] consideration, because of its positive impact on the city of Montreal's economic and urban development" but added that a final decision would be "premature" and recommended further study.