Alberta Politics Thread

[MBates]

So I have read the actual filed claim, and it is not quite as 'outrageous' as many opponents are making it out to be - in the sense that the current government is saying that people with statutory authority acted outside that authority to add the "or more unprofitable" line.

They allege the line was added after the full public hearing process where amendments were proposed, debated, considered, mostly rejected, and then under the guise of inconsequential 'errata' (which can be done outside the public hearing process) this line was slipped in notwithstanding it is a major substantive change (which cannot be done outside the public hearing process) and it was therefore never validly considered or approved.

There is little question a new government can take action to undo illegal things done by a previous government. To try and say Alberta is "suing itself" like Nenshi did is misleading and its own form of publicity stunt.

That said, paragraph 57 is just, well, astonishing:

The present Minister of Energy, Minister of Environment and Parks, and Attorney General only became aware of the August 2000 Letter after ENMAX sought to abandon its obligations under the PPA. The concept of the purported "or more unprofitable" amendment was not set out in written or verbal briefings from government officials between May 2015 and the first week of March 2016. The existence of the August 2000 Letter was not communicated to the ministers, by officials of the Government of Alberta or otherwise, until senior government officials first learned of its existence in a mid-March 2016 meeting with the Chief Executive Officer of the Balancing Pool.

How could a government implement significant regulatory changes affecting the Balancing Pool to the tune of $2 billion without first meeting with the CEO of the Balancing Pool to discuss possible consequences?

How one or more Ministers are not already resigning over this is beyond me.

[Fuzz]

So this little shartshow is basically the result of 2 bad governments. Nice!

[GGG]

Not a lawyer at all but isn't there something where if the party signing the contract has reason to believe the person representing the other party has authority then it's held as valid.

I'd also argue that the or more unprofitable line is not a substantive change. If the clause only applied in the narrow band of when you are making a profit to not making a profit the clause is virtually meaningless. It clear the intent of the original and modified clause is there to protect the companies investment if there is significant regulatory change.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't even think he has to unite the two factions. All he has to do is provide enough leadership and provide a strong enough platform to woo previous PC voters back.

Not everyone who switched their vote from PC to either WR or NDP in the last election will stay in those camps. It was a protest vote that elected the NDP and they are fast on their way out with all of their screw ups.

[Flash Walken]

Are we sure this isn't bureaucratic incompetence of the highest order?

What's that saying, never blame malice when incompetence is equally as likely? something like that.

I would imagine that an email or two would have sufficed to clear something like this up?

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

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.

It's going to be interesting to see how the polls pan out by May of next year, especially after the PC Leadership race and to a smaller extent when the Liberals get a new leader. (It would also help if they was more than one poll every three months to get a better idea)

Alberta politics is way to volatile to really get a sense of how things will pan out by 2019. Heck it was only May when people were questioning if Brian Jean would make the summer.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not a lawyer at all but isn't there something where if the party signing the contract has reason to believe the person representing the other party has authority then it's held as valid.

I'd also argue that the or more unprofitable line is not a substantive change. If the clause only applied in the narrow band of when you are making a profit to not making a profit the clause is virtually meaningless. It clear the intent of the original and modified clause is there to protect the companies investment if there is significant regulatory change.

Again, PPAs are not contracts.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Again, PPAs are not contracts.

You better go rewrite this wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_purchase_agreement

[MBates]

Gosh, Rachel, the press conference seemed to result in your people looking stupid for blowing taxpayer money...lets see, how to fix that...got it! Blow more taxpayer money to tell the voters how smart your people are! The public will love you for it!

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ntract-lawsuit

[Kjesse]

This keeps getting better. The ads are I'm sure worth the $100K.

On this issue of lack of public hearings, remember, this was the government itself that made the clarification before going into a type of bid process, and the results have been, over time and until now, very good for the balancing pool and consumers for over a decade.

The lack of certain formalities such as a further public hearing on a clarification statement, where joe taxpayer could have objected to the clause interpretation, matters little now-- its 16 years after the fact and billions of dollars have now changed hands as a result. There is no going back. It was the government and its board acting in sync.

It may be different in, for example, a situation where someone suddenly has a liberty at stake and a law was not passed properly, but this is not that sort of situation. The clarification has had an impact of every resident of Alberta and every shareholder/investor/analyst etc. and everyone has lived under its benefits or detriment for a long time now.

Its potentially the greatest application of laches or a form of estoppel in common law history if the lawsuit gets that far.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel

[MBates]

I fully expect the claim is doomed to fail for basically the reasons you cite.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by MBates

Gosh, Rachel, the press conference seemed to result in your people looking stupid for blowing taxpayer money...lets see, how to fix that...got it! Blow more taxpayer money to tell the voters how smart your people are! The public will love you for it!

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ntract-lawsuit

It'll be interested to see how much the NDP is spending on advertising this year. They had to have spent a lot of money on the continuous Carbon tax advertising.

Between them and the Union ads they could start a 24 hour a day NDP is good radio channel.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Whoops... turns out Hoffman was lying through her teeth when she said the NDP weren't aware of the termination clauses.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...rbon-levy.html

Which leaves the most plausible explanation for why Notley and the NDP got themselves into this mess is that they simply didn't care who got screwed, so long as their ideological decisions happened.

You know damn well they were aware of the clauses.

Look at the flip flop they pulled on the Kananaskis Country Golf Course rebuild after they looked at the termination clause.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by MBates

Gosh, Rachel, the press conference seemed to result in your people looking stupid for blowing taxpayer money...lets see, how to fix that...got it! Blow more taxpayer money to tell the voters how smart your people are! The public will love you for it!

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...ntract-lawsuit

I'm sorry...is $100K in advertising supposed to sway the Judge?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I see something else in this whole story as well.

To my way of thinking the 'profitable' vs 'more un-profitable' seems pretty crucial...its like digital vs analog legal clauses. Clauses that shift the investment risk dramatically since it defines the terms by which the company can change the contract. So it looks pretty material to my non-lawyer eyes.

That being said, if someone, for some reason, did change material aspects of the contract outside of official channels (for whatever reason) then it is potentially invalid. That seems like a perfectly valid question to explore.

The question about how long this clause has been undiscovered is pretty much irrelevant IMHO.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

You better go rewrite this wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_purchase_agreement

AUC Decision in MSA v TAU, Nathan Kaiser and Scott Connelly, Decision 3110-D01-215 at para 289:

The Commission finds, for the reasons that follow, that the PPAs are a component of a comprehensive statutory scheme enacted to ensure the fair, efficient and openly competitive operation of the electricity market in Alberta. The Commission finds that neither the historical record nor the nature of the PPAs themselves support TransAlta’s assertion that the PPAs should be treated as commercial contracts that are immune from Commission review or interpretation. The IAT itself addressed the proper characterization of the PPAs in its August 1999 report to the EUB in which it stated:

The IAT has elected to proceed on the basis that the PPAs will not be agreements. It is proposed that the PPAs be specifically authorized and implemented in accordance with the legislation and the regulations which will specify that a particular arrangement attached by reference will operate as between the named Owner and successful bidder at the PPA auction(s)…

As a general rule, the IAT has drafted the PPAs to be as close to a contractual form as possible recognizing the limitations involved. There are recitals but they do not record any agreement as between the parties. Certain other clauses to contracts have been left out and, finally, there is no provision for the document to be executed since it will be in effect by virtue of the legislation and the regulations.

[GaiJin]

Originally Posted by Makarov

AUC Decision in MSA v TAU, Nathan Kaiser and Scott Connelly, Decision 3110-D01-215 at para 289:

The Commission finds, for the reasons that follow, that the PPAs are a component of a comprehensive statutory scheme enacted to ensure the fair, efficient and openly competitive operation of the electricity market in Alberta. The Commission finds that neither the historical record nor the nature of the PPAs themselves support TransAlta’s assertion that the PPAs should be treated as commercial contracts that are immune from Commission review or interpretation. The IAT itself addressed the proper characterization of the PPAs in its August 1999 report to the EUB in which it stated:

The IAT has elected to proceed on the basis that the PPAs will not be agreements. It is proposed that the PPAs be specifically authorized and implemented in accordance with the legislation and the regulations which will specify that a particular arrangement attached by reference will operate as between the named Owner and successful bidder at the PPA auction(s)…

As a general rule, the IAT has drafted the PPAs to be as close to a contractual form as possible recognizing the limitations involved. There are recitals but they do not record any agreement as between the parties. Certain other clauses to contracts have been left out and, finally, there is no provision for the document to be executed since it will be in effect by virtue of the legislation and the regulations.

You are taking that out of context.

[Resolute 14]

Well, there's yet another thing Notley lied about then. She said she wasn't going to spend taxpayer dollars on what amounted to party promotion/advertising. Given this lawsuit is essentially the NDP suing the Government of Alberta, she is spending our money to promote her party's position.

[Makarov]

Interesting. What is the context and how does it clarify the Board's finding that "PPAs are not agreements"?

This is not an area of expertise for me so I'm genuinely curious. I haven't read the entire decision but the cited passage sure looks to me like these PPAs do not operate simply according to the principles of common law contract.

[Resolute 14]

Kenney kind of crushes the NDP's "we didn't know until it was too late" argument.

Notley was told her plans would cost the government billions in penalties before she was even elected: https://twitter.com/jkenney/status/758334383510007808

That was about coal plant closures being forced, but perhaps Notley should have clued in that she needed to have some of her BC friends read those agreements before taking action, hmm?