Alberta Politics Thread

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Good article from the Financial post. http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=1da4-3dec

A highlight:

The lawsuit also strangely targets its own regulatory agency, the Alberta Utilities Commission, for “unlawfully” agreeing to terms in 2000 that allowed termination of so-called Power Purchase Arrangements “if a change in law renders the PPA unprofitable, or more unprofitable.”

Some quotes from those opining:

“I think Venezuela has moved north,” said an oil executive. “If the reality were not so stark it could be a Monty Python script.”

and

In a statement Wednesday, the Calgary Chamber of Commerce said the lawsuit “sets a devastating precedent that will erode public trust in our regulatory agencies, call into question contracts that have been promulgated under existing regulations, and discourage inward investment to our province.”

and

Deputy premier Sarah Hoffman, who got stuck defending the fiasco, said the province is trying to protect Albertans. “I get why (those sued are) frustrated,” she said. “I get why they are not keen on having to potentially pay this, but neither are Albertans.”

They're bot going to pay for it stupid, we are, thanks a lot obam . . NDP.

And the remarks by the Chamber and the anonymous oil executive are telling.

Welcome to Alberta, this is a no investment zone.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Captain, you're foaming at the mouth so much I'm getting farty and bloated.

There are three things I ddislike in life, incompetence, stupidity and the Dutch.

[corporatejay]

I think the NDP get a lot of criticism, and some of it is valid but blaming everything on the NDP in this province has turned into a drinking game.

But, make no mistake here. This is a #### up of epic proportions. Not just from a pure incompetence perspective but from a corporate relationship perspective, investor confidence etc.. This is symbolic of so much more than the 2 billion dollars.

[CaptainCrunch]

We can certainly should blame the Oil drop and the previous government for a lot of the problems. But the NDP basically came in, poured gas on it and set it on fire.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't feel bad for her at all, because she's lying or she's stupid. She's defending the indefensible and doing it with bluster and bullspitz.

She's a prime example of why people don't trust politicians at all, because she's dishonest and clueless. Its her dishsoap, she needs to soak in it.

What she is doing is her job. Same with Clueless Joe.

The sad fact is, that I think they're doing the best they can and, well, this is it.

Say what you will of the NDP it would be incredibly difficult to somehow draw the conclusion from what they've done that they've done it with any malicious intent.

This is self-delusion/justification and cognitive dissonance at it's most textbook definition.

"Mistakes were made! But not by us."

Hoffman is in between a rock and a hard place. All she can do is be a good soldier, get up to the podium and be the welcome recipient of the rotten fruit and remain within the ranks.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

I think the NDP get a lot of criticism, and some of it is valid but blaming everything on the NDP in this province has turned into a drinking game.

But, make no mistake here. This is a #### up of epic proportions. Not just from a pure incompetence perspective but from a corporate relationship perspective, investor confidence etc.. This is symbolic of so much more than the 2 billion dollars.

I would say that most of it is valid. I would be hard pressed to see any of the legislation that they've enacted to be beneficial to the public good.

I think if the mandate of the sitting Government is to run and improve this Province I cant think of anything they've done that would fit that bill.

And finally, while I'm kind of on the fence in regards to Resolute's determination that this is unbridled Zealotry, I dont think theres much argument to be made that they arent blindly pushing their ideology while ignoring practicality and this current sequence of events is pretty conclusive evidence of that.

[IliketoPuck]

On or before May 31, 2019.

2 Years. 10 Months. 3 Days. 10 Hours. 30 Minutes.

[Resolute 14]

Hopefully. But since Edmonton is no good that city is still propping Notley's merry band of zealots up, they still have a chance if an election were held today.

That being said, even though the NDP still have a ludicrous 41% support in Edmonton (per threehundredeight's model), they have actually dropped a third of their support in the capital. They were polling as high as 61% around the election. Wildrose, meanwhile has pulled into a strong second place at 25.8%.

The NDP are doing even worse in Calgary now than they are in rural Alberta, while the Liberals are surprisingly taking a chunk of their support in the two big cities.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/alberta.html

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Hopefully. But since Edmonton is no good that city is still propping Notley's merry band of zealots up, they still have a chance if an election were held today.

That being said, even though the NDP still have a ludicrous 41% support in Edmonton (per threehundredeight's model), they have actually dropped a third of their support in the capital. They were polling as high as 61% around the election. Wildrose, meanwhile has pulled into a strong second place at 25.8%.

The NDP are doing even worse in Calgary now than they are in rural Alberta, while the Liberals are surprisingly taking a chunk of their support in the two big cities.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/alberta.html

Only Edmonton could think that the way things are going so far is a-okay.

"Unbelievable Incompetence? Feels like home. Go Oilers err...NDP go!"

They'll lead us into a decade-long wasteland of futility. If we're lucky.

[Fuzz]

Spoiler!

You say WRP has pulled into a "Strong second placce" but if you look at the chart they are doing no better than they ever have. NDP is still stronger than they were before the election. Obviously most of this means nothing becuase if an election were being held I don't see any of these numbers being all that relevant.

[Jacks]

If Kenney manages to pull the parties together the combined conservative vote will be well over 50%, he'll pull the PC's back to the centre right where they belong. Wasn't long ago that being at the centre right was getting them 60%+ and huge majorities. If the Wildrose resists and falls on their sword I still think the PC's win the next election. The only way the PC's lose is if they pick a really crappy leader IMO. The only question will be how much of a mess is there to be cleaned up, it's looking like it will be pretty bad.

[CaptainCrunch]

Of course they're stronger then before the election.

The NDP were pretty much meat before the election, Prentice had come on board and hadn't imploded yet, WildRose was still pretty stable prior to its self destruction when Prentice came on board.

Basically the NDP were heading towards the back benches again. It really was a perfect storm, Redford pissed everyone off, Prentice came in and ran one of the worst campaigns ever, then the wild rose self destructed.

When the Conservatives get their new leader, expect a major plummet by the NDP, as it will be a major question answered pre election.

Honestly if an election was held today with Kenney as the conservative leader, we would probably get a PC minority government with a strong Wildrose opposition, and the NDP being destroyed.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Captain, you're foaming at the mouth so much I'm getting farty and bloated.

A whole bunch of bullspitz

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Part 1 is the carbon levy which is the reason these clauses are being used.
Will this cost be passed on to the consumer? Partially.

Power plants are not covered under the carbon levy for the remaining duration of the PPA, they're covered under the SGER. Even if the NDP did not change the SGER rates the PPA buyers would still be able to cite the 2007 implementation of the SGER for the reason of their termination.

[Jacks]

Funny, I was looking at Kenny's twitter feed to see what he's up to and found this nugget.

One of the groups that is now fighting Energy East is called Environmental Defense.
http://action.environmentaldefence.c...tion_KEY=18206

The proposed massive Energy East pipeline poses tremendous risks for our communities, our drinking water, and our shared climate.

Their executive director is Tim Gray. This same Tim Gray sits on our Oilsands Advisory Group and is paid by the taxpayers (apparently $600/day).
http://www.alberta.ca/oilsands-advis...p-members.aspx

Isn't that special.

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah no conflict there.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

2-Is this accurate? If the contracts terminate, the taxpayers have to pick up the tab. Essentially the downside risk associated with the contracts was socialized...

To build upon some of the answers to this, the downside risk was not completely socialized. A trigger was built in to enable the downside risk to be socialized. That trigger was the government changing the rules to make the contracts less profitable.

It's not like all these PPA holders could just dump crappy contracts into the balancing pool (i.e. socialize them) as they see fit.

The people's government chose pull that trigger when it increased the carbon tax on emitters.

[Frequitude]

Not to pile on...ok, to pile on...The NDP is either lying about or not smart enough to know that the $2B liability they are screaming about is actually at most only $950M. That's because these contracts could simply be terminated for about $950M instead of continuing to carry them and lose $2B.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-in-ppa-battle

Deputy premier Sarah Hoffman said that if companies that have recently cancelled contracts are successful in returning them to the Balancing Pool, a government entity, it will cost Albertans an additional $2 billion on their power bills by 2020 when the PPAs expire.

But one of the companies at the centre of the case — Capital Power — said the government is being “misleading” in its monetary claims.

“If they simply terminated all the PPAs, the obligation of the Balancing Pool is to pay those plant owners the net book value of the plants, and that is about $950 million,” he said.

“So the absolute worst-case scenario is half what they’ve suggested. If there are sort of basic errors of math like that, it makes me wonder about everything else that’s been claimed.”

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You say WRP has pulled into a "Strong second placce" but if you look at the chart they are doing no better than they ever have. NDP is still stronger than they were before the election. Obviously most of this means nothing becuase if an election were being held I don't see any of these numbers being all that relevant.

I was talking about Edmonton, not the overall provincial numbers.

Wildrose has gone from 19% in Edmonton and third place to 26% and second. The overall provincal numbers aren't really moving much as it appears the Liberals are taking support from all three parties in Calgary and Edmonton. But, I honestly just look at that as a group of "undecideds". They will fall whichever way they must to avoid an NDP or PC or Wildrose government, depending on how that herd is divided.

[CaptainCrunch]

I tend to think that we're going to see the end of majority governments in Alberta for a long time. I think the trust is lost, and most people realize that protest voting leads to situations like the one we are in now.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

Power plants are not covered under the carbon levy for the remaining duration of the PPA, they're covered under the SGER. Even if the NDP did not change the SGER rates the PPA buyers would still be able to cite the 2007 implementation of the SGER for the reason of their termination.

Yeah, I know, I was using it more as a generic term.

That being said, if they had tried to use the 2007 implementation, it might be a bit of a hard sell, as at that time when it was introduced the PPAs were profitable and thus that legislation didn't cause them to be "Unprofitable, or more unprofitable".

That is a battle that could potentially be fought and won by either side if they tried to use the initial 2007 change to get out of the PPAs today. The PPAs became unprofitable after that change, but not as a direct cause of it.
I don't know what language is in there that would specify time frames though so who knows?

This new change though certainly fits all the criteria of the "more unprofitable clause".
The PPAs were unprofitable at the time the change was made, and that change is making them even more unprofitable, so that fits the clause to the letter.