So I have read the actual filed claim, and it is not quite as 'outrageous' as many opponents are making it out to be - in the sense that the current government is saying that people with statutory authority acted outside that authority to add the "or more unprofitable" line.
They allege the line was added after the full public hearing process where amendments were proposed, debated, considered, mostly rejected, and then under the guise of inconsequential 'errata' (which can be done outside the public hearing process) this line was slipped in notwithstanding it is a major substantive change (which cannot be done outside the public hearing process) and it was therefore never validly considered or approved.
There is little question a new government can take action to undo illegal things done by a previous government. To try and say Alberta is "suing itself" like Nenshi did is misleading and its own form of publicity stunt.
That said, paragraph 57 is just, well, astonishing:
Quote:
|
The present Minister of Energy, Minister of Environment and Parks, and Attorney General only became aware of the August 2000 Letter after ENMAX sought to abandon its obligations under the PPA. The concept of the purported "or more unprofitable" amendment was not set out in written or verbal briefings from government officials between May 2015 and the first week of March 2016. The existence of the August 2000 Letter was not communicated to the ministers, by officials of the Government of Alberta or otherwise, until senior government officials first learned of its existence in a mid-March 2016 meeting with the Chief Executive Officer of the Balancing Pool.
|
How could a government implement significant regulatory changes affecting the Balancing Pool to the tune of $2 billion without first meeting with the CEO of the Balancing Pool to discuss possible consequences?
How one or more Ministers are not already resigning over this is beyond me.