Alberta Politics Thread

[CliffFletcher]

Has Jason Kenney been seen in public wearing anything but a dark suit since he was 17?

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

lol loonie lefters. Don't know how many times I've told this board I voted for the centrist Alberta Party.

Was just having fun with the phrase, sorry. Left of Kenney is a pretty wide group of people, including me I think.

[Locke]

I wanted to post this in a thread that tends to get a bit more traffic from a broader group of people.

I'm posting it without comment because I really dont know and am hoping someone can help clarify, but the background information is that this is a paragraph from a Good-Bye letter from Anson Mount the main character from AMC's 'Hell on Wheels' that has been filming in Calgary for the past 5-6(?) years.

To be sure, Alberta offers something unique in the world of film production. But that does not mean that such individuality trumps the bottom line in any industry. The new TV Series cap limit on Alberta Media Fund’s production grant is threatening to severely limit, if not outright halt, the potential boon that your local industry has been working toward for so long. At its current level, it is only competitive in attracting lower mid-level film budgets and below. Add to this the inexplicable continuation of the previous administration’s non-bifurcation policies — disallowing television series to participate in Alberta film funds for multiple seasons — and the likelihood of Calgary attracting new series is almost nil.

http://calgaryherald.com/entertainme...hell-on-wheels

Credit to getbak because otherwise I wouldnt have seen it.

[para transit fellow]

'Alberta provides funding for screen-based content creation through the Alberta Production Grant (APG), a unique film production incentive credited against eligible production expenses incurred in Alberta.

• Funding of 25 to 30 per cent Alberta spend for all productions.
• Flexible grant equivalent to a labour-based tax credit of 45 to 55 per cent.
• $5 million per-project cap."

https://albertafilm.ca/funding/


Changes were made in 2014 to a max $5 million per project. Hell on wheels ( and fargo) got exemptions to apply a second time... but exemptions are no longer permitted

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/ca...81492160538332

[Locke]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

'Alberta provides funding for screen-based content creation through the Alberta Production Grant (APG), a unique film production incentive credited against eligible production expenses incurred in Alberta.

• Funding of 25 to 30 per cent Alberta spend for all productions.
• Flexible grant equivalent to a labour-based tax credit of 45 to 55 per cent.
• $5 million per-project cap."

https://albertafilm.ca/funding/


Changes were made in 2014 to a max $5 million per project. Hell on wheels ( and fargo) got exemptions to apply a second time... but exemptions are no longer permitted

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/ca...81492160538332

I'm no expert, but $5M per project seems pretty low.

So........why?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The centre right now is the Liberals at 8% and the Alberta Party at 5%.

Don't kid yourself... the PC's are mostly a centrist party now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Don't kid yourself... the PC's are mostly a centrist party now.

Agreed. But in terms of general perception, they are still viewed as right wing. The centre has dramatically shrunk.

[Resolute 14]

The irony of the NDP continuing the PC's film/tv-hostile policies is that the industry is absolutely driven by unions and trade associations. I suspect it is apathy more than anything else that has allowed the status quo to remain.

[Resolute 14]

Meanwhile in Edmonton.... The NDP have filed a lawsuit in a bid to rescue themselves from their own giant mistake in failing to check the contracts before dumping coal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...nies-1.3694460

Typical NDP. It's everyone's fault but their own. It's not the PC's fault and it's not Enron's fault that the NDP failed to read the contracts or do their due diligence before ramming through their changes.

[puckedoff]

From what I read it sounds like the NDP have a bit of a case. From my perspective, given that I am both a tax payer and a user of the utility it doesn't really matter.

If the gov't is right, I pay the difference through my utility bill.
If the power companies are right, I pay the difference through taxes.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Meanwhile in Edmonton.... The NDP have filed a lawsuit in a bid to rescue themselves from their own giant mistake in failing to check the contracts before dumping coal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...nies-1.3694460

Typical NDP. It's everyone's fault but their own. It's not the PC's fault and it's not Enron's fault that the NDP failed to read the contracts or do their due diligence before ramming through their changes.

I feel like this article and this entire issue summarizes my feelings on the NDP perfectly. They are so incredibly unqualified, pie in the sky idiots. Their entire argument is "profits are evil, fair share". ####. Right. Off.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

From what I read it sounds like the NDP have a bit of a case. From my perspective, given that I am both a tax payer and a user of the utility it doesn't really matter.

If the gov't is right, I pay the difference through my utility bill.
If the power companies are right, I pay the difference through taxes.

If the government is right, why would anyone ever sign a contract with the crown in this province? When they don't like the terms, they'll just bail out of the agreement. The consequences are serious.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

From what I read it sounds like the NDP have a bit of a case. From my perspective, given that I am both a tax payer and a user of the utility it doesn't really matter.

If the gov't is right, I pay the difference through my utility bill.
If the power companies are right, I pay the difference through taxes.

They are trying to shift the blame IMO so it doesn't appear they are the reason that prices will be going up like crazy.

[CaptainCrunch]

It just goes to show how over their head this government is. They take actions based on philosophy without doing the due diligence to understand what's going to happen.

Of course those companies put those in, they looked East to Ontario and basically said that they weren't going to be on the hook for government stupidity.

Now the NDP have enacted their coal strategy and their carbon tax which will sky rocket utility costs, and these companies, and clearly it wasn't such a secret clause since the province was involved in the negotiations said nertz to you.

I love the NDP's stuttering righteous sounding how dare these companies make profits.

The NDP is starting to look like the sloppy party of dummies, and it clear that when Notley got angry about the math is hard quip by Prentice which was stupid, there was a bit of truth to it.

[Makarov]

I can't comment on the merits of the province's action but the impugned clause is an absolutely ridiculous one to have included in the contracts (when they were entered into in 2000). It's crazy to handcuff future legislators like that.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I can't comment on the merits of the province's action but the impugned clause is an absolutely ridiculous one to have included in the contracts (when they were entered into in 2000). It's crazy to handcuff future legislators like that.

With a contract between two 'normal' counterparties I would agree, but since the power companies were entering into long term deals with a counterparty who could singlehandedly change the operating environment at any time, I could see why they needed to have a clause like that.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I can't comment on the merits of the province's action but the impugned clause is an absolutely ridiculous one to have included in the contracts (when they were entered into in 2000). It's crazy to handcuff future legislators like that.

Personally I think its crazy that the government could change the laws and make contracts worthless or money losers unless I am mistaken the issue here.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I can't comment on the merits of the province's action but the impugned clause is an absolutely ridiculous one to have included in the contracts (when they were entered into in 2000). It's crazy to handcuff future legislators like that.

Puckedoff and Weitz pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I'll expand on what they said.

When these contracts were being signed we were entering into a completely new business environment for these companies and the government. No one knew what the market was going look like exactly and the companies were taking on a pretty large risk by signing these PPAs. All this clause was meant to do was to protect the companies from essentially having the agreements unilaterally changed by the government in such a way that it would make them unprofitable for the companies.

The fact of the matter is, the government did exactly that with their carbon tax, and it shows exactly how well they understood the ramifications to this that they were surprised when companies started to cancel their PPAs.

Now you've got the government suing over something that they should have foreseen and painting it as a "Secret" and "Enron" clause. Make no mistake they are using the "Enron Clause" label intentionally because of the connotations that that company invokes. Why they are calling it "Secret" is another matter, but my guess would be that it may have something to do with this passage from the NDP dictionary:

Secret:
Adjective
1) done, made, or conducted without the knowledge of others
2) TLDR

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

With a contract between two 'normal' counterparties I would agree, but since the power companies were entering into long term deals with a counterparty who could singlehandedly change the operating environment at any time, I could see why they needed to have a clause like that.

I take your point but, in any commercial relationship, there is always a risk that the regulatory or operating environment might suddenly change. Usually, that is part of the risk tolerance required to enter into an otherwise profitable agreement (which, for fifteen years, it appears these agreements were.) A right of unilateral repudiation, without penalty, at the first sign of troublesome change seems like a remarkably favourable provision for the energy companies involved.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Puckedoff and Weitz pretty much hit the nail on the head, but I'll expand on what they said.

When these contracts were being signed we were entering into a completely new business environment for these companies and the government. No one knew what the market was going look like exactly and the companies were taking on a pretty large risk by signing these PPAs. All this clause was meant to do was to protect the companies from essentially having the agreements unilaterally changed by the government in such a way that it would make them unprofitable for the companies.

The fact of the matter is, the government did exactly that with their carbon tax, and it shows exactly how well they understood the ramifications to this that they were surprised when companies started to cancel their PPAs.

The government's argument is that the carbon tax did not make the PPA's unprofitable, they were already unprofitable due to the awful spot pricing for electricity. However, a Query in 2000 clarified that the clause is not just talking about unprofitable, but includes "more unprofitable" in the definition. This torpedoes the government's case.

I don't think the government has a leg to stand on, but I think the clause itself is incredibly stupid. When times were good, the Buyers did not cancel PPA's for changes in law (SGER in 2007 for example), but now that times are bad, they are invoking the clause. I think that it should have to be shown that the Owner's increase in cost due to the change in law somehow cannot be feasibly passed to the consumer before the Buyer can terminate the contract without penalty.