Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium
I don't think the government has a leg to stand on, but I think the clause itself is incredibly stupid. When times were good, the Buyers did not cancel PPA's for changes in law (SGER in 2007 for example), but now that times are bad, they are invoking the clause. I think that it should have to be shown that the Owner's increase in cost due to the change in law somehow cannot be feasibly passed to the consumer before the Buyer can terminate the contract without penalty.
|
It's not just that times are bad, but that the NDP are ensuring times will never get better at any point in the future. That, rather obviously, is why the companies are dumping these contracts back onto the balancing pool now. The NDP are playing a two-faced argument where they say taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for their error, but they expect the companies to pay for their error.