Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
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.
|
Okay....okay.
For argument's sake, lets just start with this: Does this pass the smell test? Does it smell nice and rosy...or like a big ol' turd?
On the face of it, does it seem reasonable to you? I mean, big, bad corporations didnt steal our lunch money and then kick sand in our faces.
The lights have been on for the past 15 years. Aunt Rachel might not have noticed from BC or Ontario.
For example, one day you decide you dont need Shaw/Telus/Whomever anymore, you're cutting the cord. You're just going with Netflix or you're just going to read more, whatever.
You call 'em up to cancel. Then they tell you that unfortunately the contract you're on was negotiated by a CEO they fired and they've under-billed you for the last 15 years and send you an invoice for $10,000.
What do you do? Do you tell them to pound sand or do you pay up?
This isnt Old Lady Rotten-Crotch down the hall in 4B, this is you. You can fight them if you dont think its fair.
Say everything goes swimmingly. Everything is just turning up Notley! They retro-actively change the law, they sue and they win and hey, just for laughs lets say they even get paid!
Have they won? Do the costs of doing this outweigh the costs of winning? After the time, dedication and legal fees they'll come out ahead.
But what about the downstream costs? Lost investment? Complete lack of faith in our Government? Or does Notley just not care because she needs her political capital now because she wont be here for the consequences?
Make no mistake, this is Banana Republic BS. You'd expect this kind of thing from Libya or Rhodesia or Myanmar, not here in Canada.