Alberta Politics Thread

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

I'd actually, you know, hope my government is competent and could realize things that's have been in effect for 16 years.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I'd actually, you know, hope my government is competent and could realize things that's have been in effect for 16 years.

Sure, and that's great to. Hardly the main issue here, but don't let that get in the way of ridiculing the NDP.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

I don't want it and I think it's a loophole. But I don't see how you can possibly argue the meaning of contract as it is written considering a query explicitly asked the question, and there was an official interpretation entered into record.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

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.

I think these companies as far as I can see are profitable today under the current arrangements. Enmax is looking at a 154 million dollar profit for 2016. A 160 million dollar carbon tax bill will obviously turn that into a 6 million dollar loss.

Capital Power just yesterday raised their dividend....

http://www.capitalpower.com/MediaRoo...5-07-2016.aspx

Why are you suggesting they are not profitable? The Capital Power report even shows a profit via PPA.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think these companies as far as I can see are profitable today under the current arrangements. Enmax is looking at a 154 million dollar profit for 2016. A 160 million dollar carbon tax bill will obviously turn that into a 6 million dollar loss.

Capital Power just yesterday raised their dividend....

http://www.capitalpower.com/MediaRoo...5-07-2016.aspx

Why are you suggesting they are not profitable? The Capital Power report even shows a profit via PPA.

No, I'm not saying the companies aren't profitable. That isn't the point. The issue for the companies is that the PPAs aren't profitable. That's why they all want to get out from the contracts now.

Anyway, I'm just bowing out. I get that there might be no way around this, but it still seems like horrendous legislation to me.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, I'm not saying the companies aren't profitable. That isn't the point. The issue for the companies is that the PPAs aren't profitable. That's why they all want to get out from the contracts now.

Anyway, I'm just bowing out. I get that there might be no way around this, but it still seems like horrendous legislation to me.

I know if I was entering into a contract with a party that can change the rules of the game I would have something in the to protect my self.

[Mr.Coffee]

I like how people (NDP people) may speak about a company being profitable as if it's a bad thing.

Companies are supposed to be profitable and if they're not, they don't exist. You don't have to go to business school to understand this.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I like how people (NDP people) may speak about a company being profitable as if it's a bad thing.

Companies are supposed to be profitable and if they're not, they don't exist. You don't have to go to business school to understand this.

Sigh. Where has anyone, in this thread or elsewhere, remotely suggested that, as a principle, it is bad for companies to be profitable?

This thread has become insufferable.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, I'm not saying the companies aren't profitable. That isn't the point. The issue for the companies is that the PPAs aren't profitable. That's why they all want to get out from the contracts now.

Anyway, I'm just bowing out. I get that there might be no way around this, but it still seems like horrendous legislation to me.

I said previously it looks like capital power has been profitable to date under the current arrangement. Aside from that, why would Enmax continue on with their PPA when the results of doing so would wipe out the profit from their entire business in all its facets? Especially when there is absolutely no question of what "a change in law" means....

any Laws applicable to the Owner or the Buyer, which relate to the following: (A) taxes, including any charge or tax related to the use or consumption of fossil fuels or the production of any related by-products from any such use or consumption

I'm not sure how they say changing a law isn't changing a law when it spells it right out for them.

[Kjesse]

Slava, I think most would agree with your point that, it is those who buy the power who are going to lose -- meaning consumers and businesses. That's not good, it means a chunk of money from all of our pockets.

But the bigger issue is, when you do business whether with the government or otherwise, one side can not up and change the rules part way through. In the case of the PPAs, that agreement led to -- literally -- billions of dollars of investment within the province. Many actuaries and analysts and investors have made decisions based on the terms. To have a subsequent government come and change the contract unilaterally is not good business.

EDIT: I was trying to think of the right word. The best I can come up with is cheating. The NDP are trying to cheat.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sigh. Where has anyone, in this thread or elsewhere, remotely suggested that, as a principle, it is bad for companies to be profitable?

This thread has become insufferable.

When policy is implemented by a government on the presumption that a major incoming cost should be shouldered by companies without consultation or even understanding what's in existing contracts, I'd say it's fair to state that an ideology erected from a belief that companies are forever growing money trees free for pillaging is what's going on with our government.

Remember, our energy minister is more concerned with caribou than the industry that employs thousands of albertans and is struggling and cutting jobs left right and centre. I wonder what the environment minister focuses on if the energy minister focuses on environmental issues.

[chemgear]

^

Well, this is how they put it.

Originally Posted by chemgear

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...suit-1.3695444

Deputy premier Sarah Hoffman said Monday the decisions of several power companies to end their contracts could cost consumers $2 billion.

Buyers have done very well by the process, making a collective profit of $10 billion since 2001, Hoffman said, and should now be prepared to face market downturns.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by chemgear

^

Well, this is how they put it.

Right so I guess to clarify they never said it was bad to be profitable, just that it doesn't matter because ultimately if you're a company and you are profitable you'll need to turn those profits in eventually to pay for social or "environmental" nets.

I use the term environmental extremely loosely because it's essentially just a tax as the money goes to general revenue

[chemgear]

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.

Huh, they openly admitted that the NDP government absolutely had no idea. That's a lot more honest that I would have imagined. I wonder who the poor sod was that had to bring it to the government's attention.

And this quote is even more stupid.

“These three words could have $2 billion tossed on Albertan’s bills. We’re not going to stand for that and fight for Albertans.”

Will the NDP go to court and sue itself to have the extra billions in dollars of their OTHER recent tax increases from being "tossed on Albertan's bills"? Nevermind the fact that they triggered it themselves?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Most of our coal plants were going to shut down anyway due to the 2012 Federal GHG standards for coal plants.

This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. You should probably not post on this topic anymore.

Keephills 3 (450 MW) was commissioned in 2011.

Politicians are the worst thing to happen to the electricity industry in Canada.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, I'm not saying the companies aren't profitable. That isn't the point. The issue for the companies is that the PPAs aren't profitable. That's why they all want to get out from the contracts now.

Anyway, I'm just bowing out. I get that there might be no way around this, but it still seems like horrendous legislation to me.

It might be if PPAs were legislation. PPA's are a regulation, huge difference.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by chemgear
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...suit-1.3695444

Deputy premier Sarah Hoffman said Monday the decisions of several power companies to end their contracts could cost consumers $2 billion.

Buyers have done very well by the process, making a collective profit of $10 billion since 2001, Hoffman said, and should now be prepared to face market downturns.

Not to be overly mean about it, but $$$$ is she stupid.

By cancelling out they are preparing to face market downturns and more downturns created by this government. The NDP is just mad because they're not willing to turn around, bend over and take it from the government.

[killer_carlson]

This smacks of a decision being made in a vacuum of partisan supporters. No one had the guts to say "uh, this is a bad idea".

This is playing extremely poorly in the Court of public opinion.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

This is embarrassing.

[DoubleK]

When do we start talking about the elephant in the room?

I will preface all of this with my personal opinion that I do believe that society needs to get serious about carbon emissions, but not at any cost. I also believe that there can/should/will be a greater penetration/contribution of renewable power in Alberta's generation mix. Phase out does not mean outright ban.

Some thoughts for discussion...

How long did it take the Enmax Shepard generator to get online? It broke ground in 2011ish and was online in spring 2015? So 4 years for 800MW at a cost of $1.4B (likely more when you factor in the pool price being a lot lower than what they raised their capital at)?

Current generation mix in Alberta can be found here. For those who don't want to click, there is 6,200 MW of coal installed and operating as of June 2016.

To achieve the targets set in the Climate Leadership Plan, rough math is an average of 400 MW of new generation capacity on line per year every year for the next 14 years. That doesn't factor in demand growth. This is unprecedented generation development in any normal market. This is not a normal market. The pool price is at a 20 year low. What company would invest in a market like that?