Alberta Politics Thread

[Fuzz]

If these are illegal backroom deals, then invalidate them through the courts, not through legislation. And the proper time to do that is before making policy, not after.

[Locke]

Wow, they actually used the term 'Banana Republic' and everything.

Thats bad...

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Locke

Wow, they actually used the term 'Banana Republic' and everything.

Thats bad...

This is the message that our government is sending out to the business community, press, and potential investment looking at our province.

Thanks NDP.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

This is the message that our government is sending out to the business community, press, and potential investment looking at our province.

Thanks NDP.

And you know what, using my special mind-reading powers I've deduced:

Its already too late.

Theres no winning this. Damage done. There wont be significant investment in Alberta until The Regime is overthrown.

Why would there be? Even if they drop this today its gone on too long and they've taken it too seriously for anyone to honestly believe they wouldnt try these shenanigans again the next time the opportunity arises.

And over what?

[DiracSpike]

At least they're giving us a lot of ammo to give them the boot in 2019.

I knew they'd try to implement their misguided idealogical agenda but I didn't know they'd be incompetent and borderline criminal.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Locke

And over what?

Pride. They ####ed up and are desperate to do anything other than fix the #### up. Implementing their green agenda prior to Paris was far more important than actually looking at the impact of the implementation.

When you have just about everyone questioning the sanity of your potential course of action, it's time you take a step back, take a deep breath, and go 180. This is truly dumbfounding. Love the quotes by Nenshi though.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Pride. They ####ed up and are desperate to do anything other than fix the #### up. Implementing their green agenda prior to Paris was far more important than actually looking at the impact of the implementation.

When you have just about everyone questioning the sanity of your potential course of action, it's time you take a step back, take a deep breath, and go 180. This is truly dumbfounding. Love the quotes by Nenshi though.

Pride? What pride? How can the NDP have any pride?

What they need is shame.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I didn't know they'd be incompetent and borderline criminal.

That sounds about right for every NDP government ever.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by belsarius

They aren't planning on changing laws that I know of. From what I can tell they are planning on upholding them.

The legislation to create the PPAs (the Law) was clear that public consultation was required before any variations were added to the PPAs after they were announced.

The Enron clause did not follow the law and no consultation was undertaken even though it was identified within AUEB at the time, there are even emails that prove this. The clause was added anyway. To retroactively remove said clause is to uphold the law that was enacted in 1998.

In Soviet Russia these backroom illegal deals might be fair game. But in Canada we have the Rule of Law and any illegal clause in an agreement should be fair game to be removed.

Now you are just making things up.

The "Enron clause", a NDP-invented phrase they coined hoping it would help them with public perception, has blown up in their faces. There was no variation. It was merely a matter of clarification of interpretation of what had already been consulted upon.

In any event, the obligation to consult does not give any particular consultee a veto or ability to alter the wording of the agreement anyway. The government proceeded with the interpretation an independent panel agreed was the, get this, actual intention based on the prior consultations.

The wording below is exactly what it was, a mere interpretation issue which was agreed upon by the Independent Assessment Team as established in the process.



Query 8 PPA Section 4.3(j) – Unprofitability of the PPA Due to Change in Law

Clarification is required of the phrase “render continued performance by the Parties to this Arrangement for the balance of the Effective Term unprofitable to the Buyer in respect of a Unit…”

A literal interpretation of this clause could result in a Buyer being precluded from exercising its right to terminate the PPA pursuant to Section 4.3(j) because the Change in Law did not “render” the PPA “unprofitable” where the PPA was already “unprofitable” prior to the Change in Law.

It is proposed that Section 4.3(j) of the PPAs be clarified in a manner that makes it clear the Buyer shall be entitled to terminate the PPA and shall not be liable for, nor entitled to any Termination Payment if a Change in Law renders the PPA unprofitable, or more unprofitable.

Response:

The IAT has reviewed PPA Section 4.3(j) and confirms that the intention was to provide and (sic) exit provision with no right to or liability for a Termination Payment in the event that a Change of Law rendered a PPA unprofitable or more unprofitable. This intention would be made more clear in the PPAs with the insertion of the following (in bold italics) at S4.3(j) of the PPAs:

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

They aren't planning on changing laws that I know of. From what I can tell they are planning on upholding them.

The legislation to create the PPAs (the Law) was clear that public consultation was required before any variations were added to the PPAs after they were announced.

The Enron clause did not follow the law and no consultation was undertaken even though it was identified within AUEB at the time, there are even emails that prove this. The clause was added anyway. To retroactively remove said clause is to uphold the law that was enacted in 1998.

In Soviet Russia these backroom illegal deals might be fair game. But in Canada we have the Rule of Law and any illegal clause in an agreement should be fair game to be removed.

Sorry, there actually should have been a 'Per Post' charge on CP of $1. You'll have to E-Transfer that to the mods immediately.

You didnt know that when you signed up? Because it didnt exist? Thats a shame. Oh well. When can they expect that E-Transfer?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by belsarius

TBut in Canada we have the Rule of Law and any illegal clause in an agreement should be fair game to be removed.

Absolutely we do. In fact, under Canadian law, illegal clauses in provisions are void. You know how you get that remedy? You go to court. If the clause was illegal, that's all they'd have to do.

[belsarius]

Thanks for the clarification. That is the first time I read this interpretation that the IAT had intended it to be more unprofitable in the beginning. I concede the point that I was misinformed. Thank you for taking the time to find the actual information.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Thanks for the clarification. That is the first time I read this interpretation that the IAT had intended it to be more unprofitable in the beginning. I concede the point that I was misinformed. Thank you for taking the time to find the actual information.

Wow, thanks. I actually thought you were simply being an NDP supporter. I stand corrected.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Wow, thanks. I actually thought you were simply being an NDP supporter. I stand corrected.

Heh, I do support the NDP on most things but I also try to keep an open mind to actual facts. This thread can give me a headache but it gets me out of my echo chamber. I also altered my view of the minimum wage increase based on discussion in here. Lively debate opens horizons and I appreciate when someone drops an actual source that can change my perspective. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, its the best way to see the bigger picture.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Now you are just making things up.

The "Enron clause", a NDP-invented phrase they coined hoping it would help them with public perception, has blown up in their faces. There was no variation. It was merely a matter of clarification of interpretation of what had already been consulted upon.

In any event, the obligation to consult does not give any particular consultee a veto or ability to alter the wording of the agreement anyway. The government proceeded with the interpretation an independent panel agreed was the, get this, actual intention based on the prior consultations.

The wording below is exactly what it was, a mere interpretation issue which was agreed upon by the Independent Assessment Team as established in the process.



Query 8 PPA Section 4.3(j) – Unprofitability of the PPA Due to Change in Law

Clarification is required of the phrase “render continued performance by the Parties to this Arrangement for the balance of the Effective Term unprofitable to the Buyer in respect of a Unit…”

A literal interpretation of this clause could result in a Buyer being precluded from exercising its right to terminate the PPA pursuant to Section 4.3(j) because the Change in Law did not “render” the PPA “unprofitable” where the PPA was already “unprofitable” prior to the Change in Law.

It is proposed that Section 4.3(j) of the PPAs be clarified in a manner that makes it clear the Buyer shall be entitled to terminate the PPA and shall not be liable for, nor entitled to any Termination Payment if a Change in Law renders the PPA unprofitable, or more unprofitable.

Response:

The IAT has reviewed PPA Section 4.3(j) and confirms that the intention was to provide and (sic) exit provision with no right to or liability for a Termination Payment in the event that a Change of Law rendered a PPA unprofitable or more unprofitable. This intention would be made more clear in the PPAs with the insertion of the following (in bold italics) at S4.3(j) of the PPAs:

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)?

[puckedoff]

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?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

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?

Honestly have no idea. It's an interesting question.

[Resolute 14]

How can you have no idea what your opinion is, Makarov?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

How can you have no idea what your opinion is, Makarov?

Because it's a complex question that likely requires a full evidentiary record and a bunch of legal research in order to properly answer (and I have neither)?

[Resolute 14]

Well, I can't force you off your hedge.

Personally though, I think only an idiot would consider this a "substantive change". Which, of course, is why the NDP government essentially sued themselves over it. I suspect they are only considering trying to change the contracts via legislation now because they don't expect their lawsuit to go anywhere. And, much like their repeatedly unconstitutional attempts to pass a differential beer taxation scheme, I doubt this will succeed either.