Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1061

Thread: Provincial Climate Change Plan

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post

    But who pays for the medical treatments of MS or non-lifestyle related cancers? That money has to come from somewhere and it's not due to someone's damage. So you can either tax good consumption (sales tax), bad consumption (carbon tax) or you can tax wealth creation (income taxes). If I was starting from scratch, I would go heavy on the carbon tax, medium on the sales tax, and light on the income tax. Carbon tax, for the most part, is pretty non-cyclical on a per capita basis, whereas the other two are related to economic cycles.
    Agree on heavier weight on sales tax. Disagree that operational revenues should be obtained from pigouvian taxes. What you want in an optimal situation for operational revenues is stability and predictability. General sales taxes and property taxes are the two most stable sources of operational revenue.

    Pigouvian taxes being used for operational revenue is a conflict of interest. They are designed to recover damages / prevent further damaging actions. If pigouvian taxes are successful, they by nature cannot be effective sources of operational revenue as they must consistently deliver less revenue into the future.

    In short, the goal of something like a carbon tax is that you in the future no longer generate carbon emissions. By using that tax for operational income, you trap governments in a situation where they rely on continued carbon emissions in order to fund themselves.
    Like gambling as a tax on the poor...

    Cigarette taxes too. I bet someone does a calculation somewhere to determine how high they can be raised - without - loosing tax revenues. (A great FOIP request - hint, hint. )

    A carbon tax here though, that discourages consumption, allows for higher export sales, so there should be a bias in the system to raising it ever higher to discourage domestic consumption in order to increase exports. A barrel consumed here, is a barrel not exported. Applies to beer and oil.

    What's the old phrase? You can't eat your cake and sell it too.
    Last edited by KC; 26-11-2015 at 09:12 PM.

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kitlope View Post
    And that's the other thing on the way. Wireless "smart" meters, in the guise of being environmentally friendly and the consumer saving power. What they don't tell you is that now they can track power usage at any time of day and when prime time occurs it can easily be double or triple the cost than at off peak.

    I mean, if there's a way to exploit the consumer, it will be done. And for a few posters, it's perfectly acceptable.
    Exploitation is not cool and nobody is saying that's acceptable. Paying a couple pennies more kWh is, and I believe we'll get our money's worth.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  3. #103

    Default

    ^Rumour has it that time and again when wind power is introduced electricity rates go up more than a couple of pennies per kwh. Usually you find that utilities increase substantially and the utility companies proudly announce that they have made the biggest quarterly profits since Hector was a pup.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  4. #104

    Default

    Remember who owns EPCOR & who gets 100% of the $125M+/year dividend. It all goes into city coffers & is worth about a quarter what they get from residential property taxes. They'd be getting it from you one way or another.

    That being said, the City has a lovely habit of moving things to the utility bills like land drainage & waste management so that they can keep the property tax increases artificially low to get the positive spin they routinely try to put on it. If the current plans hold, single family residential waste will have gone up about 80% between 2008 & 2018.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  5. #105

    Default

    This article talked about the threat of phasing out or early decommissioning of natural gas plants. Also not that the stranded coal investment equals about $3 billion - at today's value. So the carbon tax will likely have to pay off much or all of that stranded investment. It's really too bad that they are even considering hydro as that's just creating massive environmental destruction of a different form. (Maybe it will facilitate the cross border sale of water though.)


    Alberta utility firms brace for early phase out of coal under Notley’s climate change policies
    Geoffrey Morgan, November 12, 2015

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...hange-policies
    Last edited by KC; 30-11-2015 at 02:27 PM.

  6. #106

    Default

    ^Thanks, very interesting article. A few take aways I got:

    - there won't be any nuclear - it is just not economic
    - there won't be large natural gas plants - because these might also be phased out, and will probably be next on the list after coal (California plans to do by 2030).
    - we can expect some large hydro projects (like Athabasca). This will be interesting as hydro does significant environmental damage
    - small natural gas plants may be built very close to cities to "swing" produce, when for example, the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine
    - reluctance to invest until solar and battery technology develops more (which is happening).
    Last edited by moahunter; 30-11-2015 at 02:34 PM.

  7. #107

    Default 66 percent of Albertans oppose the carbon tax

    Oh well, I guess most of us knew this would be a one term government, expect the next government to repeal this plan given how much it's disliked outside of Edmonton:

    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...x-survey-shows
    Last edited by moahunter; 07-12-2015 at 06:28 PM.

  8. #108
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    ^Is there any sort of tax increase that a majority of people wouldn't be opposed to? I am impressed that the tax actually has support in parts of the province, and the support of some major oil companies. A PST or across the board income tax hike would be even more hated.

  9. #109

    Default

    ^maybe a tax on the "rich" like Trudeaus is more popular (even is it isn't very effectual)? Oh, they already did that Rather than raising taxes, they should have cut operating costs below operating revenues, we are essentially eating lunches we can't afford, the answer to that is not getting a higher salary. As I noted in another thread, it's not surprising "some" huge oil companies support the tax (maybe they wrote the tax?), they might be almost in an oligopoly position if the NDP enforce the overall cap, and the tax doesn't hit their export revenues, it lays all the blame/cost on Alberta consumers.

    Seems the cap was a secret deal that some big companies were in on (CNRL, Suncor, Shell, Cenovus), but others weren't (Imperial, Meg, etc):

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=2b6e-ce1e
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2015 at 06:23 AM.

  10. #110
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Better headline:

    "66% of Albertans upset they have to pay for things they use."

    People were upset when we moved away from flat fee water as well. Something you need to learn, Moahunter: you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

  11. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Moahunter: you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
    People in China and the US do (I don't see Obama imposing carbon taxes on his people). And we will to, once the NDP is thrown out after the next election.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-12-2015 at 07:36 AM.

  12. #112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Moahunter: you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
    People in China and the US do (I don't see Obama imposing carbon taxes on his people). And we will to, once the NDP is thrown out after the next election.
    In fact that's the whole game. Poorer nations want the richer nations to pay for their greening.

  13. #113

    Default Backlash growing: 'Group of four doesn't speak for the industry'

    The backlash is growing against the cap, very arrogant of the NDP to let four oil giants, who likely want to stop smaller companies from expanding, draft their policy:

    After winning about five minutes worth of approval from the environmental movement for capping greenhouse gas emissions in the oilsands, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley is facing the uncomfortable task of deciding which projects get to benefit from her now-limited carbon budget.

    Indeed, despite orchestrating a show of unity behind her 'climate leadership plan,' the culmination of negotiations involving four major oilsands companies and four major environmental organizations, it's becoming increasingly clear that hell will freeze over before the rest of Alberta's oilsands sector lines up behind her with the plan as it is now.

    As Glen Schmidt, president and CEO of Laricina Energy Ltd., one of Alberta's junior oilsands companies, put it: "The group of four may have provided some views to the government that has allowed the government to say, 'Here is our framework,'" he said in an interview. "The group of four doesn't speak for the industry. The group of four speaks for themselves. And now we need to get into the heavy lifting of how we are going to manage under the policy position that the government has stated."
    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...-emissions-cap
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-12-2015 at 08:22 AM.

  14. #114
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I want to see a strong response from Notley:

    "Too bad, so sad. You pollute, you pay. The time in which you are allowed to destroy other people's property without repercussions is over."

    If these businesses can't survive without destroying the planet and harming the rest of society, good riddance to them.

  15. #115
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    Any restriction on oilsands development caused by the CO2 emissions cap would be an indicator of policy failure. If the rest of the world doesn't implement carbon pricing, the cap will eventually need to be raised to remain competitive (at least until the effects of climate change reduce demand by causing major economic disruption). If carbon pricing becomes universal however, total emissions approaching the cap will be a sign that the carbon tax needs to go up. In that environment, any small company with an innovation that lowers the amount of CO2 released per volume of bitumen extracted will be competitive.

  16. #116
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Any restriction on oilsands development due to the emissions cap or the emissions tax will be impossible to measure and will be exaggerated by the same people who imagine that the current slowdown is the NDP's fault.

    That said, if there were not already a big restriction in the form of low oil prices I would say that some limited restriction would have been a good thing for the province. Operating in boom mode isn't good for us - it creates imbalances between industries, makes diversification more difficult, creates a back-log of infrastructure needs that have to be met at high costs despite often being inflated or temporary needs.

  17. #117

    Default

    ^whats making many junior and intermediate companies very bitter right now, is that four giant companies who have developed the land they paid for, are directing the writing of policy / legislation to force a cap on everyone, but it doesn't really impact them. Whereas smaller companies who have paid for land rights, are now being told they may not be allowed to develop it. Its cronyism - basically a few big self interested companies got the ear of government to do their wishes to stop competition ever happening.

  18. #118
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    This may be a contrarian opinion in Alberta but... Oil's done. Who cares. The oil companies are complaining and pointing fingers at each other and the government but don't see their impending doom creeping up on them.

    Yes, we will have ongoing production for years to come. But as this huge driver of the economy? No. The ride is over. Why? Increasing affordability of renewable energy. Yes, I know that not all cars are electric. But the economy operates in the margins. And that strong upward tug on growth is simply not going to be as strong anymore. This is regardless of what happens in Paris, but that will certainly hasten the process.

    Yes I am aware that plastics, jet fuel, other products use oil. And that will continue. But many other current users of oil that can be substituted for some other product, at a cheaper and greener price, will switch, keeping prices depressed for a long time. Possible uptick in 2019 with production gaps from lack of investment in the states now, but even that is not a certainty, as production still continues to grow and demand just isn't.

  19. #119
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    ^ Most possible uses of oil than can easily be substituted already have been - coal and natural gas have been cheaper than oil for quite some time. Nearly all stationary power applications that use fossil fuels use one of these, and stationary power applications are the low hanging fruit for CO2 reductions because they are not subject to stringent energy density constraints. Oil will be the last fossil fuel to go, and it will never go completely.

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I want to see a strong response from Notley:

    "Too bad, so sad. You pollute, you pay. The time in which you are allowed to destroy other people's property without repercussions is over."

    If these businesses can't survive without destroying the planet and harming the rest of society, good riddance to them.
    Then there's farming and ranching with its destruction of owned land and impacts on the planet too. Fertilizer and waste runoff into creeks and rivers, methane into the atmosphere, containment pond spills, sucking dry aquifers, never ending expansion into natural lands, spreading of GMO contamination onto neighbouring properties, extension of road and rail networks into sensitive areas, industrialization of farm and ranch lands via wind power with further destruction of migratory birds, etc.

  21. #121

    Default

    Is nuclear going to have to be back on the table?


    Nuclear Power Must Make a Comeback for Climate's Sake

    James Hansen and other climate scientists argue for more reactors to cut coal consumption
    By Gayathri Vaidyanathan, ClimateWire on December 4, 2015



    James Hansen, former NASA climate scientist, and three other prominent climate scientists are calling for an enlarged focus on nuclear energy in the ongoing Paris climate negotiations.

    "Nuclear, especially next-generation nuclear, has tremendous potential to be part of the solution to climate change," Hansen said during a panel discussion yesterday. "The dangers of fossil fuels are staring us in the face. So for us to say we won't use all the tools [such as nuclear energy] to solve the problem is crazy."

    He was joined by Tom Wigley, a climate scientist at the University of Adelaide; Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science; and Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Their stance clashes with those of environmental groups such as Greenpeace that advocate against nuclear energy.
    ...

    Beyond 2030, nations would need a portfolio of technology options to decarbonize, said Gokul Iyer, a researcher with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) Joint Global Change Research Institute and a co-author of the study.

    "That is going to entail premature retirements of fossil fuel power plants, and also additional renewable, nuclear and carbon capture and sequestration power plants," Iyer said.

    ...
    Or can renewables go it alone?...
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...limate-s-sake/

  22. #122

    Default

    So, not here in Alberta, but globally, a 2% drop in electricity production sourcing would then make agriculture the worst offender....

    I wonder how this breaks down. Deforestation is listed here...
    Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

    Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions) - Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from...

    http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/gh...ns/global.html
    Alberta...

    http://www.processecology.com/resour...lberta,+Canada
    Last edited by KC; 13-12-2015 at 07:34 AM.

  23. #123
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,161

    Default

    All hypocritical Gore was there,all will be saved.ROFL.

  24. #124

    Default

    I was wondering about the odds of Alberta ramping up our coal exports if we take our coal power plants off line.

    Any thoughts on that?

  25. #125

    Default

    ^to who? There's no port nearby, and rail is expensive.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^to who? There's no port nearby, and rail is expensive.
    We ship by rail out of ports in BC. US coal was shipped up to Canada and out of these ports for years.
    http://www.westshore.com

    A must read article...

    Teaser quote below.


    Alberta has a case for coal

    Graham Hicks, Post Media Network
    FEBRUARY 01, 2016



    ..
    Environmentally, thanks to technological innovation in newer plants, coal is fast catching up with natural gas as a clean-burning fuel. Coal mines and power plants provide 3,400 well-paying jobs in the province, mostly in towns like Hinton, Grande Cache, Forestburg, Wabamun and Hanna.

    The environmental case: new emission-control technologies in the latest Alberta coal plants (Keephills III in 2011, Genesee III in 2005) made these plants environmentally competitive with natural gas. Natural gas produces 60% less greenhouse gas and other atmospheric pollutants than older coal plants.

    Sadly, new coal technology and research in North America has dramatically slowed. Where’s the point, when the industry is on a politically-imposed death-bed?

    But in tech-savvy Japan, four new super-efficient, high-temperature coal-burning plants are being built to replace that country’s Fukushima tsunami-damaged nuclear reactor — with the lowest emissions ever seen from coal..

    Japanese clean-coal technologies are now being exported to India and China — new wealth creation for the Japanese from energy innovation. Saskatchewan has not banned coal burning, but instead continues to invest heavily in new coal-emission technologies, particularly carbon capture and storage.

    The economic case: environmental upgrades to existing coal power plants and new plants (if allowed), would be two-thirds less expensive than replacing such plants with massive wind and solar farms.

    ...


    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/02/0...-case-for-coal
    Last edited by KC; 06-02-2016 at 02:02 AM.

  27. #127
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    ^ Toxic emissions from some newer coal plants may be competitive with natural gas, but carbon capture and storage is absolutely required for the CO2 emissions to be competitive. It remains to be seen what the cost of that will be, but initial numbers from Saskatchewan are not promising. Among currently proven fossil fuel technologies, 60% efficient combined cycle natural gas is still the winner. Coal can be revisited if and when CCS becomes cost effective.

    We do need to be careful with wind and solar though. Being intermittent, they need to be backed up with some other form of generation that is easily turned on and off. That is often open-cycle natural gas powerplants that are only ~40% efficient. Because of the lower efficiency of variable instead of steady state operation of gas plants, adding wind and solar can result in a lot less reduction in CO2 emissions than their generation output would suggest.

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ Toxic emissions from some newer coal plants may be competitive with natural gas, but carbon capture and storage is absolutely required for the CO2 emissions to be competitive. It remains to be seen what the cost of that will be, but initial numbers from Saskatchewan are not promising. Among currently proven fossil fuel technologies, 60% efficient combined cycle natural gas is still the winner. Coal can be revisited if and when CCS becomes cost effective.

    We do need to be careful with wind and solar though. Being intermittent, they need to be backed up with some other form of generation that is easily turned on and off. That is often open-cycle natural gas powerplants that are only ~40% efficient. Because of the lower efficiency of variable instead of steady state operation of gas plants, adding wind and solar can result in a lot less reduction in CO2 emissions than their generation output would suggest.
    Interesting perspective...I would have thought that pursuing coal and developing the new tech to drop all of the emissions farther would be a better route...
    1) We have ample supply and could keep costs of electricity down
    2) As a tech leader we could monetize the systems and sell to countries like China and India that are continuing to build at a rapid rate.

    Saves Albertans money on power

    Creates a new industry that would benefit with new employment

    Drops emissions on a world wide basis reducing GHG and other harmful emissions to a
    far greater extent.

    Win Win Win

  29. #129
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    The simple chemistry makes carbon dioxide emissions from coal hard to reduce beyond what can be done by increasing thermodynamic efficiency - and 60% efficiency is pretty great.

    I haven't been following carbon capture, but there is potential there, so I think that the planned hard sunset date for coal-fired generation is foolish. If the carbon tax is set right it should be enough that we wouldn't see any new, un-CC coal generation

  30. #130

    Default Are we just shifting jobs out of the province?

    Notley is in discussions with Manitona, and BC wants Federal help to build a power line to Alberta. Notley can talk about replacing coal with renewables rather than gas, but what that actually means economically, is importing "clean" hydro:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle28752295/

    The hard reality is, that while natural gas and coal can compete with hydro from other provinces, solar and wind, because of their limited availability and very high initial cost, can't yet. So as the coal is phased out, the decision to not let gas ramp up, may just have that impact of dollars to BC and Manitona. Hopefully we get some love back from them re what we want to sell.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-02-2016 at 07:00 AM.

  31. #131
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,776

    Default

    And we do not have rivers or concrete in Alberta? The mighty rivers of Alberta could generate hydro electricity and would be job creators.

  32. #132

    Default

    ^they already do, the economic pickings in Alberta are already mostly done for hydro, we don't have the same resources for that, which is why Notley is out asking neighbours for hydro power.

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,776

    Default

    We have Brazeau Dam, Kananaskis, Bearspaw, Big Horn but nothing major like BC. Dam the Peace or Athabasca or build other remote area dams and we could be sellers of hydro too.

  34. #134
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Are we just shifting jobs out of the province?
    Do you think that there are many jobs operating a hydroelectric facility?

  35. #135
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,776

    Default

    A lot of jobs building them though.

  36. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AAAAE View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Are we just shifting jobs out of the province?
    Do you think that there are many jobs operating a hydroelectric facility?
    No, but by choosing other provinces Hydro over Alberta gas as an alternative to coal, to further the religion of "renewables", we lose those Alberta jobs that would have been created to build those gas plants, and operate them, not to mention all the upstream and midstream gas extraction jobs. Its a strange choice for a province rich in natural gas, especially strange when you consider, B.C. while looking to sell us hydro, is trying to ramp up their gas export industry. Its OK for other provinces / countries to burn it, but not for us it seems.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-02-2016 at 08:18 AM.

  37. #137
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    I would not be surprised to see Nat gas usage increase a bit. But, lets realize that solar is just about at grid parity. A few incentives in next month's budget... it will beat gas.

    As for exports, if BC builds a terminal there is nothing stopping Alberta product from being shipped from that terminal. No, the NDP are not cheerleading for it, but the product will flow if there is money to be made.

  38. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    We have Brazeau Dam, Kananaskis, Bearspaw, Big Horn but nothing major like BC. Dam the Peace or Athabasca or build other remote area dams and we could be sellers of hydro too.
    Speak of the devil, good luck with the peace, Federal government is reviewing environmental impact:

    http://canadajournal.net/money/amisk...rt-43069-2016/

    As its a hydro project in Alberta and not B.C., I expect it will be denied, if the timelines aren't extended such that the review never finishes.

  39. #139

    Default

    Adding some pressure...

    I'm not sure if it's anything that the government should worry about. Even with the long lead times on most proves, the low prospects for oil, cheaper and better alternative energy costs are on the horizon, plus improved carbon capture technologies are on the horizon... There's a number of factors that might be putting more pressure on the electricity companies than on the government. There's also other major companies that would likely move on any opportunity in Alberta.



    TransAlta Corp puts Alberta investments ‘on hold’ amid frustrations over province’s climate change policies | Financial Post


    http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=2428-0a86
    See graph on page 4:

    (Quote didn't copy in very well.)

    Burning Questions
    An Evidence-based Review of the Alberta “Phase-out Coal” Campaign


    ...


    Human-caused PM2.5 emissions in Alberta 2011:
    • Coal-fired power plants: ~1,800 tonnes
    • Residential fireplaces:3,400 tonnes
    • Agriculture: 15,300 tonnes
    • Construction: 129,900 tonnes
    • Road Dust: 223,100 tonnes
    • Wild fires (201l) 1,715,000 tonnes


    Even residential fireplaces are responsible for twice the PM2.5 of coal- red power plants and, like wild res, emit carcinogenicvii compounds due to an incomplete burn. Data Note ix
    The 2011 gure of 1.7 million tonnes of toxic wild re smoke from forest/wild res alone (20% FOFEM)viii is almost one thousand times* the ~1,800 tonnes of PM2.5 emissions from Alberta-based coal- red power plants. Some 80% of the wild res in 2011 are attributed to human causes.ix (See Appendix D-1/D-2)4


    ...
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...es_Jan2015.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 19-02-2016 at 09:06 AM.

  40. #140
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    They shouldn't have announced a phase-out if they hadn't already selected a negotiation process. Sloppy new government style decision.

  41. #141

    Default

    I think they were following through with an election promise. So it was a policy statement therefore it's not sloppy, just a confirmation of direction. Much like ending child poverty, Kyoto and all the rest had dates specified.

    Of course, then nothing happened. Watch the dates and the scope change.
    Last edited by KC; 19-02-2016 at 09:07 AM. Reason: Typo

  42. #142
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,776

    Default

    Things will probably all change in 3 years judging by surveys showing NDP falling drastically in popularity. They may as well shelve some of their policies. I was happy with the change in government but like their royalty review review they better review this too.

  43. #143

    Default

    Transalta scraps obsolete wind farm, won't reinvest until Notley's climate-change plan revealed.

    The oldest commercial wind power facility in Canada has been shut down and faces demolition after 23 years of transforming brisk southern Alberta breezes into electricity — and its owner says building a replacement depends on the next moves of the provincial NDP government.
    TransAlta Corp. said Tuesday the blades on 57 turbines at its Cowley Ridge facility near Pincher Creek have already been halted and the towers are to be toppled and recycled for scrap metal this spring. The company inherited the now-obsolete facility, built between 1993 and 1994, as part of its $1.6-billion hostile takeover of Calgary-based Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. in 2009.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/busin...635/story.html

    Green energy boondoggle. One step forward two steps back.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  44. #144
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,317

    Default

    There is reason to criticize Notley's government for slow and incomplete policymaking, but this isn't a boondoggle. It isn't the government's (past or present) fault that the wind turbines are failing and parts are no longer available less than 25 years after the facility was installed. They will be decommissioned regardless of future energy policy.

  45. #145

    Default

    One would think if wind turbines are a way of the future the NDP would be trying to keep those turbines turning as we speak. Maybe parts can no longer be found but it's would not be impossible to re-tool more.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  46. #146

    Default

    Transalta is smart, they know the NDP has made a totally unrealistic goal of conversion to renewables, so to meet that goal, the hand outs will be flowing thick and fast... It's a shame, we are siting on a giant bubble of gas, we should just economically transition to that, and use the money "saved", for other green projects (like LRT). Eventually renewables will make sense, but not until they are economic without government hand outs. That could be a few decades away.

  47. #147

    Default

    So, will Alberta be able to ramp up its coal exports as it draws down its coal based electricity consumption?

    We apparently have low sulphur coal so will other countries switch to Canadian coal if the price falls due to lack of domestic demand?


    Alberta appoints U.S. power executive to guide coal phaseout
    JEFFREY JONES AND JUSTIN GIOVANNETTI
    CALGARY and EDMONTON — The Globe and Mail (correction included)
    Published Wednesday, Mar. 16, 2016
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle29266255/

  48. #148

    Default Capital Power ditches Sundance

    Now capital power are cancelling their coal power contracts:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...lant-1.3505648

    Brutal, everyone is using the governments new laws as an excuse to get out of unprofitable contracts. The coal industry, is going to die very quickly (I'm not a big fan of it, but this wasn't a very smart way to transition):

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...lant-1.3505648

  49. #149

    Default $2 billion dollar screw up

    ^Further to that, the province is now trying to blame an "Enron clause" for these companies being able to ditch these unprofitable contracts. Even though, it should have known that changing the rules would allow this to happen:

    If the NDP hadn’t changed the carbon levy on heavy emitters, it wouldn’t have given companies the opportunity to terminate the contracts in the first place, critics contend.

    “It’s a banana republic move,” charged Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark. “They’ve tied themselves in legal knots to try to find some way of un-ringing the bell.”

    Enmax added that the government should have known about the implications of its carbon levy. “Enmax’s actions on its PPAs were completely foreseeable, legal and reasonable,” it said in a statement.

    In its court filing, the province contends the energy, environment and justice ministers only became aware of the “more unprofitable” clause in a mid-March 2016 meeting with the Balancing Pool.

    And so the case is now headed for the courts in November.

    Meanwhile, the Balancing Pool has to accept all of the losses of the terminated power contracts until the legal matter is decided.

    This messy case may have its roots back in the formative days of power deregulation some 16 years ago, but the issue will have ramifications for consumers in the days ahead with higher surcharges likely added to their power bills.
    http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...ower-contracts

    Our power bills are about to go through the roof.

  50. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^Further to that, the province is now trying to blame an "Enron clause" for these companies being able to ditch these unprofitable contracts. Even though, it should have known that changing the rules would allow this to happen:

    If the NDP hadn’t changed the carbon levy on heavy emitters, it wouldn’t have given companies the opportunity to terminate the contracts in the first place, critics contend.

    “It’s a banana republic move,” charged Alberta Party Leader Greg Clark. “They’ve tied themselves in legal knots to try to find some way of un-ringing the bell.”

    Enmax added that the government should have known about the implications of its carbon levy. “Enmax’s actions on its PPAs were completely foreseeable, legal and reasonable,” it said in a statement.

    In its court filing, the province contends the energy, environment and justice ministers only became aware of the “more unprofitable” clause in a mid-March 2016 meeting with the Balancing Pool.

    And so the case is now headed for the courts in November.

    Meanwhile, the Balancing Pool has to accept all of the losses of the terminated power contracts until the legal matter is decided.

    This messy case may have its roots back in the formative days of power deregulation some 16 years ago, but the issue will have ramifications for consumers in the days ahead with higher surcharges likely added to their power bills.
    http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...ower-contracts

    Our power bills are about to go through the roof.
    This might bring back EEMA. When they deregulated they ignored the reality of price volatility that free and freer markets can create depending on the nature of production.


    Nenshi slams provincial government over power lawsuit
    James Wood, Calgary Herald,July 26, 201f6


    Nenshi also took a shot at the NDP, jokingly saluting the government for “job creation” by hiring a Vancouver-based lawyer to handle the case.



    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...-power-lawsuit
    Last edited by KC; 26-07-2016 at 10:51 AM.

  51. #151

    Default

    ^I just don't understand why the NDP didn't think about this, and plan around it. Obviously companies are going to break contracts that are unprofitable, if you give them grounds to. The rules are the rules, no matter how stupid you might think they were when the contracts were written, that was the result of negotiation back then, right or wrong.

  52. #152
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    It will be interesting to see Notley answer direct questions on the Lawsuit. There will be many, this one isn't going away.

  53. #153
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The PCs never should have deregulated this scummy industry. The NDP should have been way smarter than to trust these companies didn't have some shady, manipulative loophole to protect their ill-gotten taxpayer funded profits.

  54. #154

    Default

    It's neither shady nor manipulative, it's just good business sense to hedge against a future government that changes the rules mid-stream. Very prescient given the social workers and yoga instructors Albertans elected that didn't do their homework before trying to legislate eco-nirvana.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  55. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    It's neither shady nor manipulative, it's just good business sense to hedge against a future government that changes the rules mid-stream. Very prescient given the social workers and yoga instructors Albertans elected that didn't do their homework before trying to legislate eco-nirvana.
    There are two parties to that hedge. If you're on the other side, after you gave them what they wanted, do then you give them more - potentially out of your own future pocket? Don't just blame those today for being hamstrung by unthinking people of the past.

    It's like US real return bonds not adjusting for for deflation (why would you not even if it's a low possibility?). Canada's do. That's smart on our issuers part.
    Last edited by KC; 28-07-2016 at 05:36 PM.

  56. #156
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    scummy industry.
    shady, manipulative loophole to protect their ill-gotten taxpayer funded profits.
    Hard to take that kind of talk seriously. Sounds like something you would hear from Castro or Marx.

  57. #157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    scummy industry.
    shady, manipulative loophole to protect their ill-gotten taxpayer funded profits.
    Hard to take that kind of talk seriously. Sounds like something you would hear from Castro or Marx.
    It might be appropriate. Think ENRON


    Just one example - where caught:

    TransAlta agrees to $56 million settlement for manipulating power markets
    http://calgaryherald.com/business/en...-power-markets
    Last edited by KC; 28-07-2016 at 05:45 PM.

  58. #158
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Scummy industries are predatory industries like payday loans and pawn shops or massage parlours and strip clubs not electrical companies. Sure you're always going have companies that cross the line.

  59. #159

    Default

    Interesting article below. So will Alberta need to add 13-14,000 MW of renewables to replace the 6,000 MW of coal? Eg. Get 10 times more windmill MW out there than we have now, which is likely more than 10x more actual windmills since the best sites are taken already. Maybe 10x the number plus solar, etc.



    "In a prescient paper for the Centre for Policy Studies, Rupert Darwall predicted these problems. He argued that heavily subsidised wind and solar capacity flooding the market with “near random amounts of zero marginal cost electricity” was wrecking the economics of conventional power stations.

    He concluded: “Without renewables, the UK market would require 22GW ofnew capacity to replace old coal and nuclear. With renewables, 50GW is required, i.e. 28GW more to deal with the intermittency problem.” On top of this is the huge cost of connecting remote wind farms to the grid. "

    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...ost-of-carbon/

    Without coal, how will Alberta get its power in 2030?

    The Notley government is heading into a policy minefield that will have major repercussions on the price of electricity for decades to come

    Apr 13, 2016
    by Michael Ganley
    ...
    “Wind only produces power 35 per cent of the time,” Bahry says, “so you need that much more capacity to get the same amount of energy that you would get from a dispatchable plant like coal or gas.” So you have to overbuild the renewable capacity. “I’ve seen numbers as low as 4,200 MW of renewables to around 10,000 or 12,000,” Bahry says. “It depends how you calculate the ‘up to 30 per cent of energy by renewables’ number. Is it 30 per cent of the fleet’s capacity, or 30 per cent of our energy production?”
    ....


    All fair questions that policymakers will have to grapple with during this transition, but Vonesch says we should be looking at this change as an opportunity. “We could see the lowest price renewables in Canada, without question, for both solar and wind because our resources are so good,” he says. “We’re coming at it at the right time.”

    http://albertaventure.com/2016/04/wi...et-power-2030/
    Last edited by KC; 07-08-2016 at 09:37 AM.

  60. #160

    Default

    Seems that at the last minute the made the risk asymmetric.



    Emails hint at cozy relationship between Alberta's former PC government, disgraced power giant Enron

    BY EMMA GRANEY
    FIRST POSTED: SUNDAY, AUGUST 07, 2016 09:10 PM MDT | UPDATED: MONDAY, AUGUST 08, 2016



    "... That report made no mention of "more unprofitable." Instead, it said market risks — bottoming out energy prices, for example — would be best managed by the power companies buying into the market.

    It also noted that allowing companies relief from any environmental taxes would be "contrary to the public good."

    If power contracts were allowed to be terminated in situations other than those specifically laid out in the report, the IAT wrote, the entire process would be undermined and the balancing pool — therefore, Alberta energy consumers — exposed to "risks which they were not intended to bear." ..."

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/08/0...er-giant-enron

    Alberta power contract lawsuit: Emails point to cozy Enron connection | Edmonton Journal
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/poli...nship-with-pcs


    Last edited by KC; 08-08-2016 at 08:47 AM.

  61. #161

    Default

    ^not at all, Enron asked that if the government change the rules, that they be protected if those rule changes result in losses, allowing them to end the contracts. That seems reasonable to me. There are always last minute enhancements / adjustments to any contract, sometimes they are good, sometimes not. The NDP have changed the rules with their coal power phase out, so this is a consequence. I don't understand what the Province is going to Court about, even if you don't like what was agreed, it was agreed.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-08-2016 at 09:06 AM.

  62. #162
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2cents View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    scummy industry.
    shady, manipulative loophole to protect their ill-gotten taxpayer funded profits.
    Hard to take that kind of talk seriously. Sounds like something you would hear from Castro or Marx.

    Albertans will do anything to excuse bad business ethics. It is almost as if people in this province believe that, so long as you are a corporation, ethics do not apply.

    This is crony capitalism at its finest. Privatize profits, socialize losses, and impede the ability of the people to enact democratic change if it encroaches on private special interests.

    The PCs sold Alberta down the river. I just can't believe the NDP were so blind to the extent of their corruption. They should have legislated away this clause through a statutory change granting the province immunity before they made any action. It was plain stupi d to go ahead without clearing the PC's minefield of shadiness.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 08-08-2016 at 09:30 AM.

  63. #163

    Default

    No matter what happened, this clause was going to bumfuq us hard at some point. It's conveniently happening during the NDP government, allowing dumbarses to go "hurr durr look what the NDP did!!"
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  64. #164
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    The NDP definitely could have managed it better though. I agree it was a ticking time bomb just like the majority of PC decisions, but they could have worked around it instead of stumbling right into the trap.

  65. #165
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    Has a rebate mechanism been installed yet to help lower income Albertan's absorb the carbon levy? I haven't seen anything yet. Has anyone else seen anything on this?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  66. #166

    Default

    ^According to this the rebates are going to be tied to your income tax returns.


    http://www.alberta.ca/climate-carbon-pricing.aspx
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  67. #167
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    ^ Thanks. I noticed this as well and we certainly qualify but the rebates wont seem to take into effect until 2018 based on ones tax filings for that year for the year previous depending on our noa . Is that right?
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  68. #168

    Default

    Small businesses are getting really worried about this carbon tax. A lot are hanging on by a thread right now, facing higher utility bills may be enough to force some of them under. Another reason not to hire anyone.

    If you want to help, do it now. If you won’t, don’t do anything else to hurt us.

    One big help would be a deferral of the carbon tax. It’s supposed to kick in on Jan. 1, just as the post-Christmas slowdown begins.

    By that time, many more businesses could be closing their doors or wrestling banks for the keys. The smallest uptick in costs would trigger a further cascade of failures.

    This city’s business community is in crisis, beset by lagging sales, rising expenses, vanishing customers, and longer timelines for payments. Thousands of jobs are at risk.

    George Brookman, owner of the imaging and business services company West Canadian, is possibly the most optimistic human in this city. But even he says the business climate is “brutal.”

    The most positive thing he can tell his staff is “we aren’t sure how long this will last, but we know tonight we are one day closer to the end.”
    http://calgaryherald.com/news/politi...help-dont-hurt

  69. #169
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    ^ Small businesses rely on their line of credit but according to the link I read they should be compensated, somewhat. Families may get a tax credit but that means everything else goes up because business knows consumers have more "disposable income." What ever that means these days.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  70. #170

    Default

    ^those lines of credit are already maxed trying to retain staff. That's the problem, NDP can talk about a small business tax reduction, but that doesn't mean much when you are losing money / not paying tax anyway, which is the situation for a lot of those small restaurants, cafes, boutique stores, and similar.

  71. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ Thanks. I noticed this as well and we certainly qualify but the rebates wont seem to take into effect until 2018 based on ones tax filings for that year for the year previous depending on our noa . Is that right?
    Isn't this carbon tax going to kick in for the 2016 taxation year?. Now, usually we have to file by the end of April. I don't imagine refunds of carbon taxes to be given out until early 2017 as how can they calculate a full year of carbon use without the whole year being taken into consideration. Now, if they cut these carbon cheques early in the year in the dead of winter everyone will be all hail to the NDP for giving us this money.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  72. #172

    Default

    When it comes to apartment buildings I should imagine that building owners will increase the rent to offset the carbon tax. Now, if the apartment building owner gets a rebate on his building what do the tenants get?. They are paying for the increase through higher rents and yet the owner will get to pocket the refund.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  73. #173
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    ^ That's a good point but a lot of apartments are owned by corporations. We live in Capital Place (looks crapy on the outside) So then as you suggest if their bottom line increase because of the carbon tax, they'll pass the costs onto the consumer. CRHC is going to get real busy next year with more applications. In other words expect rents to increase.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  74. #174
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    crony capitalism at its finest.
    Privatize profits, socialize losses
    extent of their corruption.
    PC's minefield of shadiness.
    What I'm getting at is tone down the rhetoric. 44 years of majority gov'ts is going to produce a spectrum of action. But the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

    I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak with authority, if you are then that's different, but I have heard that these type of clauses are standard due to the power of the gov't to legislate which makes sense.
    Last edited by 2cents; 08-08-2016 at 02:16 PM.

  75. #175

    Default

    ^I certainly wouldn't enter into a long term agreement with government, if I didn't have some assurance they couldn't just legislate away their obligations / claw back the profits another way. The flaw in the NDP's "logic" is that there is no certainty Enron, or EPCOR or ENMAX, or whoever, would have done those contracts without that clause.

    If this is a "cost" of coal power phase out, so be it, at least be honest about it and move on. Trying to smudge that this is some evil Enron conspiracy, and wasting money on lawyers to that effect, is a bit silly I think. It might play to the politicized parts of their union member base, but most logical people can see through it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 08-08-2016 at 02:25 PM.

  76. #176
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Belvedere
    Posts
    111

    Default

    ^If ever there was a time for pragmatism and caution, being that we are in a recession and the NDP have never ruled, it is now. It will be very interesting to see Philips and McCuaid-Boyd defend this one in question period. Accelerated coal phase out, carbon tax and $15 min wage. They aren't going to die wondering.

  77. #177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I certainly wouldn't enter into a long term agreement with government, if I didn't have some assurance they couldn't just legislate away their obligations / claw back the profits another way. The flaw in the NDP's "logic" is that there is no certainty Enron, or EPCOR or ENMAX, or whoever, would have done those contracts without that clause.

    If this is a "cost" of coal power phase out, so be it, at least be honest about it and move on. Trying to smudge that this is some evil Enron conspiracy, and wasting money on lawyers to that effect, is a bit silly I think. It might play to the politicized parts of their union member base, but most logical people can see through it.
    They would absolutely still have contracts. They would probably be different, but they'd still be looking for business. No other industry is immune to legislation that lessens their profits.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by envaneo View Post
    ^ That's a good point but a lot of apartments are owned by corporations. We live in Capital Place (looks crapy on the outside) So then as you suggest if their bottom line increase because of the carbon tax, they'll pass the costs onto the consumer. CRHC is going to get real busy next year with more applications. In other words expect rents to increase.
    It would be nice to see utility bills used for building energy efficiency ratings, so renter's could use that as part of their decision making process.

  79. #179
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    ^ On the surface, that makes sense but are there enough low income renters to make a difference during the next election? I'd love to see a pie chart showing how many low income earners there in the slice.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  80. #180

    Default Alberta NDP is upping the ante in its PPA blame game

    Basically what I said in 175...

    But let's for the sake of the argument pretend for a moment that a) the back-out clauses are unique to Alberta and that b) they were proposed by Enron.

    So? If a corporation signs a 20-or 30-year contract to buy power from a government entity, it only makes sense that they protect themselves and their shareholders by insisting on a cancellation clause that permits them to step away if the government changes the rules midgame. Otherwise the contract would be entirely one-sided.

    Governments control the legislative and the regulatory process They could (as the NDP did with their new emissions and carbon taxes), increase the cost of power in the blink of an eye and buyers would have no recourse. Without a cancellation clause, a government could force companies to finance expensive new public policies.

    No well-managed corporation would ever sign.

    The NDP may have stepped up their game, but they still hold a losing hand
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/08/0...ppa-blame-game

  81. #181

    Default Losing hand or winning hand?

    Yes, I think the NDP was initially stung by the PPA cancelation clauses. However, their losing hand could easily turn into a winning one if a judge agrees with them that the regulations around the changes to the cancellation clauses were not properly enacted and therefore the cancellation clauses are not valid. If it is a $2 billion issue (or even a $600 million one), then it probably is serious enough that it needs to go to court for a decision to be made either way.

    The carbon tax is not the only issue here to the NDP and Albertans should also be concerned about the process in which the regulations were enacted and changed. I am not sure that we want governments secretly making secret changes in regulations in response to corporate lobbying or pressure. I understand that corporations want a mechanism to protect them if governments do change the rules and they felt that the initial regulation did not protect them enough. However it could also be argued that the "Enron clause" as it is referred to seems to have tipped the balance too far the other way. I suspect if it was not done in secret, there could have been some public scrutiny of it and a better more balanced regulation could have been written instead.

    The legal case is as much about process, perhaps more, than it is about the carbon tax.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Basically what I said in 175...

    But let's for the sake of the argument pretend for a moment that a) the back-out clauses are unique to Alberta and that b) they were proposed by Enron.

    So? If a corporation signs a 20-or 30-year contract to buy power from a government entity, it only makes sense that they protect themselves and their shareholders by insisting on a cancellation clause that permits them to step away if the government changes the rules midgame. Otherwise the contract would be entirely one-sided.

    Governments control the legislative and the regulatory process They could (as the NDP did with their new emissions and carbon taxes), increase the cost of power in the blink of an eye and buyers would have no recourse. Without a cancellation clause, a government could force companies to finance expensive new public policies.

    No well-managed corporation would ever sign.

    The NDP may have stepped up their game, but they still hold a losing hand
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2016/08/0...ppa-blame-game

  82. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I am not sure that we want governments secretly making secret changes in regulations in response to corporate lobbying or pressure. I understand that corporations want a mechanism to protect them if governments do change the rules and they felt that the initial regulation did not protect them enough.
    Per the Sun article it was the government that proposed the clause, I expect because nobody wanted to sign without it. I have never seen a business contract entered into where the lawyers aren't doing a back and forth on clauses just prior to signing, that's the way business works, and this was a business contract. I doubt if the clause had benefited the NDP, you would see the other side trying to challenge it in Court, a deal is a deal.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-08-2016 at 12:54 PM.

  83. #183
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    6,965

    Default

    Donald Trump is pretty much saying to the powers that be (if he's elected US President in November) to submit another application for Keystone. At this point I'd say Trump is good for Alberta.
    Mom said I should not talk to cretins!

  84. #184
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,531

    Default

    And....in other news...

    Math is still hard.



    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/real+...140/story.html



  85. #185

    Default

    ^It is for lawyers, and the NDP, only $1.4b different. I wonder who the law firm is, which suckered the NDP into taking this hopeless case? I am sure they are doing well out of it.

  86. #186

    Default Losing hand or winning hand?

    It is not quite so simple, you may be getting all the details in the Sun. The regulation that related to the cancellation clause was changed without public input or knowledge, so a key issue here is whether that change was properly made. In fact, a number of contracts were signed before the "Enron clause" (ie. the change to the regulation, which was proposed by an Enron representative at the time, now working for Enmax), so in fact some businesses - except obviously Enron, were ok with the initial less favorable version. I believe the regulation around cancellation applies to energy contacts in general, so it really is a matter or public interest - we are not talking a few private contacts here. The regulation also sets the terms of cancellation, so they are not being negotiated between the parties like when you hire someone to mow your lawn and decide how much to pay. The issue here is which regulation is valid here, because although only a few words were changed it seems to create a $600 million or perhaps a $ 2 billion different outcome.

    Yes, if the change had benefited the NDP it would likely have been the power companies going to court instead, which in the case of a dispute is their right in a free country, just as the government also has the right to get the court's opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I am not sure that we want governments secretly making secret changes in regulations in response to corporate lobbying or pressure. I understand that corporations want a mechanism to protect them if governments do change the rules and they felt that the initial regulation did not protect them enough.
    Per the Sun article it was the government that proposed the clause, I expect because nobody wanted to sign without it. I have never seen a business contract entered into where the lawyers aren't doing a back and forth on clauses just prior to signing, that's the way business works, and this was a business contract. I doubt if the clause had benefited the NDP, you would see the other side trying to challenge it in Court, a deal is a deal.

  87. #187

    Default

    ^here is cbc, and the PC leader, who correctly points out the contracts were fine until the NDP mismanaged this:

    McIver said the NDP is in trouble now because it didn't understand the implications of the "or more unprofitable" clause before it changed the emissions rules.

    The clause had been in place since 2000 without causing any problems, he said, "because the government of the day paid attention to the contracts and the clauses and the things that were in place and managed them, because that's what a government actually gets paid to do.

    "They're on the hook for up to $2 billion because the NDP government are incompetent and didn't read the contract and the clauses before they changed them. They didn't even talk to industry before they changed it."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...says-1.3713706

    Oh well, I expect we will be hearing when our power bills go through the roof, that its not the carbon tax, or the coal phase out that is causing it, but evil Enron who wanted some certainty in their contracts.
    Last edited by moahunter; 09-08-2016 at 02:03 PM.

  88. #188

    Default Everything was fine before things changed?

    If you take the "or more unprofitable" revision to the regulation at face value, then any change to any government law that caused the power companies to lose more money on energy contacts would be grounds to cancel them. So for instance, if the government brought in a minor change to health and safety rules (even a needed change not specific to the energy industry) that say increased their total operating costs by $100/year for a company making $100 million a year that would still be grounds for them cancel the contracts if they were losing any amount of money on them. Perhaps instead of just calling it the "Enron clause" it should be called the "Enron escape clause". This is what happens when you let private companies with a vested interest write government regulations without any public oversight.

    So the only way McIvor could guarantee they wouldn't cancel the contracts would be to change no laws that might result any increased costs. It sounds like the PC approach is everything was fine - change nothing. Actually, as I recall that was sort of how they governed at the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^here is cbc, and the PC leader, who correctly points out the contracts were fine until the NDP mismanaged this:

    McIver said the NDP is in trouble now because it didn't understand the implications of the "or more unprofitable" clause before it changed the emissions rules.

    The clause had been in place since 2000 without causing any problems, he said, "because the government of the day paid attention to the contracts and the clauses and the things that were in place and managed them, because that's what a government actually gets paid to do.

    "They're on the hook for up to $2 billion because the NDP government are incompetent and didn't read the contract and the clauses before they changed them. They didn't even talk to industry before they changed it."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...says-1.3713706

    Oh well, I expect we will be hearing when our power bills go through the roof, that its not the carbon tax, or the coal phase out that is causing it, but evil Enron who wanted some certainty in their contracts.

  89. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^here is cbc, and the PC leader, who correctly points out the contracts were fine until the NDP mismanaged this:

    McIver said the NDP is in trouble now because it didn't understand the implications of the "or more unprofitable" clause before it changed the emissions rules.

    The clause had been in place since 2000 without causing any problems, he said, "because the government of the day paid attention to the contracts and the clauses and the things that were in place and managed them, because that's what a government actually gets paid to do.

    "They're on the hook for up to $2 billion because the NDP government are incompetent and didn't read the contract and the clauses before they changed them. They didn't even talk to industry before they changed it."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...says-1.3713706

    Oh well, I expect we will be hearing when our power bills go through the roof, that its not the carbon tax, or the coal phase out that is causing it, but evil Enron who wanted some certainty in their contracts.
    I don't know who's right in this, but of course McIver will defend it. At this point, I'm OK with the courts sorting it out. If NDP is right, we gain. If NDP is wrong, we see what the fallout is.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  90. #190

    Default Ontario electricity has never been cheaper but bills have never been higher

    If you want to see where the policies of the NDP are leading us, you have to look at Ontario:

    The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

    Electricity is cheaper to make than it’s been for a generation, yet Ontarians are paying more than ever. About the only upside is that nine other provinces now have a handbook on what not to do with their electricity sector.
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp...er-been-higher

    We are all going to feel the pain of the carbon tax and contract mismanagement in our bills over the next few years, and long gone Enron won't be to blame. Those costs wont just hammer us personally, they will make Alberta less attractive to do value added manufacturing or processing.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-08-2016 at 10:21 AM.

  91. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If you want to see where the policies of the NDP are leading us, you have to look at Ontario:

    The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

    Electricity is cheaper to make than it’s been for a generation, yet Ontarians are paying more than ever. About the only upside is that nine other provinces now have a handbook on what not to do with their electricity sector.
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp...er-been-higher

    We are all going to feel the pain of the carbon tax and contract mismanagement in our bills over the next few years, and long gone Enron won't be to blame. Those costs wont just hammer us personally, they will make Alberta less attractive to do value added manufacturing or processing.

    I think I've quoted enough in my post above from the Alberta Venture magazine article but the article also compared Ontario's disaster to Alberta, so here's a teaser. Click and read the relevant paragraphs please.


    Without coal, how will Alberta get its power in 2030?

    The Notley government is heading into a policy minefield that will have major repercussions on the price of electricity for decades to come

    Apr 13, 2016 by Michael Ganley

    "...
    Aside from that solar success, Ontario is generally not considered a good example of greening your grid. The province’s auditor general recently found ...Electricity prices for... jumped 70 per cent ...


    But Vonesch says he keeps telling people Alberta is not Ontario. “The majority of cost increases that they’ve seen on their bills is... due to...



    http://albertaventure.com/2016/04/wi...et-power-2030/

  92. #192

    Default

    From the Financial Post:

    Real loss to Alberta consumers from power contract cancellations is $600 million, not $2 billion: report
    Geoffrey Morgan | August 9, 2016

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=cd8c-d543

  93. #193

    Default

    ^The idea that we can just magically wave a wand, and see 38.5% of generating capacity replaced with no cost loading onto consumers, ahead of the originally intended 2030 phase out (which was more realistic), and that's before you add in the carbon tax, is dreamland.



    I've heard it already being speculated that our electricity prices are going to triple. Why would you build / invest in a major piece of manufacturing or processing capacity in Alberta, to value add to our resources, if you know that your utility costs are quite likely shoot up like that? Answer - you don't.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-08-2016 at 10:52 AM.

  94. #194

    Default

    Well, we do it with a lot of assets?

    eg. A functional arena is deemed unsuitable and so well before it reaches the end of its useful life, we replace it and everyone applauds.

    BTW, I was against building a new arena but now I see that I was very wrong. Sometimes dumping the old and spending a fortune on the new and improved yields dramatic improvements in multiple ways.

    With dumping coal, I think it's not only premature and costly, I also think several newly emerging carbon caputure technologies could make coal a wonderful resource once again, but who knows, maybe the shift to renewable will generate so much economic activity and revitalization that us naysayers will be left eating our words as I have to regarding our shiny new arena district.
    Last edited by KC; 10-08-2016 at 11:11 AM.

  95. #195

    Default Ontario power woes

    I am not sure if the message in this article is anti renewable energy or a critique of the system set up in Ontario. It seems to be a bit of both mixed together, but I think it is maybe more of a critique of how Ontario did it in particular.

    I suppose we can learn how things were done in various other places and learn from what worked and what didn't. Obviously Ontario is only one example and there are many differences between the Alberta and Ontario power industries I can think of, which were not mentioned in the article as it was really only about Ontario, not Alberta. We do not have expensive nuclear reactors to maintain or decommission and we also do not have a large amount of hydro power. Politically, the Provinces are also different - governed by different political parties and Ontario has also taken a somewhat different approach to dealing with carbon reduction than Alberta.

    Switching from coal generation and other more carbon intensive power to cleaner energy is a global issue. Europe, the US and even China are all dealing with this issue now too, so it's not something unique to Ontario or Alberta.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If you want to see where the policies of the NDP are leading us, you have to look at Ontario:

    The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

    Electricity is cheaper to make than it’s been for a generation, yet Ontarians are paying more than ever. About the only upside is that nine other provinces now have a handbook on what not to do with their electricity sector.
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp...er-been-higher

    We are all going to feel the pain of the carbon tax and contract mismanagement in our bills over the next few years, and long gone Enron won't be to blame. Those costs wont just hammer us personally, they will make Alberta less attractive to do value added manufacturing or processing.

  96. #196

    Default

    ^but, we have costs that Ontario didn't, and many other locations don't.

    - contract breach cost (which is $750m to 2b depending on who is writing article)
    - much more coal being phased out (38% not 2%), that's billions in invested capital to replace / rebuild before its end of life which was going to be 2030
    - the most stringent carbon tax in Canada.

    All of that's not going to happen for free, its going to be in our power bills, and its creating uncertainty which is preventing business from expanding.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-08-2016 at 11:16 AM.

  97. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave View Post
    I am not sure if the message in this article is anti renewable energy or a critique of the system set up in Ontario. It seems to be a bit of both mixed together, but I think it is maybe more of a critique of how Ontario did it in particular.

    I suppose we can learn how things were done in various other places and learn from what worked and what didn't. Obviously Ontario is only one example and there are many differences between the Alberta and Ontario power industries I can think of, which were not mentioned in the article as it was really only about Ontario, not Alberta. We do not have expensive nuclear reactors to maintain or decommission and we also do not have a large amount of hydro power. Politically, the Provinces are also different - governed by different political parties and Ontario has also taken a somewhat different approach to dealing with carbon reduction than Alberta.

    Switching from coal generation and other more carbon intensive power to cleaner energy is a global issue. Europe, the US and even China are all dealing with this issue now too, so it's not something unique to Ontario or Alberta.

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    If you want to see where the policies of the NDP are leading us, you have to look at Ontario:

    The province likes to defend its disastrous electricity policy by saying it did it for the children. These are the same children who are now watching their parents struggle with unaffordable utility bills. And who in a few years will enter the workforce and discover how hard it has become to get full time jobs amid a shrinking industrial job market.

    Electricity is cheaper to make than it’s been for a generation, yet Ontarians are paying more than ever. About the only upside is that nine other provinces now have a handbook on what not to do with their electricity sector.
    http://business.financialpost.com/fp...er-been-higher

    We are all going to feel the pain of the carbon tax and contract mismanagement in our bills over the next few years, and long gone Enron won't be to blame. Those costs wont just hammer us personally, they will make Alberta less attractive to do value added manufacturing or processing.

    As with many things in life, our biases, predudices and even well reasoned positions don't always matter, people simply have to adjust and work with the new realities.



    CALGARY — Tighter environmental regulations for power generation companies are “here to stay,” the CEO of Calgary-based TransAlta Corp. said Tuesday, responding to concerns over the company’s ability to contend with strict new carbon policies in Alberta.

    Environmental policy mechanisms like carbon pricing are “going to be everywhere over the next 10 years, so I don’t think jurisdictions are going to get out of that,” Dawn Farrell said in a conference call with analysts over the company’s second quarter results.

    “I think it’s just really ‘can we bring the best thinking to the discussion here so that Alberta can come out of this with a better mousetrap than really what’s been invented so far,’” she said.
    ...

    http://business.financialpost.com/ne..._lsa=cd8c-d543
    We may as well start viewing the shift to renewables as something akin to the US's massive expenditure shifts for the space program or the buildout of the interstate system. Resistance is futile so make the most of it and hope something good will come out of it.
    Last edited by KC; 10-08-2016 at 11:22 AM.

  98. #198

    Default

    ^I think its silly, industry was transitioning to natural gas anyway, at their expense, e.g. the Sheppard power plant. Now we are going to force to transition to something that will never be very economic in Alberta, versus other places that have hydro which acts as a bank to allow other renewables. The policy should have relied on our best resource / competitive advantage (gas). The end result, is people just won't build in Alberta, they will go where renewables are cheaper, i.e. where there is hydro power, and we are all going to face massively higher power bills.
    Last edited by moahunter; 10-08-2016 at 11:26 AM.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I think its silly, industry was transitioning to natural gas anyway, at their expense, e.g. the Sheppard power plant. Now we are going to force to transition to something that will never be very economic in Alberta, versus other places that have hydro which acts as a bank to allow other renewables. The policy should have relied on our best resource / competitive advantage (gas). The end result, is people just won't build in Alberta, they will go where renewables are cheaper, i.e. where there is hydro power, and we are all going to face massively higher power bills.
    Plus the newest coal plant is as clean as a natural gas plant. However, natural gas isn't clean enough for the future.


    Hydro has huge costs associated with it too. Old dams are a major problem. And don't expect any new dams to get quick approval.

    Alberta has wind and solar potential we can capitalize on.


    On PPAs
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...port-1.3714382
    Last edited by KC; 10-08-2016 at 11:33 AM.

  100. #200

    Default

    Memo to current or future AB gov't: don't sign fixed-rate agreements. Problem solved.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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