Alberta Politics Thread

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Actually according to the legislation passed regarding the PPAs in 1997 (1998?), they were to be written by an independent board with public consultation. The AUEB then had a requirement to hold public hearings for any changes to those consultation and PPAs written by the Independent team. The Enron clause was added months after public hearings closed and only 5 days before the auction.

.....
The emails between the AUEB and Enron even show they were concerned that public hearings were going to be required. Instead the AUEB make the change without consultation.

....

So yeah, investment is being told if you try and skirt the rules, do things in backroom dealings, we will punish it and change the agreements to make them legal.

So in other words, you are arguing the Notley government does NOT need to change the law to win the lawsuit.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

This was discussed at great length months ago in this thread: PPAs are not ordinary contracts.

And the developments since then suggest your arguments about the implications were not correct.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I've always wondered if anyone would have given a hoot if they had been consulted on the "Enron clause". It's what most PPA's in other jurisdictions have. It's mostly immaterial to the spirit of the deal. That's what bugs me most. It's the guy who brings the NBA official rules manual to a pick up game and starts calling delay of game technicals.

Of course it's immaterial. But Notley got caught with her pants down, and now she and her supporters are flailing around trying to shift the blame for her error onto to anyone they can.

Sadly, this desperate hail mary is likely only going to add millions of dollars in legal fees on top of the financial burden Notley has cost Alberta taxpayers.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Delgar

And the developments since then suggest your arguments about the implications were not correct.

I think we already proved Makarov is the lawyer hired by the NDP to try the case

[Locke]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Actually according to the legislation passed regarding the PPAs in 1997 (1998?), they were to be written by an independent board with public consultation. The AUEB then had a requirement to hold public hearings for any changes to those consultation and PPAs written by the Independent team. The Enron clause was added months after public hearings closed and only 5 days before the auction.

The emails between the AUEB and Enron even show they were concerned that public hearings were going to be required. Instead the AUEB make the change without consultation.

So no in most cases the government doesn't need consultation for contracts. In the case of PPAs it was mandated in the law that it was required. The AUEB didn't follow the legislation and put in a clause that was not vetted publically as it was supposed to. They then hid the clause from most documentation so it could only be found in the original documents in the main records.

Legally (based on the original legislation) the AUEB had no right to add the "or more unprofitable" clause. That's why they are fighting it.

So yeah, investment is being told if you try and skirt the rules, do things in backroom dealings, we will punish it and change the agreements to make them legal.

Okay....okay.

For argument's sake, lets just start with this: Does this pass the smell test? Does it smell nice and rosy...or like a big ol' turd?

On the face of it, does it seem reasonable to you? I mean, big, bad corporations didnt steal our lunch money and then kick sand in our faces.

The lights have been on for the past 15 years. Aunt Rachel might not have noticed from BC or Ontario.

For example, one day you decide you dont need Shaw/Telus/Whomever anymore, you're cutting the cord. You're just going with Netflix or you're just going to read more, whatever.

You call 'em up to cancel. Then they tell you that unfortunately the contract you're on was negotiated by a CEO they fired and they've under-billed you for the last 15 years and send you an invoice for $10,000.

What do you do? Do you tell them to pound sand or do you pay up?

This isnt Old Lady Rotten-Crotch down the hall in 4B, this is you. You can fight them if you dont think its fair.

Say everything goes swimmingly. Everything is just turning up Notley! They retro-actively change the law, they sue and they win and hey, just for laughs lets say they even get paid!

Have they won? Do the costs of doing this outweigh the costs of winning? After the time, dedication and legal fees they'll come out ahead.

But what about the downstream costs? Lost investment? Complete lack of faith in our Government? Or does Notley just not care because she needs her political capital now because she wont be here for the consequences?

Make no mistake, this is Banana Republic BS. You'd expect this kind of thing from Libya or Rhodesia or Myanmar, not here in Canada.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Delgar

And the developments since then suggest your arguments about the implications were not correct.

Sincere question: which developments are those?

Anyway, it's a bit early to be declaring who is correct and who is incorrect. I think we ought to wait until at least we get a decision from the ABQB on the judicial review application first.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Locke

Make no mistake, this is Banana Republic BS. You'd expect this kind of thing from Libya or Rhodesia or Myanmar, not here in Canada.

It's the same embarrassing and bat crazy crap they tried to pull earlier this year by trying to selectively ban people from government press events with a black list of "no-go" individuals.

It was clearly ridiculous and outrageous; even then they still doubled down and tried to claim that the reporters were associated with a separate individual who wasn't a journalist.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Locke

Make no mistake, this is Banana Republic BS. You'd expect this kind of thing from Libya or Rhodesia or Myanmar, not here in Canada.

Not just in Rhodesia!

Spoiler!

It's actually really sad. Let's say the NDP wins, how much are we going to have to pay future power distributors as a premium for "in case the Government (or even a future government) decides to change the agreement X years into the future"?

Would have to think bidders would need to double or triple their price to account for that risk, if they are even willing to risk bidding at all under that type of rule.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by chemgear

It's the same embarrassing and bat crazy crap they tried to pull earlier this year by trying to selectively ban people from government press events with a black list of "no-go" individuals.

It was clearly ridiculous and outrageous; even then they still doubled down and tried to claim that the reporters were associated with a separate individual who wasn't a journalist.

That was a Dictator implementing censorship, now they're altering contracts to collect on fabricated debts.

[automaton 3]

I started a detailed post with respect to the underlying legal issues, but I stopped as I really don't the time or patience to debate. I generally appreciate good legal strategy, but this is not.

This is a thinly veiled PR exercise, and they hope they can somehow rally public support and bully a settlement. They screwed up with the carbon tax implementation and are scrambling for an out. Collateral damage to our Province's reputation be dammed.

And we're along for the ride and paying the bills.

[Fuzz]

Maybe if they had public backing for a carbon tax they could leverage it into support for this stupidity. But they don't even have that.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by automaton 3

I started a detailed post with respect to the underlying legal issues, but I stopped as I really don't the time or patience to debate. I generally appreciate good legal strategy, but this is not.

This is a thinly veiled PR exercise, and they hope they can somehow rally public support and bully a settlement. They screwed up with the carbon tax implementation and are scrambling for an out. Collateral damage to our Province's reputation be dammed.

And we're along for the ride and paying the bills.

I understand that and theres definitely times where I feel the same way which is sort of why I phrased my prior post the way I did.

I understand that 'The Law' and 'Real Life' are often very dissimilar things, but boil it down and think about it just from the layman's perspective.

They want, and implore that they are justified, to unilaterally re-write contracts and then hand companies a bill.

Thats insane.

[Wiggum_PI]

The guy who was the chair of Notley's Climate Change Panel (Andrew Leach), admitted that they never even considered the possibility of the PPA's becoming unprofitable or more unprofitable.

Pretty hard to support the NDP in this so called "action to protect consumers", when they were so ignorant to not even analyze the worst case scenarios of the Power Companies terminating the PPAs.

But without that analysis on the table there was no reason to think about a clause allowing power companies to back out of contracts.

Leach says nothing he's seen highlighted the need to go over the provision for power companies to exit their contracts.

Late last year, he says, they didn't expect contracts to be "unprofitable" or "more profitable."

"That's kind of why you didn't see the government planning on that because it wasn't the expected outcome."

According to Leach, if they'd done an analysis of what would happen if prices dropped after the added costs from the government people would have asked why.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/08/10...ity-argy-bargy

[CaptainCrunch]

Just more proof that this government is woofully under qualified and under smart to be in the position they're in.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Just more proof that this government is woofully under qualified and under smart to be in the position they're in.

Maybe. But so is every government before them and probably any government after. Klein gives away billions in a poorly thought out deregulation. Wynn loses billions in her attempt to go to green energy. Harper loses one constitutional court case after another shutting down his attempts at legislation. Trudeau attempts a national energy solution. Notley tries to sue herself. Chretien oversees a liberal party embroiled in a multimillion dollar advertising scam. Redford builds a skypalace.

Just more proof every government is under qualified and under smart to be in the position they are in. No one else is going to be any better.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by belsarius

Maybe. But so is every government before them and probably any government after. Klein gives away billions in a poorly thought out deregulation. Wynn loses billions in her attempt to go to green energy. Harper loses one constitutional court case after another shutting down his attempts at legislation. Trudeau attempts a national energy solution. Notley tries to sue herself. Chretien oversees a liberal party embroiled in a multimillion dollar advertising scam. Redford builds a skypalace.

Just more proof every government is under qualified and under smart to be in the position they are in. No one else is going to be any better.

None of those situations are comparable to retroactively changing laws because YOU DIDN'T READ THE BLOODY CONTRACTS THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY YOUR ASININE CARBON TAX.

Jesus. This isn't soviet Russia. It's Canada.

One of the fundamental things that makes our country work is respect for the rule of law. Just because you are incompetent, doesn't mean you get to weasel out of that incompetence by changing the law.

How is that not sinking in.

[Robbob]

You are right that politicians for the most part are bad. Notley just raised the bar.

[chemgear]

It's been touched upon by others, but the Alberta government doing things like this is only going to hurt investment and the economy in our province.

Why would you invest capital in a business environment where the government shows that it is willing to take you (and itself) to court to retroactively break and change clauses in decade old agreements in their own favor?

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

None of those situations are comparable to retroactively changing laws because YOU DIDN'T READ THE BLOODY CONTRACTS THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY YOUR ASININE CARBON TAX.

Jesus. This isn't soviet Russia. It's Canada.

One of the fundamental things that makes our country work is respect for the rule of law. Just because you are incompetent, doesn't mean you get to weasel out of that incompetence by changing the law.

How is that not sinking in.

They aren't planning on changing laws that I know of. From what I can tell they are planning on upholding them.

The legislation to create the PPAs (the Law) was clear that public consultation was required before any variations were added to the PPAs after they were announced.

The Enron clause did not follow the law and no consultation was undertaken even though it was identified within AUEB at the time, there are even emails that prove this. The clause was added anyway. To retroactively remove said clause is to uphold the law that was enacted in 1998.

In Soviet Russia these backroom illegal deals might be fair game. But in Canada we have the Rule of Law and any illegal clause in an agreement should be fair game to be removed.

[chemgear]

http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...anana-republic

Calgary’s business community waded into the highly charged power contract dispute Wednesday, saying any attempt by the NDP government to retroactively change such agreements would be “reckless and dangerous” and turn Alberta into a “banana republic.”

Echoing criticism a day earlier from Mayor Naheed Nenshi, Legge said using legislation to alter 16-year-old power agreements would possibly be the “the worst course of action that this government could pursue.”

“It is a decision that would put Alberta back centuries in terms of its ability to be a destination of choice for business,” Legge said.

“If I were giving them advice on this, I would say ‘Holy cannoli, are you really thinking about doing this,” the mayor told reporters, insisting the move would shatter investor confidence in Alberta.

“It’s absolutely nuts.”

When pressed Monday, Premier Rachel Notley didn’t rule out legislation that would retroactively nullify certain clauses within those power pacts.

“Without question, it would cause investors to think twice about whether they want to invest on the terms that are being suggested.”