Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
The Alberta Government enters into contracts numbered in the hundreds or even thousands, every day, and there are almost no requirements to consult the public: If they had to do so, there would be no contacts because there will always be detractors. Even with consultation, the government can do what it will within its own regulations.
|
Actually according to the legislation passed regarding the PPAs in 1997 (1998?), they were to be written by an independent board with public consultation. The AUEB then had a requirement to hold public hearings for any changes to those consultation and PPAs written by the Independent team. The Enron clause was added months after public hearings closed and only 5 days before the auction.
The emails between the AUEB and Enron even show they were concerned that public hearings were going to be required. Instead the AUEB make the change without consultation.
So no in most cases the government doesn't need consultation for contracts. In the case of PPAs it was mandated in the law that it was required. The AUEB didn't follow the legislation and put in a clause that was not vetted publically as it was supposed to. They then hid the clause from most documentation so it could only be found in the original documents in the main records.
Legally (based on the original legislation) the AUEB had no right to add the "or more unprofitable" clause. That's why they are fighting it.
So yeah, investment is being told if you try and skirt the rules, do things in backroom dealings, we will punish it and change the agreements to make them legal.