Alberta Politics Thread

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's a bit ironic and greatly hypocritical that the NDP are fighting against interprovincial free trade agreements because they say local companies should get preferential treatment while continually hiring people and companies from BC to do their dirty work for them.

I can't wait till the ndp's gone. Every desicion they make makes this province a little worse, a little more backwards. Their inexperience is showing.

[OMG!WTF!]

Won't the court case take longer than the remaining four years on the contract anyway? Now we're going to pay for the broken contracts as well as a ######ed law suit.

Aren't these clauses standard in ppa arrangements all over the continent? It's not like Alberta is the only government that has done this.

I never thought I would leave southern Alberta. But this is getting intolerable.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Zarley

The idiocy of this move is beyond belief, even for the NDP. I imagine this will be thrown out in court, but the damage to investor confidence in the regulatory environment in this province will be done. At least there's only 2 years and 10 months until the next election.

As an aside, it's interesting that the province's lawyer on this file is a Vancouver based civil liberties and constitutional law specialist for what is essentially a commercial contract matter. Obviously this is the NDP rewarding one of their own, but I would have expected an Alberta based corporate litigator.

Here's a post from UofC Faculty of Law blog about the issue.

http://ablawg.ca/2016/07/26/ag-argue...ment-unlawful/

I see a lot of parallels with this case and the Northern Gateway decision where the failure to follow procedure even with cabinet approval ends up overturning the AEUB amendment.

Also a couple points to make

1) Electrical plants won't be covered by the Carbon Levy but rather the SGER which the NDP government made more stringent at least until the end of PPA(they will all expire by the end of 2020).

2) Coal trouble really stem from the rapid decline in electrical prices (the average pool price was around $49/MWhr in 2014, $33/MWhr in 2015, $16/MWhr YTD)

[CaptainCrunch]

As bad and corrupt as the PC's were, this NDP government is worse, because beyond their questionable fund raising activities, they're stupid and unprepared to govern, and they're blind to the damage they're doing because like all pseudo socialists, they think they're the smartest guys in the room.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Won't the court case take longer than the remaining four years on the contract anyway? Now we're going to pay for the broken contracts as well as a ######ed law suit.

Aren't these clauses standard in ppa arrangements all over the continent? It's not like Alberta is the only government that has done this.

I never thought I would leave southern Alberta. But this is getting intolerable.

As far as I can tell, these so-called "power purchase arrangements" are completely novel, developed by Alberta in an attempt to introduce competition into the electrical generation industry in the early years of the 21st century.

After doing some reading on the topic (there is an interesting entry on a laws.ca), I maintain my view that the scope of the "change of law" protection granted to the owners is incredibly broad.

Anyway, it does look like this mess is something of an unintended consequence of Alberta's new emissions regime. Looks like a mistake on the part of the government in the sense that it may lead to the elimination of coal power in Alberta much sooner than anticipated (or intended). Will be interesting to watch all of this unfold.

[CaptainCrunch]

Does the government really want this case in court where the Energy Companies will be able to savage the setup of the carbon tax and its effects on business?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Does the government really want this case in court where the Energy Companies will be able to savage the setup of the carbon tax and its effects on business?

Well, at worst, the evidence adduced would only speak to the effect of the carbon tax on one very particular industry (electricity generation).

Anyway, only time will tell. Generally, litigation is not a very attractive option for a whole host of reasons (depending on the circumstances).

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Makarov

As far as I can tell, these so-called "power purchase arrangements" are completely novel, developed by Alberta in an attempt to introduce competition into the electrical generation industry in the early years of the 21st century.

After doing some reading on the topic (there is an interesting entry on a laws.ca), I maintain my view that the scope of the "change of law" protection granted to the owners is incredibly broad.

Anyway, it does look like this mess is something of an unintended consequence of Alberta's new emissions regime. Looks like a mistake on the part of the government in the sense that it may lead to the elimination of coal power in Alberta much sooner than anticipated (or intended). Will be interesting to watch all of this unfold.

I won't be able to find the clip from my phone but the guy talking to Danielle Smith on the radio this morning said his company signs the same agreement word for word with governments around the continent. It's more like standard operating procedure than secret backroom Enron deals that evil PC's used to screw future generations.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Makarov

As far as I can tell, these so-called "power purchase arrangements" are completely novel, developed by Alberta in an attempt to introduce competition into the electrical generation industry in the early years of the 21st century.

After doing some reading on the topic (there is an interesting entry on a laws.ca), I maintain my view that the scope of the "change of law" protection granted to the owners is incredibly broad.

Anyway, it does look like this mess is something of an unintended consequence of Alberta's new emissions regime. Looks like a mistake on the part of the government in the sense that it may lead to the elimination of coal power in Alberta much sooner than anticipated (or intended). Will be interesting to watch all of this unfold.

I guess I just can't help myself but to chime in. This is exactly the way I understand it though. These PPAs have been around for years, and they were sort of working as they were supposed to. But with increased cogeneration and wind (in particular) the PPAs aren't profitable anymore. They weren't profitable before the Carbon tax. Essentially the companies are using this as a "change in law" which makes it cool for them to walk away. It will be interesting to see how the courts decide on that.

The other thing to recognize here is that regardless of who "wins" the same guys foot the bill at the end of the day. If the lawsuit is successful then we pay through increased utility bills. If the lawsuit isn't successful then we pay because municipal entities like Enmax pay.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess I just can't help myself but to chime in. This is exactly the way I understand it though. These PPAs have been around for years, and they were sort of working as they were supposed to. But with increased cogeneration and wind (in particular) the PPAs aren't profitable anymore. They weren't profitable before the Carbon tax. Essentially the companies are using this as a "change in law" which makes it cool for them to walk away. It will be interesting to see how the courts decide on that.

The other thing to recognize here is that regardless of who "wins" the same guys foot the bill at the end of the day. If the lawsuit is successful then we pay through increased utility bills. If the lawsuit isn't successful then we pay because municipal entities like Enmax pay.

I don't really buy the decline in market argument. The difference in carbon tax is 1000%. It's costing Enmax 15 million now and will grow to 160 million in two years. If that isn't a significant change in the regulatory environment then literally nothing is.

[Fuzz]

So, on days like today:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet
where wind is 10% of it's max capacity, and 1% of total provincial generation, once coal is gone there is a plan for baseload, right? I mean, we aren't just going to expand wind capacity and pray for wind, are we? Someone thought this through, didn't they?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So, on days like today:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet
where wind is 10% of it's max capacity, and 1% of total provincial generation, once coal is gone there is a plan for baseload, right? I mean, we aren't just going to expand wind capacity and pray for wind, are we? Someone thought this through, didn't they?

How much faith do you have in NDP forward thinking and contingency planning?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So, on days like today:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet
where wind is 10% of it's max capacity, and 1% of total provincial generation, once coal is gone there is a plan for baseload, right? I mean, we aren't just going to expand wind capacity and pray for wind, are we? Someone thought this through, didn't they?

I think that the plan was to buy the required power from BC, but to Notley's credit she told them to get stuffed because of their anti-pipline stance.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I don't really buy the decline in market argument. The difference in carbon tax is 1000%. It's costing Enmax 15 million now and will grow to 160 million in two years. If that isn't a significant change in the regulatory environment then literally nothing is.

Its not a decline in markets though, its a decline in costs because of technologies like wind and co-generating that simply didn't exist and weren't seen to be as large of an impact as they have been over the past 15 years. So basically if they use energy from those means its pure profit as compared to the PPA. Or at least in laymans terms.

(Don't get bogged down in the lack of cost for wind, because the point here isn't to discuss viability of alternative energies...its about how they've affected the PPAs and Balancing Pools)

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So, on days like today:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet
where wind is 10% of it's max capacity, and 1% of total provincial generation, once coal is gone there is a plan for baseload, right? I mean, we aren't just going to expand wind capacity and pray for wind, are we? Someone thought this through, didn't they?

Most of our coal plants were going to shut down anyway due to the 2012 Federal GHG standards for coal plants. Natural gas will take a big part of it with hydro, biomass and wind with a small amount of solar.

[Fuzz]

Well, we currently have about 5MW of Solar, mostly a Huterite colony or something. Biomass is worse for GHG than coal, so big win there Hydro doesn't have a whole lot more opportunity in Alberta so that leave natural gas. Shepherd Energy Centre is about 900MW and took 4 years to build(probably a couple more for planning). Unfortunately they also want to tax natural gas energy which is going to discourage their construction. So, uhm...plan?

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So, on days like today:
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet
where wind is 10% of it's max capacity, and 1% of total provincial generation, once coal is gone there is a plan for baseload, right? I mean, we aren't just going to expand wind capacity and pray for wind, are we? Someone thought this through, didn't they?

No wind? no problem.

[Wiggum_PI]

Where did the $2B number come from anyway?

The balancing pool still has the options of: Holding the PPA, reselling the PPA, or terminating the PPA by paying the owner termination payment equal to the net book value.

If they decide to terminate the contract as well, the liability to the consumers could be less then $2B.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Jacks

No wind? no problem.

Somebody needs to modify that animated gif with "$15/hr" over their heads. Imagine the millions of people we will be able to employ at $15/hr; a dozen or more per to power a single computer or a street light! It'll be glorious.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by Wiggum_PI

Where did the $2B number come from anyway?

The balancing pool still has the options of: Holding the PPA, reselling the PPA, or terminating the PPA by paying the owner termination payment equal to the net book value.

If they decide to terminate the contract as well, the liability to the consumers could be less then $2B.

The same place the NDP gets all their numbers from?