Alberta Politics Thread

[Cube Inmate]

A funny part of the statement of claim:

ENMAX Contributed to Unprofitability it may Experience in the Future

During the term of the 385 megawatt Battle River PPA, ENMAX by its own
conduct worsened its prospects of making a profit from the PPA by building and
operating its own 800 megawatt gas-fired station. This new generating facility,
the largest single unit in Alberta, increased the supply of electricity just as
demand began to trend downwards, placing downward pressure on prices that
ENMAX and other electricity suppliers could achieve.

"Well, if you hadn't built that giant power plant to earn vast amounts of profit from a cleaner fuel, then you'd still be making profit from our dirty coal electricity!"

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

The same place the NDP gets all their numbers from?

The $2 billion figure comes from a third party. I forget who.

The NDP doesn't actually do numbers. What they usually do - and it was true in this case - is claim that the estimates are wrong without offering any estimates of their own or any explanation of why the estimates are wrong.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

A funny part of the statement of claim:



"Well, if you hadn't built that giant power plant to earn vast amounts of profit from a cleaner fuel, then you'd still be making profit from our dirty coal electricity!"

Wait, is that the government's statement? This is part of their argument? Good grief, Charlie Brown!

[Kjesse]

The sheer idiocy this displays is shocking even for Notley and her band of fools.

[CaptainCrunch]

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Where did the $2B number come from anyway?
.

[OMG!WTF!]

Wow I guess they really didn't read the arrangements that had been in place for the last 16 years....

http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/news...arbon-tax.html

That's pretty funny. "We didn't read it cause it was hard". How these people get one single vote is amazing.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Wow I guess they really didn't read the arrangements that had been in place for the last 16 years....

http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/news...arbon-tax.html

That's pretty funny. "We didn't read it cause it was hard". How these people get one single vote is amazing.

I know everyone wants to pile on the NDP and blame the carbon tax here, so maybe this falls on deaf ears. This really has to do with the companies trying to get out from the contracts with the carbon tax potentially giving them a way. The PPAs aren't profitable. The clause lets them out if the unprofitability is due to a legislative change. But they're already underwater, before you even take the carbon tax into account.

Is that the fault of the NDP and their carbon tax? Sure doesn't look like it.

[Fuzz]

I would have thought a prudent step would be to consult with the power industry before announcing these changes. Maybe one fo them would have brought it up then? I guess they are figuring out what Obama did. You can't just implement your promises. There are roadblocks that need to be navigated.

I'd feel a whole lot better about this screw up if the government just admitted they made a mistake, owned it, and they will look at rectifying it, rather than doubling down on their stupidity with a lawsuit that basically forces all of us to pay for in one way or another.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know everyone wants to pile on the NDP and blame the carbon tax here, so maybe this falls on deaf ears. This really has to do with the companies trying to get out from the contracts with the carbon tax potentially giving them a way. The PPAs aren't profitable. The clause lets them out if the unprofitability is due to a legislative change. But they're already underwater, before you even take the carbon tax into account.

Is that the fault of the NDP and their carbon tax? Sure doesn't look like it.

So if the companies only have a small cut bleeding a little, then the government comes along and makes it a deep laceration bleeding profusely, the companies shouldn't be able to claim that is a change in circumstance? I don't buy that argument one bit.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Delgar

So if the companies only have a small cut bleeding a little, then the government comes along and makes it a deep laceration bleeding profusely, the companies shouldn't be able to claim that is a change in circumstance? I don't buy that argument one bit.

Well the point of the legislation is to protect the companies if they are pushed into unprofitability due to new legislation. They were not profitable already, and haven't been profitable without the legislation.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well the point of the legislation is to protect the companies if they are pushed into unprofitability due to new legislation. They were not profitable already, and haven't been profitable without the legislation.

I can see how the news reports could lead one to think that, but read paragraph 40 of the filed court application.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well the point of the legislation is to protect the companies if they are pushed into unprofitability due to new legislation. They were not profitable already, and haven't been profitable without the legislation.

I don't think it's pushed into unprofitability. It's the governments regulatory framework changing making the investment worth less than it was before. To me this seems reasonable that the government would be on the hook when it changes regulation that hurts profitability. Investment is made in good faith that the regulatory regime will be stable.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well the point of the legislation is to protect the companies if they are pushed into unprofitability due to new legislation. They were not profitable already, and haven't been profitable without the legislation.

So legislation makes it worse and they want out as is their right.

[transplant99]

What would the Liberals do though?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

I know everyone wants to pile on the NDP and blame the carbon tax here, so maybe this falls on deaf ears. This really has to do with the companies trying to get out from the contracts with the carbon tax potentially giving them a way. The PPAs aren't profitable. The clause lets them out if the unprofitability is due to a legislative change. But they're already underwater, before you even take the carbon tax into account.

Is that the fault of the NDP and their carbon tax? Sure doesn't look like it.

You should read your own post again. Yes the clause lets them out of an unprofitable arrangement due to legislative change. The carbon tax is in fact a legislative change. Soooo...here we are. None of our ppa arrangements had previously been the subject of an opt out clause. At the very least the NDP handed them a two billion dollar gift at our expense. Either way it's a colossally stupid move.

[Kjesse]

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.

[Slava]

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.

[Kjesse]

Having read the application in whole now, its pretty shocking, you can't make this up:

The government is suing the power companies for using a clause the government drafted and approved, and upon which everyone has been relying upon as the "deal" for 16 years, on the grounds they themselves did not enact it properly.

This is almost pseudo-reality. Its attempting to unilaterally change the deregulation regime 16 years after the fact.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Jacks

No wind? no problem.

Hey, you found the NDP's plan for creating infrastructure jobs!