NDP about to cost us 2 billion over coal power

[littledan]

Sarah hoffman...

“We expect those costs will show up on our bills but we’re fighting to make sure they get reimbursed back to ratepayers. It doesn’t feel moral and it appears not to be legal either.”


OMFG. Did an elected official just refer to her "feelings" regarding morality when it relates to a mult-billion dollar cluster f.uck?

[schocker]

^^^^Just a bunch of morons
http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/07/26...ower-companies

Enmax says if they’d kept the contracts their carbon levies would have gone from about $15 million in 2015 to $160 million in 2018. Enmax’s net earnings from continuing operations in 2015 was $154 million.

If that clause hadn't been in the agreement in the first place, what are the chances it would have even been accepted.

The Notley NDP government says the “more unprofitable” clause isn’t legal and was negotiated years ago in secret at the eleventh hour.

They admit not knowing about the clause until this past spring.

They say the PC government of the day wasn’t looking after Albertans allowing such an easy “escape clause” for companies wanting out of electricity deals.

“Even if you’re wrong and you’re losing money, if the government does anything, even if it’s the smallest thing, don’t worry we’ll take back your losses. That is so lopsided.”

Hoffman says the electricity companies have made $10 billion in profits and should eat their expected losses of up to $2 billion and not pass those losses on to consumers.

“I get they want to have the biggest profits,” says the deputy premier.

“The reason they are trying to put this on somebody else is because they don’t want to be seen as the bad guys. I get that.”

I want enmax to make huge profits as they are fully owned by Calgary.

[M.alex]

Originally posted by R154

All I know, is when my company was bidding on a new cogen facility, the customer is very seriously putting us against a thermal & wind solution. They are still deliberating. This is a 10MW facility. Small potatoes... relatively. But again, its not nothing.

why? just introduces reliability issues and cogen is already treated under sger as a renewable able to earn credits.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[R154]

I am not the owner, I dont know why they decided to put us against thermal & wind. Somewhere along the way their bean counters and PR staff must've thought that it would be equitable and somewhat economically feasible during their initial and now final research period.

Outside looking in, it seems goofy. Ultimately they know whats on their books and what they stand to make/gain. The plant is not powering anything specifically tied to o&g.

Might be a loss leader.

Pretty much all CHP except for process facilities are run at a loss because of cheap power in AB.

[403Gemini]

I'm not a Nenshi fan but man did I literally laugh out loud listening to him yesterday

“This suit is outrageous,” he said.

“We have the spectacle of the provincial government suing itself because apparently it didn’t know its own policies that have been in place for 15, 16 years and that Enmax has been abiding by.”

Then he went on to say it's great out the NDP are creating jobs... by hiring a lawyer from BC, so at least they're employing people from BC

Also gotta love NDP acknowledging they don't have a fucking clue

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...arbon-tax.html

[lasimmon]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
I'm not a Nenshi fan but man did I literally laugh out loud listening to him yesterday



Then he went on to say it's great out the NDP are creating jobs... by hiring a lawyer from BC, so at least they're employing people from BC

Also gotta love NDP acknowledging they don't have a fucking clue

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary...arbon-tax.html

To be fair I heard from a Law Expert that the reason for the Vancouver lawyer is that all the competent lawyers in Alberta for this are likely conflicted due to all the companies involved.

He didn't the NDP would win though.

[Inzane]

Originally posted by redblack
You guys voted for change, so I don't see what the problem is

Only about a third of voters voted for NDP.

Everyone else let them win by splitting the conservative vote between two parties.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by schocker
I want enmax to make huge profits as they are fully owned by Calgary.

Basically, it's lose/lose for Calgary. They win, Enmax will go under. They lose, we all have pay a lot more for "Green" energy.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Basically, it's lose/lose for Calgary. They win, Enmax will go under. They lose, we all have pay a lot more for "Green" energy.

Sounds like the contract is due to expire in 2020, a happy solution would be to delay everything by 4 years...

[googe]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin


I don't support the tax in it's current form because it's not designed to do anything but shift taxation. If the tax was designed to move us away from carbon heavy electricity production then the collected revenue would have to be allocated to the creation of new power plants. That's not the case. The government is playing a shell game where they tax the wealthy who use carbon and then shovel the money back to the poor who also use carbon. That's feel good social welfare and a PST in anything but name. All the money should have to be fully allocated to the creation of carbon neutral energy sources like Nuclear not be part of the governments slush fund.

Yeah I guess I should clarify that to saying you should support the idea of a tax, to say nothing of this particular implementation. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether they did it properly.

It isn't true as a blanket statement that the revenue has to go to the cause though. It is totally reasonable to create a disincentive somewhere and use the revenue for unrelated purposes. It often isn't a good idea, especially if it leads to perverse incentives, but it's no less valid as an economic strategy, and can solve multiple problems.

The trap is when the benefactor of the program becomes dependent on the behavior that you're trying to curtail. So if the money went straight back in to nuclear subsidies, they would get a short term boost, and as soon as they are established, they actually need dirty power tax revenue to survive. Now you have two problems.

I don't think we can call it a slush fund while also accusing them of running a deficit though. I think it is really just about people not wanting it to be used for wealth redistribution. That's a legit criticism.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by googe
I don't think we can call it a slush fund while also accusing them of running a deficit though. I think it is really just about people not wanting it to be used for wealth redistribution. That's a legit criticism.

I'm calling it a slush fund because the money isn't earmarked specifically to any purpose. It's going to be going into the coffers as revenue then distributed back out god know how and a significant portion will be going back to subsidize the carbon usage of "poor" people.

Straight from the horses mouth:

Six of 10 Alberta households will receive a rebate that covers the average cost of the carbon levy they pay.

The rebate will begin to phase out at $47,500 in net income for single Albertans, and $95,000 for couples and families.

I mean frankly the whole reason this is even being done is because carbon taxes as a whole are regressive and the NDP can't stand for something along those lines... Carbon use is really rather inflexible as a whole and a lot of it is outside the control of the individual so it's really a broad tax quite similar to the PST which also targets the lower end more than the higher end. Generally though the rebate will not cover the increase in cost that will be passed to the consumers via the private sector AKA groceries, power bill, etc...

My main problem is that if we implement a carbon tax then the revenue should be going straight back to promote carbon neutral power sources not going back into general revenue or being used for kick backs to certain members of society. Yeah I get not taxing the actual poor but frankly the cut off brackets are not what I consider poor...

[suntan]

Originally posted by googe


Yeah I guess I should clarify that to saying you should support the idea of a tax, to say nothing of this particular implementation. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether they did it properly.

It isn't true as a blanket statement that the revenue has to go to the cause though. It is totally reasonable to create a disincentive somewhere and use the revenue for unrelated purposes. It often isn't a good idea, especially if it leads to perverse incentives, but it's no less valid as an economic strategy, and can solve multiple problems.

The trap is when the benefactor of the program becomes dependent on the behavior that you're trying to curtail. So if the money went straight back in to nuclear subsidies, they would get a short term boost, and as soon as they are established, they actually need dirty power tax revenue to survive. Now you have two problems.

I don't think we can call it a slush fund while also accusing them of running a deficit though. I think it is really just about people not wanting it to be used for wealth redistribution. That's a legit criticism.

There's really no need for direct subsidies for nuclear power.

Simply put the gov't has no interest in letting anyone put up a nuclear plant in Alberta, despite the fact that Alberta has a great deal of uranium. To be fair neither did the previous regime, but for different reasons.

[nitram]

Originally posted by Inzane


Only about a third of voters voted for NDP.

Everyone else let them win by splitting the conservative vote between two parties.

I've been wondering what would happen when it's the next election, would this happen again.

Seems to me for the people that follow politics, they would go for wildrose, for the ones that don't but just know not to vote NDP, they might vote PC.

[M.alex]

Originally posted by suntan
There's really no need for direct subsidies for nuclear power.

Simply put the gov't has no interest in letting anyone put up a nuclear plant in Alberta, despite the fact that Alberta has a great deal of uranium. To be fair neither did the previous regime, but for different reasons.

nuclear is expensive as fvck (capital intensive, away from major load centers, etc..)

in a free market there's 0 chance of building it when you can build ccgt at a fraction the cost and not have anywhere near as many headaches.

[suntan]

Yes, they're expensive. But does the gov't need to directly provide money for the construction of one, or merely provide incentives?

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
I'm not a Nenshi fan but man did I literally laugh out loud listening to him yesterday

My hatred of Nenshi knows no bounds, but the purple bastard nailed it with his comments on this issue.

[AndyL]

Should nenshi even be speaking on this topic as the city of Calgary wholely owned subsidiary - Enmax - is one of the companies involved?

Perhaps the city should just seek a annual rate for a mayor's lawyer - might be cheaper...

[schocker]

Originally posted by AndyL
Should nenshi even be speaking on this topic as the city of Calgary wholely owned subsidiary - Enmax - is one of the companies involved?

Perhaps the city should just seek a annual rate for a mayor's lawyer - might be cheaper...

I don't see why not when the city is the owner. NDP is wrong on this and he spoke his mind as city council represents us as shareholders.

[AndyL]

Because typically when corporations are suing each other the standard answer is "We can't comment on that because it's in litigation."

And nenshi should know better given how many times his grandstanding cost the city thus far...

Seriously - think about it city vs province... Who's going to win? He pisses off the NDP overlords more - we get less - point or not he just shoots the taxpayer in the foot some more.