Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
This the crux of the entire argument though. As I understand it, the government argues that this "interpretation" is in fact a substantive change (just in the guise of an interpretation) and therefore the IAT exceeded its jurisdiction. So, question appears to be: where is the line between a minor interpretation and a substantive change (thus triggering the requirement for public consultation etc)?
|
Do you think it is a substantive change?
As I read it, if a company is earning $1/yr and the government changes things so that they lose $1bn then that justifies offloading the PPA, and the government is ok with that.
Why then would a company who is losing $1/yr not be able to dump their PPA, if the government changes things so that they now lose $1bn + $1?