Alberta Politics Thread

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I may be coming off particularly heavy handed speaking about the NDP here and I'm glad to have read the comments of Makarov dealing with some of the administrative aspects. That all being said the analysis doesn't really change and I don't think the province can get away from what its board did 16 years ago, and I still see it as suing itself.

I remain of the view that the NDP by its actions here have demonstrated rank incompetence, poor judgment, and the blind pursuit of ideology at the expense of all Albertans.

The Utilities Commission, although created by statute, is independent of the government. That is a fundamental aspect of administrative law. The province is not in any way suing itself. Governments challenge the decisions of administrative tribunals everyday. Indeed, it's my bread and butter.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I may be coming off particularly heavy handed speaking about the NDP here and I'm glad to have read the comments of Makarov dealing with some of the administrative aspects. That all being said the analysis doesn't really change and I don't think the province can get away from what its board did 16 years ago, and I still see it as suing itself.

I remain of the view that the NDP by its actions here have demonstrated rank incompetence, poor judgment, and the blind pursuit of ideology at the expense of all Albertans.

I would challenge this part if you would bear with me, agree or not with the policies.

The NDP were elected on a platform that included an aggressive climate policy with a carbon tax. They have used this carbon tax as a key point when negotiating with other jurisdictions. In Paris it was used to demonstrate how Alberta was using it as a way to transition out of fossil fuel dependence and it was used when negotiating with other Provinces to get support for pipelines like Energy East.

This ability to get out of PPAs would have been known but the choice was to opt out of implementing the carbon tax and being a fool for how much they promoted it and alienating their base or risk the PPA's clause being triggered. Doesn't seem like it left them much of a choice.

Now they can fight the clause before it is triggered and appear to be frivolously spending money on a court fight that wasn't required or they could wait and see what the industry did.

By choosing to wait they have given a reason for the fight, they have an excuse in corporate greed to fight behind and have support from their base of voters to go ahead with it.

They were always going to implement the carbon tax, their whole government mandate depended on it, getting pipelines built depended on it, building a different opinion of Alberta in the world depended on it. But it cost a risk of the PPA clause being triggered. Which they probably anticipated and were ready for the court challenge months ago.

In some ways it might appear clumsy, but I think it was a deft move that they were forced into by their policy. Agree with the policy or don't but in order to go forward with it this situation was a forgone conclusion. Not blind ideological moves, but a mandated move that was required for their entire government plan to move forward.



TL/DR - The were always doing the carbon tax. The knew the PPA clause would be triggered and this was the inevitable result. The only option was not carbon tax and risk alienating your voting base and every other group (including oil industry leaders) that they have been using this to negotiate with.

[Bootsy]

Originally Posted by belsarius

I would challenge this part if you would bear with me, agree or not with the policies.

The NDP were elected on a platform that included an aggressive climate policy with a carbon tax. They have used this carbon tax as a key point when negotiating with other jurisdictions. In Paris it was used to demonstrate how Alberta was using it as a way to transition out of fossil fuel dependence and it was used when negotiating with other Provinces to get support for pipelines like Energy East.

This ability to get out of PPAs would have been known but the choice was to opt out of implementing the carbon tax and being a fool for how much they promoted it and alienating their base or risk the PPA's clause being triggered. Doesn't seem like it left them much of a choice.

Now they can fight the clause before it is triggered and appear to be frivolously spending money on a court fight that wasn't required or they could wait and see what the industry did.

By choosing to wait they have given a reason for the fight, they have an excuse in corporate greed to fight behind and have support from their base of voters to go ahead with it.

They were always going to implement the carbon tax, their whole government mandate depended on it, getting pipelines built depended on it, building a different opinion of Alberta in the world depended on it. But it cost a risk of the PPA clause being triggered. Which they probably anticipated and were ready for the court challenge months ago.

In some ways it might appear clumsy, but I think it was a deft move that they were forced into by their policy. Agree with the policy or don't but in order to go forward with it this situation was a forgone conclusion. Not blind ideological moves, but a mandated move that was required for their entire government plan to move forward.



TL/DR - The were always doing the carbon tax. The knew the PPA clause would be triggered and this was the inevitable result. The only option was not carbon tax and risk alienating your voting base and every other group (including oil industry leaders) that they have been using this to negotiate with.

I don't remember a carbon tax on their election platform

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Bootsy

I don't remember a carbon tax on their election platform

You are right. They never specifically said carbon tax. Let me rephrase then, they promised to combat climate change and reducing emissions by looking at how other jurisdictions approached the problem, including a carbon tax system like in BC or a cap and trade system as used in other jurisdictions.

Ultimately they chose to go with the carbon tax as the best method.

[Resolute 14]

I'll credit you with a solid effort, belsarius, but I don't think you have actually defeated the claim that the NDP have acted incompetently. And if anything, I think you have only reinforced the argument that they are ruled by ideology.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'll credit you with a solid effort, belsarius, but I don't think you have actually defeated the claim that the NDP have acted incompetently. And if anything, I think you have only reinforced the argument that they are ruled by ideology.

Incompetently means they acted without any skill or knowledge, I think they acted like any other political party would have, in a way to maintain their base of support and pushing their mandate ahead.

I will give you incompetence in claiming one day you had no idea about the rules then switching your story the next that you did know about it. They really need to "grow up" in dealing with the media because this does make them look foolish more often than not.

They had the support of voters, industry (specifically Suncor and Cenovus), other Provinces and other countries for the carbon tax. That's not ideological rule, that's political rule. I see ideological rule as doing things you want regardless of anyone else (like if they had fully supported the stupid Leap manifesto).

Really I guess if you call it ruled by ideology you have to admit every single government in a democracy is also ruled by ideology.. and that I'll totally agree with.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by belsarius

You are right. They never specifically said carbon tax. Let me rephrase then, they promised to combat climate change and reducing emissions by looking at how other jurisdictions approached the problem, including a carbon tax system like in BC or a cap and trade system as used in other jurisdictions.

Ultimately they chose to go with the carbon tax as the best method.

The NDP's platform included 7 environmental planks. None suggested a carbon tax or implied borrowing such an idea from other jurisdictions (yes, you'll point to 5.13 but that's a stretch. Heck, it wasn't even part of the first steps shown as examples even though it came first). Just admit it, they straight up sprung it on Albertans out of no where.

(5.9) We will establish a green retrofitting loan program that will assist Alberta families, farms and small businesses to reduce their energy usage affordably, which will reduce environmental impacts and create jobs in the construction industry.

(5.10) We will phase out coal-fired electricity generation to reduce smog and greenhouse gas emissions and expand cleaner, greener sources, including wind and solar and more industrial cogeneration in the oil sands, all of which will improve both the environment and the health of Albertans.

(5.11) We will end the PCs’ costly and ineffective Carbon Capture and Storage experiment and reinvest the 2015/16component of this project into construction of public transit, which will help reduce families’ transportation costs and reduce greenhouse gases and other air pollutants.

(5.12) We will strengthen environmental standards, inspection, monitoring and enforcement to protect Alberta’s water, land and air. We will build standards based on independent science and international best practices, designed transparently in careful consultation with Albertans.

(5.13) We will take leadership on the issue of climate change and make sure Alberta is part of crafting solutions with stakeholders, other provinces and the federal government. First steps will include an energy efficiency strategy and a renewable energy strategy.

(5.14) We will ban gas drilling in urban areas.

(5.15) And we will protect the Castle Wilderness Area.

https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltex...tform_2015.pdf
(Had to go to this weird site for the platform because it looks like the NDP took it down off of their site)

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, I clearly remember nothing about a carbon tax in their election platform, probably because it would have sunk their chances of winning and given the other parties something to punch the NDP with.

Similar to when the Liberals under Dion talked about a carbon system and it murdered their campaign.

And there's more to just the Carbon tax in terms of measuring the NDP's government, there hasn't been anything thats been viewed as economically positive or even that well thought out in terms of its effect on the economy.

Instead they've taken a bad situation which is low oil prices, and made it worse. And on top of it, they tried to justify it by saying if we do these things Ontario and BC will come to our side, which isn't going to happen.

[Flash Walken]

Maybe I'm taking crazy pills but I thought a carbon tax was a foregone conclusion with an NDP government.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

The NDP's platform included 7 environmental planks. None suggested a carbon tax or implied borrowing such an idea from other jurisdictions (yes, you'll point to 5.13 but that's a stretch. Heck, it wasn't even part of the first steps shown as examples even though it came first). Just admit it, they straight up sprung it on Albertans out of no where.



https://www.poltext.org/sites/poltex...tform_2015.pdf
(Had to go to this weird site for the platform because it looks like the NDP took it down off of their site)

I couldn't find it so I had to go on memory and I totally admit that the tax itself wasn't in the platform. (Nice work tracking it down btw)

I do remember debating the merits of carbon tax with cap and trade with friends leading up to the election so that's on me. I guess for some people it was straight up sprung on them, for me it wasn't. Based on rhetoric from Notley and the Federal NDP I expected some sort of carbon tax because it seems to be the better option over the cap and trade system, but again, that point is on me.

I don't think that detail really detracts from my statement though, going forward with the climate change policy was more important than the risk of a PPA fight and that isn't incompetence.. its calculated politics.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Maybe I'm taking crazy pills but I thought a carbon tax was a foregone conclusion with an NDP government.

I thought so too, that's probably why I thought it was in the platform. Assuming making an ass out of me for 1.5 years now

[Stormageddon]

Originally Posted by Makarov

As I understand it, cancellation of a PPA has zero effect on the operation of any power plant. It simply results in the province having to purchase electricity from the affected plant and sell it to consumers at a loss (rather than the PPA doing the same.)

(Admittedly, I'm a bit fuzzy on this aspect.)

Does it though? Since contracts were dropped to Battle River, the units there are running at a fraction of what they did last year. 400MW unit 5 consistently puts out 150MW, unit 4 runs occasionally at 50 to 100MW and unit 3 rarely runs.

Granted demand is down in the province but it seems to have had a large effect on Battle River and Sheerness.

EDIT - Of course now that I've said that they are running just about full bore today with the exception of unit 3.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Maybe I'm taking crazy pills but I thought a carbon tax was a foregone conclusion with an NDP government.

Originally Posted by belsarius

I thought so too, that's probably why I thought it was in the platform. Assuming making an ass out of me for 1.5 years now

I feel like I remember thinking a PST bump was a foregone conclusion, even if it wasn't in the platform. Maybe we're confusing with that? Because we already had a carbon tax for large emitters.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I feel like I remember thinking a PST bump was a foregone conclusion, even if it wasn't in the platform. Maybe we're confusing with that? Because we already had a carbon tax for large emitters.

I remember the NDP dodging the whole PST idea, and Prentice being the one having it on the table.

[CaptainCrunch]

The NDP were literally dodging any discussion around revolutionary tax changes, they talked about personal income tax changes and minor changes to the corporate tax structure, but they didn't want to talk about Carbon Taxes or a PST.

I seem to remember when Notley did her Sun Media day she was adamant that they weren't looking at the PST, they had no plans to do anything but study a Carbon Tax.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by belsarius

They had the support of voters, industry (specifically Suncor and Cenovus), other Provinces and other countries for the carbon tax. That's not ideological rule, that's political rule. I see ideological rule as doing things you want regardless of anyone else (like if they had fully supported the stupid Leap manifesto).

Their support with the voters is an illusion. We both know most of it was a protest against the PCs, not buy-in for the NDP's more radical policies. They have support from only a small portion of industry - notably companies that both have green/renewable subsidiaries and which realized that getting in at the table early means most of the costs get passed on to someone else. The lack of anything approaching progress on moving our oil demonstrates that, no, the NDP do not have the support of other provinces nor of other countries. All that has been paid is some meaningless lip service.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I feel like I remember thinking a PST bump was a foregone conclusion, even if it wasn't in the platform. Maybe we're confusing with that? Because we already had a carbon tax for large emitters.

We all figured a PST (which is what this Carbon Tax is) was a foregone conclusion because it's the NDP, and the only thing they know is tax and spend. But Notley certainly did not campaign on it. She pulled a bait and switch instead.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Oh FFS!

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

I know, a hundred grand isn't a ton. But it's just so grating that they'd do that. Time to get a Guy Fawkes mask and some daggers.

[puffnstuff]

Drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on the Carbon tax ads.

[Makarov]

Not that it nesassarily excuses it but governments spending public money on partisan advertising is hardly new. The federal conservatives were probably the worst offenders (to the tune of $750 million during their decade of power). I don't recall a lot of outrage about it on this forum at the time (well, maybe just from the liberal partisans like me!).

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ful...taxpayers-dime
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/7223356