[GT] - Alberta debate 2023 - rumble in the rose bush

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

You clearly have an agenda that is divorced from reality.

I guess if you think facts, and an actual understanding of how the energy market in Alberta works, are divorced from reality then yeah, I suppose I am.

Honestly I told you why you were wrong, and all you can come back with is “Nuh uh”?

Serious question, what actual experience do you have on the Alberta electricity market? Cause it sure seems like it’s none, which is usually not a great position to be making arguments from.

[aaronck]

Originally Posted by Slava

Hopefully you read that, because I don’t think it says what you think it does.

LOL of course he didn't

[Patek23]

Originally Posted by Torture

Since she's such a "poor public speaker" I'm sure you'd be happy to go up in a televised debate against her?

This debate had two very effective communicators. I would not call either of them a poor public speaker.

What kind of argument to make is that? Im not running in politics she is. Thats like asking Notley to come and do my work. Of course shed be in over her head. She could still feel free to tell me if im doing a bad job though. Since when do you have to be a public speaker to see and say that someone else doesnt do a good job of it?

What a terrible response. Instead of even trying to counter or make your own point or a rebuttal to what I said you make a proposterous claim as if it would hold some merit. Its pretty laughable actually.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Clearly we aren't going to agree on anything.

Maybe that water is wet?

what about ice though?

[DoubleK]

Nor do you sir.

I have enough experience in the industry in Alberta to know what I'm talking about.

To suggest that their is no relationship between the NDPs handling of the electricity file and anything that happened since then is completely divorced from reality.

The shift from coal to gas fundamentally changed the operating parameters of the coal gen units. Most people call this base load.

The elimination of PPAs fundamentally changed both the operating and economic parameters of those same units. This removed their obligation to fullfil the PPA, affording them the ability to arbitrage leading to economic witholding.

This fact in combination with the previous point is what has led to higher prices. You can't say that the PPAs were allowed to expire when they weren't. That's not what happened.

The raison d'etre for the Balancing Pool was to absorb the PPAs in the event of default. Suggesting that the BP was required in a market without PPAs is false? What would they do?! Elimination of the PPAs necessitated the elimination of the BP. They serve no purpose in the current iteration of the Alberta market.

Capacity market v Energy only market conversation is a red herring, clean electricity system by 2035 wasn't a thing in 2016.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

what about ice though?

I think of ice as hard or soft.

Wet, not so much.

[aaronck]

A few random thoughts-
the arena deal never came up?
Did Danielle have Sharpie on her nose and literally almost choked on her own rage at some point?

Rachel stuttered a bit but came off as more believable I think. I don't think she was in attack mode, but brought up points and answered all questions, Danielle sure did not, the snake oil comments at the start of this thread were pretty appropriate.
No real talk about environment really, while Alberta is choked with smoke seemed to be a lost opportunity.

I thought it was a win for Rachel, but I don't know how many voters minds would be changed after

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Replying in the quote below

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Nor do you sir.

I have enough experience in the industry in Alberta to know what I'm talking about.

To suggest that their is no relationship between the NDPs handling of the electricity file and anything that happened since then is completely divorced from reality.
I didn't say that. I admitted that the NDP made a mistake with having to take on the PPA's, and the price of that, as you so helpfully mentioned was $1.10/MWh. Explain to me how that is the reason we saw power price electricity prices > $150/MWh for the second half of last year?

The shift from coal to gas fundamentally changed the operating parameters of the coal gen units. Most people call this base load.

The elimination of PPAs fundamentally changed both the operating and economic parameters of those same units. This removed their obligation to fullfil the PPA, affording them the ability to arbitrage leading to economic witholding.

100% true, but that has nothing to do with dissolving the balancing pool which is where this all started. And yes, the fact that the operators of those plants are able to do that is because they are no longer subject to the PPAs, that's on the NDP.
But you know what could have limited this practice? A capacity market. The fact that we have an energy only market is the reason operators can do this. It's the fixed vs variable rate mortgage argument. Your variable rate looks good until interest rates go up. Your energy only market looks good until operators realize they can sit back in the cut and bid in at $999.99 because we are fundamentally undersupplied because we live in a market that doesn't incentivize reliability. This is how an energy market works, you need to give generators an incentive to build to match demand. No one is going to do that when we are oversupplied and prices are low, so new generation is only attractive when price spikes are normal.

This fact in combination with the previous point is what has led to higher prices. You can't say that the PPAs were allowed to expire when they weren't. That's not what happened.
Of Couse that's what happened. The PPAs in question for the most part have reached the end of that life span. Whether they're owned by Enmax or the Government of Alberta, they were going to expire at the same time no matter what.

The raison d'etre for the Balancing Pool was to absorb the PPAs in the event of default. Suggesting that the BP was required in a market without PPAs is false? What would they do?! Elimination of the PPAs necessitated the elimination of the BP. They serve no purpose in the current iteration of the Alberta market.

The balancing pool existed long before the Government had to take over those PPAs. The PPAs didn't go away when the NDP made the changes, the Government became responsible for them, they still existed, the BP was still needed. Now that they are coming off the books, yeah, the BP isn't needed if the PPAs don't exist, that's independent of who owns them. Saying that the NDP dissolved the balancing pool (which you did), and that's why electricty prices spiked (which, again, you did) is just fundamentally wrong.

Capacity market v Energy only market conversation is a red herring, clean electricity system by 2035 wasn't a thing in 2016.
You're the one who brought up the Capacity market. Hell you mentioned the NDP "Going that way" as a reason why electricity prices have spiked. So yeah, if it's a red herring it's one you brought up, and mischaracterized. And what does a clean system by 2035 have to do with anything?

There are a lot of reasons electricity prices are high right now.
Saying "Prices only spiked when the NDP dissolved the balancing pool" is either totally wrong, or completely dishonest.

Buying out the PPA's accounts for a pretty small % of your bill, so that's not why prices have spiked.
Heck I'll give you that not being beholden to the PPA's is the reason coal operators could operate the way the are, hence price spikes. But with PPAs expiring, and most of the plants being economically challenged due to federal carbon taxes, the conditions for them to act that way would have existed on about the same timelines we are seeing, hence the same result.

And "was moving towards a capacity market" is by your own admission a red herring.

So what was your point, because the 3 things you cited don't hold up.

[DoubleK]

Dude. That's just revisionist history.

I'm not suggesting that going off coal, this, that or the other thing wasn't needed.

My point and my point alone is that the NDP completely cocked up the electricity file. ALL of the impacts we are talking about were a consequence of the NDP proposing to chance the market design.

I am not suggesting that they had absolutely command and knowledge of what cascading effects were to come, that would be absurd.

But to suggest that PPAs would expire no matter who owned them is a justification in some fashion that the Balancing Pool needed to continue is completely false. And displays a fundamentally intractable understand of the BP.

The NDP could have done this differently, they chose not to.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Dude. That's just revisionist history.

I'm not suggesting that going off coal, this, that or the other thing wasn't needed.

My point and my point alone is that the NDP completely cocked up the electricity file. ALL of the impacts we are talking about were a consequence of the NDP proposing to chance the market design.

I am not suggesting that they had absolutely command and knowledge of what cascading effects were to come, that would be absurd.

But to suggest that PPAs would expire no matter who owned them is a justification in some fashion that the Balancing Pool needed to continue is completely false. And displays a fundamentally intractable understand of the BP.

The NDP could have done this differently, they chose not to.

1) When have I said the balancing pool needed to continue? I've said that your comment that the NDP dissolved the balancing pools was wrong. The balancing pool had a shelf life no matter who was in government, because so did the PPAs. Also ,I'm not suggesting the PPAs would expire no matter who owned them, it doesn't need to be suggested, it's a fact. They were/are contracts with a defined life span. 20 years is 20 years no matter who is responsible for it.

2) Explain to me how the NDP proposing a change to the market, not actually changing the market, but proposing one, is the reason things have gone off the rails 4 years later?

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

2) Explain to me how the NDP proposing a change to the market, not actually changing the market, but proposing one, is the reason things have gone off the rails 4 years later?

I did, but maybe we were taking past each other.

1) NDP changing regs/advancing coal retirements.

2) Changing market design. (I honestly believe the NDP weren't fully aware of the chaos this would cause.)

Number 2 necessitated a bunch of things PPA elimination being one of them. The uncertainty about the market design fundamentally changed the value/risk of the PPAs, triggering the out clause in the contracts.

The PPAs obligated the generators to produce. Price doesn't matter, just output. The penalties for not meeting the PPAs were so bad it affected how they were bidding into the merit order. Coal units (and cogen FWIW) are basically on or off. Max output or zero. Shifting to gas fired steam allowed for more output flexibility and fundamentally changed how they bid into the merit order. They are able to bid smaller blocks at different prices. This is economic withholding.

How this shows up 4 years later? If I had to point to only one reason, it would be that it took time for the generators to convert to gas and for enough of them to switch to gas to flip the market. That probably didn't really start to get wierd until late 2021 or early 2022.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Replying in the quote below



There are a lot of reasons electricity prices are high right now.
Saying "Prices only spiked when the NDP dissolved the balancing pool" is either totally wrong, or completely dishonest.

Buying out the PPA's accounts for a pretty small % of your bill, so that's not why prices have spiked.
Heck I'll give you that not being beholden to the PPA's is the reason coal operators could operate the way the are, hence price spikes. But with PPAs expiring, and most of the plants being economically challenged due to federal carbon taxes, the conditions for them to act that way would have existed on about the same timelines we are seeing, hence the same result.

And "was moving towards a capacity market" is by your own admission a red herring.

So what was your point, because the 3 things you cited don't hold up.

I missed most of this, did you edit this a couple times?

I'm now lost in the argument and don't know how I should reconcile/respond.

Just don't want you to think that this commentary was ignored.

.....

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1659551059851747329

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Torture

Since she's such a "poor public speaker" I'm sure you'd be happy to go up in a televised debate against her?

This debate had two very effective communicators. I would not call either of them a poor public speaker.

It’s always kind of funny that political debates have basically become these weird theatrical things where the majority of people have zero interest in what’s being said and base their entire judgements on how it’s said.

Someone can spend the entire time doing nothing but lying, presenting objectively terrible ideas, and dodging every question, but as long as they seem composed and well spoken, they can still “win” against someone who puts the truth and smart policy first if they stumble on a few words. It’s crazy.

And then you’re supposed to put together some well-written response to someone who says “Can’t vote for her, didn’t like the way she talked!” which is impossibly dumb as it is, but you’re the ####### for not treating it like it’s valid lol

[Yoho]

Bold move showing up in matching blue.

[Ozy_Flame]

No kidding. Danielle should have worn light blue, pink and white to show her support for transgender folk after her candidates embarrassed themselves like bigoted rednecks.

[craigwd]

Originally Posted by aaronck

A few random thoughts-
the arena deal never came up?
Did Danielle have Sharpie on her nose and literally almost choked on her own rage at some point?

Rachel stuttered a bit but came off as more believable I think. I don't think she was in attack mode, but brought up points and answered all questions, Danielle sure did not, the snake oil comments at the start of this thread were pretty appropriate.
No real talk about environment really, while Alberta is choked with smoke seemed to be a lost opportunity.

I thought it was a win for Rachel, but I don't know how many voters minds would be changed after

itsr


It's a known fact that when you're lying your mouth dries up.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s always kind of funny that political debates have basically become these weird theatrical things where the majority of people have zero interest in what’s being said and base their entire judgements on how it’s said.

Someone can spend the entire time doing nothing but lying, presenting objectively terrible ideas, and dodging every question, but as long as they seem composed and well spoken, they can still “win” against someone who puts the truth and smart policy first if they stumble on a few words. It’s crazy.

And then you’re supposed to put together some well-written response to someone who says “Can’t vote for her, didn’t like the way she talked!” which is impossibly dumb as it is, but you’re the ####### for not treating it like it’s valid lol

It's funny. People are faulty in this way.

Delivery counts for a lot. You can have two people trying to sell you a pen. One might have 30 well thought out bullet points on why it's a no-brainer to buy from them but their deliver is tense and without enthusiasm, and the other could be utterly unprepared in terms of well thought out content in their presentation but have great presence and charisma in their delivery, and much more often than not the average person would choose the latter. Some people who coach this stuff in fact will put actual content a couple rungs down in terms of actual importance. This is why a dope like Trump didn't crash and burn when faced with hard debate questions like one would suppose he should have. Respond with enough conviction, and you can get away with spewing utter nonsense.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1659551059851747329

Why would I read a Laurentian Elite Legacy Media article?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

It's funny. People are faulty in this way.

Delivery counts for a lot. You can have two people trying to sell you a pen. One might have 30 well thought out bullet points on why it's a no-brainer to buy from them but their deliver is tense and without enthusiasm, and the other could be utterly unprepared in terms of well thought out content in their presentation but have great presence and charisma in their delivery, and much more often than not the average person would choose the latter. Some people who coach this stuff in fact will put actual content a couple rungs down in terms of actual importance. This is why a dope like Trump didn't crash and burn when faced with hard debate questions like one would suppose he should have. Respond with enough conviction, and you can get away with spewing utter nonsense.

It's also just damn hard to debate with someone who is not engaging in good faith.