Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
This was what the legistlation meant, even according to the NDP (from paragraph 40 of the application, bolding/underlining mine:
"Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, to the extent that a Change
in Law, after giving effect thereto and to this Section 4.3, could reasonably
be expected to render continued performance by the Parties to this
Arrangement for the balance of the Effective Term unprofitable, or more
unprofitable, to the Buyer in respect of a Unit, having taken account of
any compensation entitlement under Section 4.3(j) or any amount due
from the Balancing Pool, then the Buyer may terminate this Arrangement
and shall not be liable for, nor entitled to any Termination Payment."
The NDP is not taking the position you have suggested Slava, they're actually taking the position that the prior government did not properly pass the legislation, while at the same time admitting they themselves did not know this legislation existed.
They're fools.
|
Right because until 2000 the legislation was amended to make it read "more unprofitable" as you've noted there. I guess I just think that this is an easy out for the companies and it's pretty clear with them all rushing to get out. The fact is they aren't profitable with this arrangement today, and the carbon tax isn't even in place yet. I'm surprised that so many here would want what basically amounts to bailouts though.
Like I posted before though, to the average guy it doesn't matter. We pay this cost one way or the other anyway.