Quantcast
NDP about to cost us 2 billion over coal power - Page 7 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 201

Thread: NDP about to cost us 2 billion over coal power

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    1,636
    Rep Power
    85

    Default

    Wait so you do want me to be Premier?
    Last edited by suntan; 07-29-2016 at 12:40 PM.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    6,852
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-15-2019 at 11:33 PM.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    C.Dot
    Posts
    1,058
    Rep Power
    17

    Default

    Originally posted by suntan
    Wait so you do want me to be Premier?
    Actually, I would vote for you.
    Originally posted by ZenOps
    I say we slow down the spinning of the earth so that there is 25 hours in the day.

    Join me.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    FJR1300/2018 Giant Trance 3
    Posts
    1,649
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    .
    Last edited by codetrap; 12-31-2016 at 12:47 PM.

    "We need a vaccination for stupidity, with booster shots against an unwillingness to learn."

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    6,852
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by Sugarphreak; 08-15-2019 at 11:33 PM.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    FJR1300/2018 Giant Trance 3
    Posts
    1,649
    Rep Power
    19

    Default

    .
    Last edited by codetrap; 12-31-2016 at 12:47 PM.

    "We need a vaccination for stupidity, with booster shots against an unwillingness to learn."

  7. #127
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Medicine Hat AB
    My Ride
    General Motors Competizione
    Posts
    1,460
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Originally posted by HiTempguy1


    Because she isn't a libtard, hotness value through the roof

    Or Lauren

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Southern
    In a conversation about hotness, you posted a link that's all text. Nice going.
    2007 GMC 2500 Duramax
    1981 GMC C1500 454

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Left Coast
    My Ride
    Audi
    Posts
    1,348
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Folks, you're veering off topic here (re: organizing how to remove NDP). Please create a new thread for that discussion.

    Thx

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    My Ride
    2015 CLS63s AMG Coupe
    Posts
    676
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally posted by Sugarphreak


    The main thing is there are enough O&G workers out of work to actually get a decent turnout... it is just a matter of getting the word out.

    LinkedIN would be an awesome platform for advertising. I have been seeing a ton of NDP hate on there lately, and that is saying something given that it is generally more reserved professionals

    I went to an anti-NDP rally in Victoria a really long time ago, there was like 100K people that turned out.

    The biggest problem is you need somebody to address the media and the crowd who isn't an idiot. Otherwise the media goes in and starts to seek out people and you don't get a clear message out. The media loves to find somebody with a poor understanding of English and politics and make them the poster boy for the event.
    I agree 100%... One of the big problems with all the facebook groups I see right now, is most people can't even spell or use grammar properly, lol.

    Numerous corporations would offer some financial support, would be easy to find if something setup was serious.

    And yes, need some people who can speak. Big thing is everyone needs to remain calm and talk in a "going forward" fashion, no hate speech.
    Sig was pwned by Moderator!

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    5,258
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Originally posted by SKR


    In a conversation about hotness, you posted a link that's all text. Nice going.
    Dont worry, I posted the pics
    Originally posted by Mibz
    She's already exhibiting signs of turning into my Mom, I need some sort of legal recourse if a full-blown transformation occurs.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Grimace
    Posts
    6,815
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Here is the interview from CBC yesterday from someone actually involved in this slick enron backroom secret sneaky deal
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...dash-1.3701082

    This is his blog post he talks about

    The Government lawsuit, naming several power companies and two of its own Agencies, landed with a thud on the Alberta electricity sector yesterday.

    The suit is appealing the validity of a clause, inserted at the last minute into the Alberta Power Purchase Agreements (PPA's) of 2000, that allows the holders of those PPA's to cancel their ongoing contracts and return responsibility for those contracts to the Government-owned Balancing Pool. The PPA's set the price that has to be paid by the PPA Owners (contract holders) for electricity generated from the old regulated power plants and were sold at auction to the highest bidder. And as to the clause in question, let's just call it the Clause from here on in.

    _______________________________________________________________

    The law suit, as filed, is sensational, in that it creates a sensational tale of backroom deals between the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the Ministry of Energy and the always evil Enron. The innuendo, if not the allegation, is that Neil McCrank, Chairman of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, was complicit or remiss in a coverup regarding the last minute inclusion of the Clause in question, outside of the established public process, for the benefit of corporate interests.

    There's just one problem with that theory. I know Neil McCrank. I worked under him at the AEUB during that time. And I can tell you the last thing on his mind was some underhanded sculduggery. As I recall, he was pretty damn focused on keeping the lights on.

    _______________________________________________________________

    When I started with the AEUB in Calgary in 1998 we were three years into the period after the Government had started down the road of electricity and gas deregulation and two years away from them going to a competitive electricity market. Prior to that, all electricity and gas services were fully regulated public utilities.

    The effect of this time gap between announcing the policy and enacting the policy was to stop development of any new electricity generation plants during that time. It's funny, but it turns out private capital is very skittish and likes to know what the rules are before they invest.

    At the same time Alberta was going through a healthy growth spurt, driving up electricity demand. The result was a dangerously low reserve margin for the system and an extremely tense 1999. I vividly remember Neil leading sessions to ensure that every agency was doing all it had to do to get the final pieces in place to enable new generation investment. It was a serious situation, winter blackouts were looking like a real possibility.

    The result of having all of the pieces in place, including the PPA's, was to spur on tremendous private investment in generating capacity. Within a year, the capacity crisis was over.

    _______________________________________________________________

    The key to this lawsuit is whether or not the Clause was created ultra vires, or outside of the authority of those involved. Let me say right now, I don't know what the answer is to that question.

    This is what we know:

    There was an extensive public process around the procedures used to create the PPAs
    In a final round of input required to make the PPAs ready for sale, a suggestion from ENRON was included in the final PPA documents (I'll get to what it said below)
    The AUC and the Ministry of Energy included the Clause without further public consultation, three days prior to the scheduled PPA auction
    The Ministry of Energy then requested that the material be exempted from public reporting

    I have to admit the last bit doesn't look good. I think it's a real possibility that there was a cockup in the Ministry of Energy and they realized it and swept it under the rug. But the whole Enron, evil corporatist conspiracy thing? I don't buy it. Not for a minute.

    _______________________________________________________________

    So let's talk about the Clause.

    The existing Clause says that: if new Government legislation makes a PPA Owner's contract unprofitable or more unprofitable, the Owner can walk away from the contract.

    The suit says that the Clause is no good, and you have to go back to the old clause that said: if new Government legislation makes a PPA Owner's contract unprofitable, the Owner can walk away from the contract.

    According to the Government suit, using the old clause would mean that the PPA Owner's should be stuck with their agreements because they are already losing money.

    I can tell you why the Clause got amended the way it did. It's because it's a perfectly reasonable Clause.

    If you are going to grant protection to investors against Government legislative changes, it doesn't make sense that it would only protect you if you happen to be crossing the threshold from profitable to unprofitable, but not if you're already losing money.

    I'm not surprised that the Clause was amended. I'm not surprised that it got added at the last minute. I'm more surprised that it never came up in months' of hearings with millions of dollars spent in representation on all sides. However, it seems to have never come up until 3 days before the PPA auction.

    At which point, I'm pretty sure there was a chorus of Oh s**t, how did we miss that?

    _______________________________________________________________

    I don't know if the suit will be successful or not. I really don't. I have been involved in the regulatory legal and policy world since 1989 and I've never seen anything like this.

    But here are the potential outcomes:

    The Government wins. The PPA Owners have to eat $2 billion in losses over the next 3 1/2 years because of the current market surplus. The lawyers make out like bandits.
    The Government loses. The PPA Owners sue the Government for all of their losses from the date of their notice to terminate the contracts. Customers/taxpayers get the bill. The lawyers make out like bandits.

    Before the suit was filed, I believe there could have been a third alternative, where the Balancing Pool would manage the operation of the coal PPAs and start the planned phase out of coal generation. Capital Power evidently analyzed this option and found it could limit losses to $600 million. A lot, but less than the potential loss to customers now.

    _______________________________________________________________

    So I don't know if the Government suit will win, but I don't think that it should win.

    From the perspective of the investors in those companies that stood up to offer $2 billion for the first tranche of PPA contracts, I think it was reasonable for them to want protection from future Government legislation. They were signing 20 year agreements and a lot can change in 20 years - as you may have noticed.

    You can't argue that some partial protection is fair, where the PPA owners would be able to return the contracts - if only their books were just a little bit less of a shambles. Those companies put up their investors' billions of dollars on the basis of having protection from adverse Government legislation written into their contracts. I don't think it was unreasonable for the Government of the day to extend that protection and for investors to expect it.

    Knowing the men and women involved in trying to make this work at the time, to spin the story into a who-dunnit I think is unreasonable and I wish the Government hadn't done it.

    There was no McCrank Conspiracy. Enron didn't grease anybodies' palms.

    This lawsuit disparages people I know should be thanked for their service, not dragged into the limelight of political theatre.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Unknown
    Posts
    1,157
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Zhariak


    I agree 100%... One of the big problems with all the facebook groups I see right now, is most people can't even spell or use grammar properly, lol.

    Numerous corporations would offer some financial support, would be easy to find if something setup was serious.

    And yes, need some people who can speak. Big thing is everyone needs to remain calm and talk in a "going forward" fashion, no hate speech.
    A good spoke person is key.

    Funding for paid advertisement would be voluntarily paid by O&G once the movement has been established. It would cost a penny out of their pocket, and have a hope to secure something that won't kill us all with ignorant idealism.

    Yes, it's that simple.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Grimace
    Posts
    6,815
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...ents-1.3711177

    The documents

    The legal challenge questions the validity of an arrangement made between the former Progressive Conservative government and electricity companies during the move to a deregulated electricity system back in 2000.

    The NDP government says the documents show the "Enron clause" wasn't included until months after the public hearings attended by dozens of municipalities, industrial consumers and consumer advocates in October 1999.

    According to the documents provided by the government, on July 27, 2000, five days before the clauses were going to take effect, there was an email exchange between an Enron lobbyist and the bureaucrat leading the transition to electricity deregulation. Robert Hemstock, Enron's Canadian head of government relations, contacted Larry Charach, the head of electricity for the Alberta Department of Resource Development (ADRD).
    tp-enron-collapse-cp-4213088

    During the email exchange, the clause in place, according to the documents, stated that in order for energy companies to opt out of PPAs they had to prove that the operation was unprofitable solely due to a government action.

    Hemstock then wrote Charach, wanting an amendment to the clause that would allow a PPA buyer to transfer its obligations should a company be unprofitable regardless of government action.
    So the modification was to change it to unprofitable regardless of government action and yet the companies that cancelled the PPAs were due to government action. What a bunch of morons

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Nothing
    Posts
    1,496
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Remember all those months ago when industry was playing nice with the government, standing behind it and the carbon taxes because it was the right thing to do and Alberta needs this-and-that-tax in order to get into the 21st century and be competitive.

    Bet they're regretting that now after getting stabbed in the back
    sig deleted by moderator, click here for info

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Grimace
    Posts
    6,815
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Originally posted by M.alex
    Remember all those months ago when industry was playing nice with the government, standing behind it and the carbon taxes because it was the right thing to do and Alberta needs this-and-that-tax in order to get into the 21st century and be competitive.

    Bet they're regretting that now after getting stabbed in the back
    We would be paying regardless is the thing also. Why would a company eat all of the extra costs

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    Bicycle
    Posts
    9,271
    Rep Power
    49

    Default

    Originally posted by M.alex
    Remember all those months ago when industry was playing nice with the government, standing behind it and the carbon taxes because it was the right thing to do and Alberta needs this-and-that-tax in order to get into the 21st century and be competitive.

    Bet they're regretting that now after getting stabbed in the back
    The only one who are hurt by carbon tax is oil and gas. For the electricity providers, it has always been planned to pass the along to consumers.

    You think Enmax is doing those consumer report for free? This just want good PR and give you a warning before the sudden jump in cost comes in.

    Both Enmax and TransAlta are both cutting cost big time (ie laid off/out sources) ahead of all these changes.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado
    Posts
    3,090
    Rep Power
    47

    Default

    Either way the only losers are the populous. Us greedy folks who just want to heat our homes.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Nothing
    Posts
    1,496
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Originally posted by schocker

    Why would a company eat all of the extra costs
    Because it's the right thing to do!
    sig deleted by moderator, click here for info

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,192
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Originally posted by M.alex
    Because it's the right thing to do!
    Doesn't matter how good of a mood I'm in those fucking commercials ruin the rest of my day.
    Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
    Before I start pwning all the members with my findings.
    Originally posted by Arash Boodagh
    Plus, is it true you can feed a pig elephant dong and it will still grow and build meat?
    Originally posted by Toma
    rx7_turbfoags best friend
    Toma the homophobe?

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Grimace
    Posts
    6,815
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
    Doesn't matter how good of a mood I'm in those fucking commercials ruin the rest of my day.
    I fight back by skipping the 6s youtube commercial after the minimum 5s

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NDP and coal fired power plants

    By 16hypen3sp in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 14
    Latest Threads: 06-07-2015, 08:32 PM
  2. De-Regulation of Power, a failed experiment....COST Albertan's $20 billion

    By Toma in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 29
    Latest Threads: 08-06-2014, 05:15 PM
  3. Apple cash on hand: $76 billion. US Treasury: $74 billion.

    By Merritt in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 14
    Latest Threads: 08-01-2011, 07:18 AM
  4. The Great Coal Rush

    By Tarzan in forum Trucks, 4x4 and Offroading Zone
    Replies: 0
    Latest Threads: 03-08-2009, 10:38 PM
  5. Replies: 20
    Latest Threads: 02-18-2009, 02:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •