Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Yes. Enmax and Epcor print money for the city.

Transmission and distribution rates are also set by the city.

So what you are saying is you would prefer to pay lower electricity rates but higher property taxes. I’m not sure it makes that much difference.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

It didn't, but the switch to the DCPD system this year supposedly did.

That just forced you to buy additional insurance. It certainly will help people get paid faster but we are now paying for that service.

The argument that it saves Albertans money is pretty clearly false then they added a fee to pay for it.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by GGG

That just forced you to buy additional insurance. It certainly will help people get paid faster but we are now paying for that service.

The argument that it saves Albertans money is pretty clearly false then they added a fee to pay for it.

They've done this multiple times in different ministries. Kananaskis is obvious. Cut funding by seven million, create a user pay system to raise seven million (claiming to put the money back into the park), lie and put the money in general revenue, allot enforcement of the user pay system, let the park rot, (in the future.... get re-elected, claim failure of the parks system, privatize).

I'm sure that there are other examples... the 911/EMT system jumps to mind.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

That just forced you to buy additional insurance. It certainly will help people get paid faster but we are now paying for that service.

The argument that it saves Albertans money is pretty clearly false then they added a fee to pay for it.

I think that change should help people who drive less valuable vehicles (poorer on average). It shouldn't change the total amount of claims, but makes it more likely your insurer pays a claim on your vehicle and less likely it pays for someone else's.

Of course, it should also help bad drivers, as their insurers will pay for less other vehicle repairs on average.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GGG

So what you are saying is you would prefer to pay lower electricity rates but higher property taxes. I’m not sure it makes that much difference.

What I’m saying is that attempting to privatize the electricity market by deregulation substantially increased costs to the average albertan. Not just Calgarians or edmontonians, and it should have never happened.

It was never the point of deregulation. The government at the time tried to sell it as a way to increase competition and lower prices; neither of which happened. It was and still is a failure.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by timun

T&D rates are set by the AUC.

It’s been a while, but 20 Years ago we went through a rate calculation on T&D rates, and it was a percentage of the average cost/kWh that the city applied to its constituents. It’s been decades since I was involved, but MCAF and transmission rates came from each municipality. They were quite different depending where you lived IIRC. Calgary was higher than Lethbridge for example.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Muta

Can someone explain to me again how the UCP removing insurance caps helped the average Albertan? I’m genuinely curious to know why, and what the government told us was the benefit?

It was easier to get a lower rate when shopping around when the caps were Lifted. Anecdotal but my friends have said the same.

Caps are dumb because it makes good drivers subsidize bad drivers. You shouldn’t be staying with an insurance company if your rates go up year over year without an incident anyway.

[timun]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

It’s been a while, but 20 Years ago we went through a rate calculation on T&D rates, and it was a percentage of the average cost/kWh that the city applied to its constituents. It’s been decades since I was involved, but MCAF and transmission rates came from each municipality. They were quite different depending where you lived IIRC. Calgary was higher than Lethbridge for example.

Yeah it definitely has been decades since you were involved, as MCAF isn't called that anymore... Let's back up a bit, because we're conflating several things.

You're talking about Local Access Fees, which are charged by the municipalities to the distribution companies in lieu of property taxes, for the exclusivity of providing distribution services in the municipality, etc. Those are set by the municipalities.

Transmission rates are set by the AUC. Distribution rates are set by the AUC, or by the municipality if the municipality itself owns and operates the distribution system. There are only a handful of municipalities where this is still the case: Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Cardston and Ponoka.

In Calgary the distribution charges are paid to Enmax Power Corporation (not to be confused with Enmax Energy Corporation, the retailer), who own and maintain the distribution system (having inherited the physical assets of the old City of Calgary Electric System). Their rates are set by the AUC. The Local Access Fee is set by the City of Calgary, who charges it to Enmax Power, who passes it on to the retailer, who charges the consumers.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1543638161150058497

[Roughneck]

'Government intervention coming to fix market problem' would be the be a saucier headline.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1543638161150058497

This doesn't sound very Conservative at all.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This doesn't sound very Conservative at all.

Don’t lose faith, the plan may include new and exciting ways to make it harder for workers in Alberta to join a Union.

[GGG]

Good old conservative economics. Spend during booms cut during busts despite saying exactly the opposite.

[BlackArcher101]

"Kenney said Saturday that the surplus wouldn't have occurred if his government hadn't "exercised spending restraint.""


LOLOLOLOL

[Dion]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

"Kenney said Saturday that the surplus wouldn't have occurred if his government hadn't "exercised spending restraint.""

LOLOLOLOL

This is not a criticism of Notley per say but you can be sure she would have spent a lot more money on health care to shore up the problems we have right now. Money on EMT, doctors and nurses. Plus making sure they were rewarded fairly.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Dion

This is not a criticism of Notley per say but you can be sure she would have spent a lot more money on health care to shore up the problems we have right now. Money on EMT, doctors and nurses. Plus making sure they were rewarded fairly.

Can you be sure? The PCs spending problem in the early 2000s got us into a mess.

Notely generally ran a moderate right wing government, especially after a couple months of getting a real look at the books, and realizing you had to be an adult to govern. There are two types of people, those who grow up when they need to manage the purse strings, and those who make excuses or take credit for things they didn't cause.

The UPC hasn't gotten into full spending swing yet, but they are an unpopular incumbent majority during a boom with an election 2 years away. It would take some real principals those guys just don't have to refrain from some very stupid populist spending.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Don’t lose faith, the plan may include new and exciting ways to make it harder for workers in Alberta to join a Union.

And it will all be Trudeau’s fault.

I think that’s all the boxes checked.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by #-3

Can you be sure? The PCs spending problem in the early 2000s got us into a mess.

Notely generally ran a moderate right wing government, especially after a couple months of getting a real look at the books, and realizing you had to be an adult to govern. There are two types of people, those who grow up when they need to manage the purse strings, and those who make excuses or take credit for things they didn't cause.

The UPC hasn't gotten into full spending swing yet, but they are an unpopular incumbent majority during a boom with an election 2 years away. It would take some real principals those guys just don't have to refrain from some very stupid populist spending.

The EMT situation has been in crisis mode for over a year and the UCP have done little to address the problem. Solutions have been raised by the health community and mostly ignored.

If the UCP spends, it will be with the intent to buy votes from Alberta voters.

[Amethyst]

But in true UCP fashion, they will end up doing something that makes life worse for ordinary Albertans. And those who are so desperate not to vote NDP will refuse to see it for what it is until after the election.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

Good old conservative economics. Spend during booms cut during busts despite saying exactly the opposite.

Huh? I thought that is what they say.