Alberta business livid with energy savings program contract going to Ontario company

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Iceman90

It can be an Ontario company that hires Albertans to do the work.

I assume they will still miss out on business taxes, payroll taxes, and property taxes(they will probably only rent space they need for a short period).

[GGG]

Originally Posted by McG

And to be clear, i'm not mad or angry or anything. I used to work for MTS at one point and its not a great example.

I'll give you the industry though...particularly land lines way back when or internet cables now. In places where it is not economically viable and there is not a private industry in place, where an item is deemed in the public good, then the government would be fulfilling its role by helping to put land lines for phones or internet cable when no other alternative exists.

I understand that absolutism isn't the best way to discuss things because there are always examples that fall out.

But consider this. Do you think that government employees spend money better when they are private citizens or when they are government employees?

I would like to suggest Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand for some bedtime reading. the short version is "his notion that individuals' efforts to pursue their own interest may frequently benefit society more than if their actions were directly intending to benefit society."

Remember your Starbucks tax? I don't buy Starbucks, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have value to the person that does. If they are willing to pay the cost, Starbucks accepts the transaction, makes profit, and moves on. Except that the coffee wasn't made in a replicator, it was a bean at some point, and had many factors of production in order to get to the coffee cup. Here is the thing. Do you know if Starbucks pays more for that bean than other suppliers? I mean the whole way through. I'm going to guess that Starbucks tries to minimize costs to maximize profits. What would the government do? would they minimize costs to maximize profits? No. There is your first efficiency. The second is what Starbucks does with the profit. Dividends. And who gets them? The owners. Who has the risk? The owners. if you have mutual funds, that is also you and I. What do we do with dividends? We spend them or invest them or save them. Doesn't matter. What does the government do? even if they were willing to minimize costs, they should not be maximizing profits. Or should they? What if the government opened its own coffee shop and competed with Starbucks. As tax payers/consumers, we should want competition to bring Starbucks prices down. For sure, the government coffee shop shouldn't be selling the coffee at break even or worse, at a loss. Maybe the government could have a drivethrough tax, and offset the cost of the coffee.

So now we have a drivethrough tax, Starbucks is more expensive, and we are going to give the coffee away for free with cost offsets from the drivethrough tax because it is socially responsible. See where this is going? Where is the efficiency there? Free coffee? Great! except it isn't. Except free coffee likely puts starbucks out of business, with jobs and factors of production lost all down the line. Out of business is bad for everyone but most importantly it is bad for the government. Think of all of the income tax and consumption taxes that they will lose when people aren't working and the job is gone. And everyone has to pay for the lost government revenue.

And now we come to doodads, shower heads and led lights. When this little initiative ends, will there be any LED or shower head or doodad suppliers in the province? Why would there be?

Privatization means that decisions will be made to minimize costs and maximize profits. That means efficiency. It doesn't mean the best service levels, it means the best use of the factors of production.

People will always spend their money better than the government. Proof? You spend your money better than I can spend your money. If you don't see that, you should vote NDP and let them tell you how to spend your money.

In Canada, we have developed a nasty and expensive habit of not only telling people how to spend their money, but actually spending it for them. That isn't a political statement because all political parties in Canada do it. Some just do it better than others.

And that's the end of my point.

I've read Adam Smith. While not Adam Smith buying Starbucks is like paying a person to make sure your window doesn't get broken. It an economy with record consumer debt and little to no retirement savings the economy outconsumes its input borrowing to be sustainable. It's a Ponzi scheme that will collapse with out continued cheap influx of money.

The problem fundamentally being is that there is an underlying assumption that humans are rational actors that act in their self interest. This has been proven false by any modern bevhavioural economist. People act in their perceived self interest which in general fails to account for externalities of that decision. Without rational actors the incentives become perverse.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Chingas

As ridiculous as it is that the $100 a month increase in my gas bill

Jesus, how much gas do you use?

Originally Posted by edn88

So, if my house is already stocked with LEDs, low flow shower heads and a programmable thermostat, what's in it for me?

In addition to the cost savings you've enjoyed since upgrading, you will also pay less in carbon tax. I agree it sucks whenever a non-retroactive incentive program suddenly exists after you've already bought stuff, though.


This thread is a bit of scary example of the post-truth world we are living in. I admittedly haven't looked very hard (beyond searching the RFP links), but I haven't seen any concrete evidence to the 'ecofitt branded' products being mandated in the RFP (though it's been repeated as truth dozens of times). I don't doubt it may be true, but would anyone care to back up the claim?

FWIW I don't hate the carbon tax, but I'm also not a fan of how this program appears to be rolled out.

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Jesus, how much gas do you use?
.

Two houses on the property. Apparently I am paying for the sin of not just bull dozing the old house.

[powderjunkie]

Alberta’s Minister of Environment Shannon Phillips says money did play a role in the awarding of the contract. “(Ecofitt) were the winning bid because they were three times less expensive than any of the Alberta companies and several other companies bids as well,”

Now I'm not going to go all the way to assuming Alberta companies bids were $60M+ (compared to what appears to be the 21.5M winning bid - there could easily be some politician speak wrt where the 3x higher costs were exactly), but it shouldn't shock anyone if the AB companies simply saw a golden goose opportunity.



Mentioned in the article is that the RFP process may have given valued 'experience' highly. It remains to be seen exactly what that means, but the AB company complaints could be read as "we have less experience and only wanted to charge 3x more. #Unfair. #Sad."


I am curious about a lot of things about this whole program - not least of which is how it rolls out to the far flung rural areas of the province.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Socialism generally favours protectionism, which is why I found it surprising that so many conservatives were calling for it (in the form of only giving this contract to an Alberta company, when conservatives, historically, favour free market).

Historically, yes. These days, though, the right side of political spectrum is definitely leaning protectionist. Strange times.

Originally Posted by Chingas

Canada has some of the highest phone rates in the world. This is not because of free market, it is because our government has allowed a small number of companies to control the market and basically price fix.

Yes, to protect Canadian companies. If Canada opened up the telecom industry to the free market, there probably wouldn't be any significant Canadian players in that market. And presumably the people in this thread complaining about an Ontario company getting this energy savings program would complain about all our telecom bills going to American companies.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Is there ANY NDP nonsense you wont spin and/or defend?

Sure! The use of "sewer rat" comment was unprofessional and deplorable. Notley missing in action during question period for as long as she has. Brian Mason has overstepped himself a couple times in the legislature. While I agree completely with Bill 6, the entire way it was presented and communicated was a CF. Yes I agree with 95% of their policies but the only alternative I've heard is "no new taxes!"

Really I don't even support this whole concept of using the carbon tax to change lightbulbs, but I also don't see the need to get up in arms over an RFP given to an Ontario company having the lowest/best bid. I have yet to see any evidence of anything specific showing that the RFP was overly biased. Most RFPs aren't even dealt with my MPs directly, it's normally a senior public servant responsibility.

I would have preferred an Alberta company got the contract too, but that isn't how the process works.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Chingas

Two houses on the property. Apparently I am paying for the sin of not just bull dozing the old house.

Are they both massive houses with the heater running 24/7? Or is it because you're with a scamhouse like Direct Energy for your billing?

I pay 10.75 in carbon levys every month and my wife never turns the damn heat down.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Are they both massive houses with the heater running 24/7? Or is it because you're with a scamhouse like Direct Energy for your billing?

I pay 10.75 in carbon levys every month and my wife never turns the damn heat down.

The last time two of my coworkers whined about carbon tax, they claimed that it DOUBLED THEIR ELECTRICITY RATES and added $60 a month to their gas. To which of course, I called BS.

One guy was so adamant, that he pulled up his Enmax bill to PROVE to me how Notley has destroyed his life. Shockingly, carbon tax on electricity was zero dollars, and the carbon levy was $10 on the gas bill.

I'm not saying you're wrong Chingas, but your numbers are a bit outlandish. Is your overall bill like $1200+ a month? Then I can see a $100 a month carbon levy.

[polak]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Now I'm not going to go all the way to assuming Alberta companies bids were $60M+ (compared to what appears to be the 21.5M winning bid - there could easily be some politician speak wrt where the 3x higher costs were exactly), but it shouldn't shock anyone if the AB companies simply saw a golden goose opportunity.



Mentioned in the article is that the RFP process may have given valued 'experience' highly. It remains to be seen exactly what that means, but the AB company complaints could be read as "we have less experience and only wanted to charge 3x more. #Unfair. #Sad."


I am curious about a lot of things about this whole program - not least of which is how it rolls out to the far flung rural areas of the province.

3x higher hah. Typical Alberta companies.

Doesn't mention anything about them mandating that specific brand either.

[V]

I have a hard time believing the government issued an RFP where all proponents were forced to purchase materials from one of the proponents, so I would need some evidence of that before I was sure it happened. If it did, though, there was nothing competitive about that bid process. I can see that happening in private industry, but I'd be shocked to see it in a government bid. I'd like to see more on this.

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The last time two of my coworkers whined about carbon tax, they claimed that it DOUBLED THEIR ELECTRICITY RATES and added $60 a month to their gas. To which of course, I called BS.

One guy was so adamant, that he pulled up his Enmax bill to PROVE to me how Notley has destroyed his life. Shockingly, carbon tax on electricity was zero dollars, and the carbon levy was $10 on the gas bill.

I'm not saying you're wrong Chingas, but your numbers are a bit outlandish. Is your overall bill like $1200+ a month? Then I can see a $100 a month carbon levy.

I am with the jerks at direct energy.

My gas and power bills were a combined $700 for January. The carbon tax line item on the gas bill alone I believe was $85. I also presume that there was a corresponding increase in the service and gas charge but don't have the evidence to back that up. I don't have the bill with me and won't be back home for a few weeks but I can provide exact details at that time if you are interested.

The $100 a month carbon tax wasn't hyperbole. Further more my original point is that I think that this whole program is ridiculous. I do wonder why it is a blanket program that will negatively effect businesses that are trying to sell these items. Wouldn't a better use of these tax dollars be to provide tax incentives to green power start ups, or assisting people that can't afford to replace their old 35% efficient furnaces instead? Or how about subsidizing shower heads, light bulbs, furnaces, do dads etc and have people at least invest some thing of their own into things? A free for all program that is aimed at collecting the low hanging fruit with little scrutiny just feels like a mess in the making to me.

[Inferno099]

Opportunity:
https://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIE...VDxmheIw%3d%3d

The bid award online: ~$21.5M
http://vendor.purchasingconnection.c...-671B85EB3D06&

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Chingas

I am with the jerks at direct energy.

My gas and power bills were a combined $700 for January. The carbon tax line item on the gas bill alone I believe was $85. I also presume that there was a corresponding increase in the service and gas charge but don't have the evidence to back that up. I don't have the bill with me and won't be back home for a few weeks but I can provide exact details at that time if you are interested.

The $100 a month carbon tax wasn't hyperbole. Further more my original point is that I think that this whole program is ridiculous. I do wonder why it is a blanket program that will negatively effect businesses that are trying to sell these items. Wouldn't a better use of these tax dollars be to provide tax incentives to green power start ups, or assisting people that can't afford to replace their old 35% efficient furnaces instead? Or how about subsidizing shower heads, light bulbs, furnaces, do dads etc and have people at least invest some thing of their own into things? A free for all program that is aimed at collecting the low hanging fruit with little scrutiny just feels like a mess in the making to me.

Those numbers don't add up to me, unless you're using gas power in which case your bill is $700 gas.

The carbon tax doesn't hit electricity (if it does for anyone just using the grid, you ought to look into that).

At $700 in gas alone you should be paying around $75 carbon levy. If your actual gas bill is less than $700 (minus electricity) then $85-$100 is insane and you should be taking that up with your provider, because the number is way off from the what you should be charged.

You need to evaluate those bills, because Direct Energy seems to be charging you more than they should be. That's a provider problem, not a carbon levy problem.

For comparison's sake, my gas and power bill was $150~ last month, with a $13 carbon levy (so $163~ total).

[Jason14h]

Can you post your Bill? Sounds like you are getting screwed

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Can you post your Bill? Sounds like you are getting screwed

I will be home in a few weeks, so I can post it then. To quote an Aussie saying I have the feeling that my provider is taking the piss.

I only moved home a few months ago and am lacking empirical evidence to fully compare the increases. January was a cold month, but my one house had brand new high efficient furnace installed this summer.

Trying to get a handle on what things should cost by comparing to my friends utility bills I feel like mine are out of wack.

[Chingas]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Those numbers don't add up to me, unless you're using gas power in which case your bill is $700 gas.

The carbon tax doesn't hit electricity (if it does for anyone just using the grid, you ought to look into that).

At $700 in gas alone you should be paying around $75 carbon levy. If your actual gas bill is less than $700 (minus electricity) then $85-$100 is insane and you should be taking that up with your provider, because the number is way off from the what you should be charged.

You need to evaluate those bills, because Direct Energy seems to be charging you more than they should be. That's a provider problem, not a carbon levy problem.

For comparison's sake, my gas and power bill was $150~ last month, with a $13 carbon levy (so $163~ total).

You could be quite correct that the issue probably lies with my provider. The point I am failing to make In the end is that my biggest gripe isn't even the carbon tax. I have issues with this program. I think that it is a poor use of resources and will not provide any long lasting improvements to Alberta as a whole.

Let's use these funds to develop an industry/service sector geared towards green energy. Changing light bulbs and shower heads is a flash in the pan project that will not leave any legacy other than middle/old age men left with bald spots from scratching their heads at why this is being sold as a valuable use of resources.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by McG

...
The government is not meant to be an efficient allocator of capital. It is not intended or expected to compete with private industry. It is intended to act for security, protection of citizens, and public order. A debate can easily be had about what else it should or shouldn't be involved in, but the fact of the matter is that it is not ever intended to be an efficient allocator of capital. ...

I didn't want to quote your entire post. But what a great post, McG!

Minor disagreement/comment on the underlined quoted part: I'd say it would be idealistic and aynrandic to draw the line just at law, order and protection. A civilized society must guarantee and backstop caring for those who can't take of themselves without help: children, disabled, elderly. That goes further to education, health care and elderly care. It is the extent of each one of those components that becomes very subjective and depends on the political leaning of the ruling government. And this is where efficient capital allocation decisions are crucial for any government, because they are allocating our money.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Inferno099

Opportunity:
https://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIE...VDxmheIw%3d%3d

The bid award online: ~$21.5M
http://vendor.purchasingconnection.c...-671B85EB3D06&

Would be nice to see more details and the list of accepted parts to see if there was really any unfair specifications as speculated.

It's been said before but I'm fairly sure it have been more cost effective for people to be able to go out and purchase LED bulbs, shower heads, etc and simply produce receipts for tax credit. Maybe the NDP figured that many Albertans would simply be too lazy to go ahead and change these items out so they feel they have to ram it down our throats? Or is it possible this entire program was created simply as payback to Ecofitt? It's just such a silly program that I would love to be a fly on the wall when it was hatched and the real reasoning behind it.

[dubc80]

The bid list is blank too. I was curious who submitted.

The scope is fairly simple.
Lots of companies could qualify to do the work however the size/scale would eliminate many small to mid-size companies unless they could prove they could handle the volume.

Wonder if the Direct Energy's, Atco's, Enmax's, etc were in on this at all.