| Written by Kathy Bly |
| Wednesday, 13 March 2013 23:09 |
| A move to reduce the speed limit on gravel roads in the County of Lethbridge from 80 km/h to 60 km/h was a topic of debate at last Thursday’s council meeting. While county council did approve first reading of Bylaw 1394, an amendment to Traffic Control Bylaw 1151, it has not been determined when it will consider second and third reading which would then put the speed reduction into affect. The motion to approve first reading of the bylaw was done prior to a presentation later in the meeting by a group of local agriculture businessmen. “The intent of this was the preservation of infrastructure,” said Reeve Lorne Hickey to the group of men gathered to speak against the speed reduction. Kevin Paskal, in a presentation to council, said dropping the speed limit was not going to solve the problem. In a letter to council Rick Paskal said he made an attempt over a two week period to drive on several county gravel roads. He noted there are “definitely challenges” with maintaining the road infrastructure. “I noticed inconsistent grading standards,” he said in his email to council. He questioned whether the county grader operators are trained properly, if the proper processes and procedures are in place and if their performance is audited. He said he was under the impression the current speed on county gravel roads was 100 km/h. He proposed the county post the 80 km/h speed limit on the major county gravel haul roads. He also suggested during the spring thaw the speed for large trucks be reduced, adding to slow all cars and trucks down to 60 was not necessary. He also spoke to the profitability issue businesses in the county will face if they have to reduce their speed, thus adding to the cost of hauling product in and out of the region. In addition to the impact on the road infrastructure, Reeve Hickey also noted the county deals with a lot of complaints about dust hanging in the air and impacting visibility on county gravel roads. “Even truck drivers have a problem seeing in the dust.” Kevin Paskal also questioned the training of grader operators and the need for a consistent approach to road maintenance across the county. “This is about the whole county, not just one industry,” said Reeve Hickey when the debate appeared to focus on the intensive livestock industry. “We’re trying to find a solution,” said Coun. Morris Zeinstra. He said the county needs to protect the infrastructure and make it safe for everyone who use the roads. He noted the county felt a speed reduction on gravel roads from 80 down to 60 km/h would help. Kevin Viergutz, director of municipal services, said the county has 184 km of haul routes designated for heavy truck traffic. This equates to 111 miles and at $1 million a mile to upgrade to paved road standard it would take $111 million for the county to upgrade just the haul routes. Even to upgrade to a base stabilization and chip seal standard it would cost about $250,000 a mile or $28 million. “We can’t ever consider upgrading the remainder of the road network,” he said. Given the impact of weather on county roads, Zeinstra said the county can’t be on every road, every time the moisture hits. He welcomed the idea of sitting down with businesses in the county, a suggestion made by Kevin Paskal to bring the county and the businesses together to discuss the issue and seek other solutions. “We’re strongly opposed to it,” Paskal said of the speed reduction. John Vander Heyden Jr. also addressed council on the issue and said spring is when the roads get damaged most and he couldn’t see the benefit of reducing the speed across the county on all the gravel roads year round. He also questioned if reducing the speed by 20 km/h will impact the dust. He said once a vehicle is traveling at 30 km/h the dust starts moving. He admitted he doesn’t adhere to the current 80 km/h speed limit and doesn’t see how reducing it further will impact driving. “I realize it’s wrong,” he said of his speeding. He suggested the county should look at increasing enforcement of the current speed limit rather than reducing it further. “I would hope there is a better solution then what we’re suggesting here.” He also questioned if there is scientific proof the speed reduction will protect the roads. He also suggested the county should consider a tax rate increase in order to provide additional funding for road maintenance. Reeve Hickey said the farm rate for taxation has not risen in 20 years and the county has no means of increasing revenue to maintain and improve roads anymore than it already does. The county has lobbied the government for a change in the funding formula under the Municipal Sustainability Initiative in order to direct more funds to roads but so far nothing has changed. “We’re in a hard spot too,” he said. Vander Heyden said at the end of the day it is going to cost the taxpayers either way, through increased taxes or through the loss of business if trucks have to slow down to 60 km/h. “Somewhere along the line we have to find something that works for everybody,” said Hickey. Cor Van Raay also addressed the meeting and said the speed reduction will be making criminals of 99 per cent of the drivers on the county roads because no one is going to slow down to 60 km/h. “That makes criminals of us all.” He said the county is responsible for the roads and needs to do a better job of hiring people to work in for the county. “You’re not doing a good job. You want to change the roads to cover up,” said Van Raay. “Everything comes from the top. You guys are going to have to do a better job. Don’t change it to 60 km/h.” Dave Shaw with Palliser Regional Schools, also addressed council and said at 60 km/h the school buses will be “sitting ducks”. “The 80 km/h is not followed.” He said if the county reduces the speed to 60 he will have to instruct his bus drivers to slow down and if they do so they will be passed by other drivers, increasing the danger to school children getting on and off the buses. From a safety aspect, Shaw said he already replaces enough windshields and anticipates that cost will also rise if the speed limit is dropped and the buses are the only ones slowing down. “I’m all for discussing it,” he said in suggesting the county should take a step back on the issue to collect more input from those impacted by the speed reduction. “Safety is going to be an issue.” Darren Van Raay also suggested the most damage done to the roads comes in the spring and usually the roads conditions are self-regulating. Once the roads become soft, drivers have no choice but to slow down. He also questioned the science behind the 20 km/h speed reduction and asked if the county could consider options for reducing costs for grading instead. By the end of last week’s council meeting, the county had not set a date for future discussion of the bylaw, including second and third reading. |
Debate heats up over gravel road speed limit
March 18, 2013 By
Alberta places ad in New York Times to make its case for Keystone XL pipeline
March 18, 2013 By
By Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press March 17, 2013
EDMONTON — The Alberta government, continuing to press its case for the Keystone XL pipeline, took out out an ad in Sunday’s New York Times newspaper, tying the controversial project to core American values and to U.S. pride in its military.
The half-page ad is headlined “Keystone XL: The Choice of Reason.”
It acknowledges the validity of environmental concerns, but stresses the $7-billion pipeline is about much more than that.
“America’s desire to effectively balance strong environmental policy, clean technology development, energy security and plentiful job opportunities for the middle class and returning war veterans mirrors that of the people of Alberta,” reads the $30,000 ad.
“This is why choosing to approve Keystone XL and oil from a neighbour, ally, friend, and responsible energy developer is the choice of reason.”
Stefan Baranski, a spokesman for Premier Alison Redford, said the ad was taken out to counter a New York Times editorial that ran a week ago urging U.S. President Barack Obama to reject the 1,800-kilometre TransCanada (TSX:TRP) line.
“It’s important for Alberta to get the facts on the table as widely as possible,” said Baranski.
“Certainly the Sunday Times is a critically important audience to speak to, and I think Alberta has a good track record, a very good story to tell, and it’s important that we’re out there telling that story at this very critical time.”
Obama is expected to decide the fate of the pipeline in the next few months.
If approved, Keystone XL would take oil from Alberta’s oilsands through the heart of the U.S. Midwest to refineries on the Gulf Coast in Texas for transshipment to consumers around the world.
Alberta and the federal government are urging Obama approve the deal to open up new markets for the oilsands.
A glut of oil due to new finds in North Dakota coupled with pipeline bottlenecks in Canada are squeezing the price of the oilsands product compared with the North American benchmark West Texas Intermediate. That price gap will cost Alberta an estimated $6 billion in lost revenue this year alone.
Keystone proponents, including labour groups and the petroleum industry, got a boost two weeks ago when the U.S. State Department, in a preliminary report, said rejecting Keystone XL would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions or slow down development in the oilsands.
Protesters, meanwhile, have gathered by the thousands in Washington in recent weeks to demand the project be abandoned.
For them, the carbon-intensive oilsands operations are a symbol of greedy, shortsighted thinking. Approving Keystone, they say, encourages producers to pursue high-carbon operations that will boost the greenhouse gases already causing climate problems like higher temperatures, superstorms and severe flooding.
The New York Times, referred to by some as the paper of record in the United States, agreed with that position in its editorial last Sunday.
The Times said Obama must adopt a broader view and take a stand.
A yes to Keystone XL, said the Times, makes it economical to expand the oilsands, resulting in even higher greenhouse gas emissions to go along with more collateral environmental damage like denuded landscapes and polluted waterways.
“In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse. But it will continue to fuel our appetite for oil and add to the carbon load in the atmosphere. There is no need to accept it,” said the editorial.
The Alberta government ad takes pains to make the case for the province’s environmental responsibility. It reiterates previous arguments that Alberta is financing more clean energy projects and is the first North American jurisdiction to charge large emitters $15 a tonne on carbon.
The ad focuses on the economic benefits of Keystone, including 42,100 jobs during the construction phase.
It also makes the case, suggested previously by Redford and others, that the oilsands have become been unfairly scapegoated despite much larger emitters burning coal on both sides of the border and around the world.
“Greenhouse gas emissions from all the oilsands in Alberta, Canada, make up just over one-tenth of one per cent of the world’s emissions,” said the ad.
Provincial officials, however, have previously conceded Alberta isn’t even close to meeting its goals for reducing greenhouse gases. The province has pledged to reduce emissions by 50 megatonnes a year by 2020 but has averaged just over five tonnes a year since 2007.
This is the second time in recent weeks that Redford has stated her case in mass-circulation newspapers in the United States. She made a similar pitch in a guest column in USA Today three weeks ago.
Baranski said they requested a guest column in the Times but were turned down, leading to the decision to take out the ad.
The newspaper offensive is being matched by work on the ground. Redford, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, and federal politicians have been jetting down to Washington in recent weeks to make the case for Keystone.
Redford has been to the U.S. capital twice and is scheduled to return there on April 8th or 9th for three days of meetings with decision makers, said Baranski. A detailed itinerary has not been set, he said.
Thomas Mulcair’s visit to U.S. sparks concern from Alberta Premier Alison Redford
March 13, 2013 By
By JACKIE L. LARSON ,Edmonton Sun
First posted: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 01:32 PM MDT | Updated: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 01:39 PM MDT
Canadian Natutal Resources Minister Joe Oliver isn’t the only leader afraid NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair left facts behind in his travels to Washington D.C. this week.
Premier Alison Redford said Tuesday that Mulcair is dealing in politics, not facts, on the Keystone XL pipeline.
“I think it’s really unfortunate that he would advance this political agenda at a time when getting this project through matters so much to Canadians and I’m not at all surprised that he’s doing it,” Redford said.
Mulcair’s visit to D.C. comes in the wake of Canada’s minister of natural resources, Oliver, who criticized Mulcair’s deputy leader, Megan Leslie, for her attacks on U.S. State Department scientists. The scientists concluded in a February report that Keystone won’t hurt the environment and will be safer than other American pipelines.
In the few months before an expected U.S. presidential decision on the pipeline that will carry oil from Alberta and the Bakken formation in America to the Texas Gulf Coast, eitorials, regulatory process or political leadership sounding off on the Keystone XL need to be fact-based, Redford said.
“Unfortunately we’ve seen that Mr. Mulcair’s not factually based with respect to (the Keystone XL),” Redford said.
“He’s been very consistent, I don’t think that it shows national leadership and I don’t think that he should be doing it.”
@SUNJackieL
Doctors accuse Alberta Premier Alison Redford of giving false information in a video address and robocalls
March 13, 2013 By
By JACKIE L. LARSON ,Edmonton Sun
First posted: Monday, March 11, 2013 06:11 PM MDT | Updated: Monday, March 11, 2013 06:20 PM MDT
A group of 80 medical doctors say Alberta Premier Alison Redford made incorrect statements in a video address and robocalls last week.
Dr. Kerry Pawluski, president of Save Our Medevac said Redford’s assertion her government has acted on all 18 relocation recommendations from the Health Quality Council is just wrong.
“The council recommended that an overpass and dedicated ambulance lane be built on QEII. There were recommendations that traffic lights be synchronized and medical IV pumps and monitors standardized on ambulances to speed patient transfers. None of these recommendations have been implemented,” said Pawluski.
The group is seeking “safer options” to relocating emergency flights from Edmonton’s City Centre Airport to the international airport. They say the extra transport time for patients from northern communities could prove fatal.
Contrary to Redford’s opening statement that “Edmonton plans to close its City Centre Airport on March 15,” the city has set no date for the closure of the airport, Pawluski said.
“The airport will continue to be open for at least another year or longer,” Pawluski said.
The premier’s claim that only five emergency cases per month arrive by medevac is unrealistically low, said Dr. Richard Birkill, community medical director in Lac La Biche.
“Although jeopardizing the lives of 60 patients per year is still too many, I know that Lac La Biche alone sent 120 critical time sensitive patients last year by medevac,” he said.
The doctors want relocation delayed and medical professionals and communities to give input to fixing the relocation plan, a press release said.
Twitter: @SunJackieL
Alberta going deeper in debt, unveils budget
March 11, 2013 By
The Tory government has dug Albertans deeper in debt with the 2013-2014 budget it unveiled Thursday.
It plans to run a deficit of close to $2 billion and then borrow $4.3 billion for infrastructure — roads, schools, and hospitals.
That’s to make up what Finance Minister Doug Horner calls a $6.2 billion “cash requirement.”
“We’re in a deficit — I’m not hiding the fact that we’re in a deficit,” said Horner.
“We are having a tough time here. We could have cut another billion dollars out, but that’s not the responsible thing to do”
An operational deficit of $451 million is expected for 2013-14, followed by surpluses of $1.5 billion and $3.3 billion for 2014-15 and 2015-16.
The Tories are also promising to take out another $2 billion from the sustainability fund to cover the deficit.
There are no increases to taxes, while health care spending is expected to jump by 3% to $17.1 billion.
No extra cash, however, will be available for public-sector pay hikes as asked for by teachers, nurses, and doctors.
There’s also $500 million available towards 50 new schools and 70 school modernizations, as promised earlier by Premier Alison Redford.
But within three years, borrowing for P3s and bonds will put the province $17 billion in the hole before the next election — while a saving scheme tied to the price of bitumen would sock money away at a far more modest clip.
The “old way” of balancing the budget — red ink or black — has been replaced with a “new” way of looking at it, divvied into operational, savings and capital plans, said Horner.
That’s worse than creative accounting, said Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith. “It is deceitful… They’re trying to shuffle things around in the three budgets to hide the true nature of the shortfall … It will take a generation to pay off the Redford debt,” she said.
In the 2013-14 budget, the Tories are again banking on rosier bitumen prices in years to come to help touch up the shrinking Sustainability Fund — renamed the Contingency Fund, projecting the bubble to shrink and leave the province with a surplus in the next three years — not an optimistic projection, Horner said.
But he promised there will be operating surplus and $44 billion net financial assets within three years.
The province is calling Albertans privileged among Canadians for their “net assets per capita” — including in that all the province’s savings accounts like the Heritage Trust Fund and the Contingency Account. And Horner throws into the “net per capita assets” column infrastructure like roads, bridges, schools, hospitals because they can be sold, he said.
2013-14 budget
Operating expense: $36.4 billion, same as 2012-13 forecast
-$15 billion over three years for infrastructure projects
-Operating deficit $451 million
—2011-2012 deficit $4 billion
—2012-2013 deficit minus infrastructure debt $1.97 billion
-Personal Income Tax Revenue: $10 billion, up from $9.6 billion last year
-Corporate income tax revenue: $4.8 billion, slightly down
-Tax Revenue: $19 billion, up from $18.6 billion
-Contingency Account (former Sustainability Fund) goal: $5.6 billion or 15% of operational revenue
-“Net financial assets” projected in 3 years: $44B
-More than $24 billion set aside in savings over next three years
-Bitumen revenue forecast based on WTI (Western Texas Intermediate) oil forecast of $92.50, WCS (Western Canadian Select) forecast of $68.21
-Economic growth forecast of 2.9% in 2013
Spending includes:
-$60 million for three years for Family Care Clinics
-$500 million for 50 new schools and 70 modernized school projects
Changes:
-Seniors will have to have lived in Canada 10 years before getting provincial benefits
-Zero raises for public sector for three years includes teachers, doctors
-New: 44-cent “fee” for mobile phone users that will go toward 911 call centres
-Cut: $300 million for twinning, improvements on Hwy. 881 to Fort McMurray
Braid: Alison Redford should recall promise to balance budget – Alberta premier is waffling on debt, deficits
March 11, 2013 By
By Don Braid, Calgary Herald March 7, 2013
EDMONTON — Premiers usually keep their mouths shut the day before a budget is released. Not Alison Redford.
On Wednesday, the premier not only gave a preview, but tried to radically alter an entire province’s understanding of debt and deficits.
They are not bad things, she suggested. In fact, they can be actively good. To fixate on them in a negative way is downright backward.
“We have seen for the last 15 years in this province what I think is a parochial debate about words like debt and deficit,” she said after a speech to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce.
Former premier Ralph Klein, who certainly did fixate on debt, “was a great premier but he was premier more than 20 years ago,” Redford said.
Actually, he remained premier until only six years ago, when the province had no debt and was awash in surplus cash. That was the state of Alberta when he walked out of office in December 2006.
But hey, forget about that.
In the modern era we embrace debt because, well, everybody else does. It’s the worldly thing to do.
“Times have changed,” says Redford. “Our province has changed, international markets have changed … the way that the world thinks about investing in infrastructure is different now.”
I’m not sure the world has changed all that much, but something sure has.
Redford and her PCs have changed their tune. They have learned to love the very thing they hated only a few short months ago.
On budget day in 2012, they sounded a great deal like Klein, boasting that they were about to eliminate deficits and keep Alberta debt-free.
“We are forecasting a return to a balanced budget in the 2013-14 fiscal year, as our Premier (Redford) committed, with a projected surplus of nearly $1 billion,” then-treasurer Ron Liepert said proudly on Feb. 9, 2012.
He added an astonishing prediction: “By 2014-15, we are forecasting a surplus of $5.2 billion.”
None of that will happen now.
The 2013-14 deficit, to be unveiled Thursday, will likely be more than $3 billion.
The fiscal year ending March 31 is also set to clock in with a deficit above $3 billion. Any surplus in the projected bonanza year, 2014-15, seems unlikely.
What is certain, though, is that a growing billow of debt will flow from Redford’s decision to borrow heavily for infrastructure.
So what we’ve got here, folks, is a classic broken promise. There are two ways to deal with that — try again to keep the promise, or pretend it was never such a big deal in the first place.
If the second option is chosen, it can be helped along by ridiculing the people who believed in the promise, making them look old-fashioned and out of touch, suggesting they have to catch up with the sophisticated world out there.
Asked about this, NDP Leader Brian Mason didn’t bother with deep analysis. He just said: “She sounds like a snob to me.”
The problem with Redford’s line is that people do have memories. They’ll remember that she promised to balance the books both as a leadership candidate and a campaigning premier.
Many voters — including some who abandoned Wildrose at the end of last year’s election campaign— took comfort in that pledge. They knew Redford was big on maintaining services, but also counted on her to get rid of deficits.
Now, circumstances have changed.
The government is poor while the economy thrives. And the premier reacts not only by changing policy — her own policy — but by saying the whole debt and deficit thing was a “parochial debate” all along.
Whatever they have in the budget, this is one strange way to introduce it.
Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
How the NEB causes Pipeline Spills
March 7, 2013 By
Why do Pipeline Spills Happen and Cleanups Drag On? Because under the current system, they can.
By Dave Core
We can’t say we’re shocked. Or even surprised.
The story linked to is by a publication not especially crazy about the oil sands, or even the use of oil at all.
But it is nonetheless a thorough report detailing damage done to the local ecosystem and even business community as a result of Enbridge’s calamitous Kalamazoo oil spill a few summers ago.
Two inescapable conclusions can be drawn, but weren’t, by the reporter and those she quoted: regulatory regimes not only can’t prevent pipeline spills, they can’t enforce cleanup after, either. Click here to read more.
Stop Protecting Pipelines from Liability: Protect Landowner Property Rights Instead.
By CAEPLA Staff
Hate to say we told you so.
But CAEPLA has been arguing for years that regulators don’t really act in the public interest but rather serve to protect particular industries.
Such as the National Energy Board (NEB) protecting pipelines.
Confirmation of this point of view came this week from the government itself. That’s right — the same government that sponsors the NEB.
Turns out liability limits set for environmental catastrophes – such as, for instance, a serious pipeline spill – have been capped to reduce the exposure of polluting corporations to the real costs of cleanups. Click here to read the whole article.
Does Anybody Trust Pipeline Companies? Public Wants Assurance, Landowners Need Insurance.
By Dave Core
Well, I have pipelines in my backyard and I cannot trust the pipeline companies — or the government and its regulator, the National Energy Board. None will sign an iron clad contract that includes the oversight and discipline of insurance for these pipelines.
Worse, the NEB can make changes to agreements – “deals” we are forced to sign — at any time simply by changing the regulations, which they have done many times. Click here to read more.
Worse, the NEB can make changes to agreements – “deals” we are forced to sign — at any time simply by changing the regulations, which they have done many times. Click here to read more.
Thomson: Prepare for Alberta’s ‘fudge it’ budget
March 4, 2013 By
By Graham Thomson, Edmonton Journal March 2, 2013
EDMONTON – Premier Alison Redford will have reason to celebrate next Thursday when the government unveils the provincial budget.
March 7, after all, is her birthday. She’ll be 48.
Whether Albertans will be in a mood to celebrate is a whole different matter. To listen to the doom and gloom emanating from the legislature the past few weeks, this will be the toughest budget in years. There’ll be cuts to some government services and many who rely on government paycheques are facing a wage freeze or worse.
Given that Redford had made an election commitment to balance the books in 2013-14, you can call this the “broken-promise budget.”
Things are so dire that the government delayed the opening of the spring sitting, scrapped the speech from the throne and had the premier deliver a televised fireside chat on Jan. 24 to warn us of bad news to come.
“The Alberta government will collect about six billion dollars less in revenue this year alone,” said Redford in her state-of-the-province address, which was akin to the U.S. president telling the world we’re about to be hit by an asteroid — only instead of wiping out all life on earth, our fiscal Armageddon would obliterate every school building and teacher in Alberta, theoretically. “To put that in context, that’s equivalent to all of our government’s spending on education each year,” is how Redford put it.
Of course, Redford wasn’t talking about shutting down our education system. She wanted Albertans to understand what it means to lose $6 billion worth of budget revenues. She even helpfully gave a name to the fiscal fireball on a collision course with her budget: the “bitumen bubble.”
The government is receiving much less money from energy royalties because oil companies are receiving much less money for the bitumen produced from the oilsands. The government initially thought it would collect a total of $13.4 billion in revenues from non-renewable resources in the 2013-14 fiscal year. Now, it’s looking at getting maybe $7.4 billion.
So, how will the government deal with that $6-billion hole?
It has three options: paper over the hole by borrowing money; fill in the hole by raising taxes; or shrink the hole through cuts to spending.
Redford has already been talking about borrowing money for capital projects but she cannot borrow her way out of a $6-billion hole without plunging a proudly debt-free province back into debt.
She has rejected tax hikes out of hand, which severely restricts her ability to increase government revenues.
That leaves cuts. But Redford has said they won’t be massive. More of a scalpel approach than a chainsaw. Redford will keep spending on the priority areas of health and basic education, although an anticipated 4.5 per cent hike for health, for example, will be scaled back to around two or three per cent.
But keep in mind that even if health and K-12 education received no funding increase this year, those departments will still account for $23-billion worth of government spending (in 2012-13, education and health accounted for 55 per cent of the $41-billion budget).
Redford is expected to give more money to municipalities — and she’s been telling reporters she is focused on supporting non-oil sector industries such as agriculture, health research and green technologies.
Rather than deep, across-the-board cuts, Redford will try to hold the line on spending. As she said vaguely on Jan. 24, “some programs and services will change, especially those that are not sustainable over the long term.” It’s widely expected, for example, the government will chop the $7-million Summer Temporary Employment Program that provides summer jobs for about 3,000 students every year.
There’ll be wage freezes for teachers and less money for doctors — and labour unrest for months to come as nurses and civil servants get into contract talks — and the government has already announced a three-year wage freeze for civil service managers that’ll save about $50 million.
The cuts and freezes, though, are largely symbolic.
Without massive borrowing, or tax hikes or significant cuts to government spending, the numbers don’t add up to $6 billion.
That’s why opposition politicians are convinced the government will take option four: fudge the budget figures.
First of all, the government will use up all the money in the province’s savings plan. Just four years ago the Sustainability Fund contained $17 billion. Today, the province’s economic cushion has maybe $3 billion left. At this rate, that cushion will be of the whoopee variety in a matter of months.
But even using up the $3 billion in the fund will still leave the budget billions of dollars short.
So, let the fudging begin.
One scenario has the government dividing the budget into two parts: operating and capital. It borrows billions of dollars for capital projects which frees up money to pay for the day-to-day operating of the province, thus allowing the government to say it has “balanced” the operating budget. At the same time, the government amortizes the payments for capital projects over decades, which means it can downplay the cost of the projects in any one year. Sort of like saying the $100,000 mortgage on your house is really only $10,000 because that’s how much you’ll pay toward the mortgage this year.
To make things even more complicated, the government will introduce a third facet into the budget: savings.
“As we make the tough, but thoughtful decisions to live within our means,” Redford said in her Armageddon speech Jan. 24, “we have a plan to once again begin investing a portion of our resource revenue in the Heritage Fund — the first time that will have happened in over 25 years.”
It’s an oxymoron — to be talking about saving money when you don’t have any money to save. However, announcing a new savings plan is the government’s way to help fend off criticisms that it has just wiped out our old savings plan.
And then there’s a final ace up Redford’s sleeve: the economy.
Despite the fiscal problems facing a government overly dependent on volatile oil revenue, the province’s economy is growing at twice the national average. Employment is up, so are housing starts. As a news release from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business announced on Thursday, Alberta’s entrepreneurs “remain the most confident in Canada about their economy and their future success.”
Redford might be about to unveil a broken-promise budget but Albertans are a forgiving lot if they have jobs to go to and new trucks to get them there — and if they don’t see any major disruption in government services they’ve come to expect, such as decent health care and new schools.
By holding the line on spending in some areas, spending selectively more in other areas, using up the last of our savings, and fudging the figures, Redford’s budget on Thursday might not look as bad as she’s led us to expect. It’s the old political bait and switch — warn people they’re about to be hit by a 10-per-cent tax hike and they’ll be happily relieved when it’s “only” five per cent.
Not that there’s any talk of tax hikes in this budget.
That might come next year, though. If the “bitumen bubble” continues to play havoc with government revenues and if the government is not prepared to drastically cut spending, it will have few options but to raise taxes.
If that happens and the government is forced to introduce a tax-reform budget in 2014, I’m willing to make one fearless prediction: they won’t introduce it on the premier’s birthday.
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal
Power-line projects thrown open to competitive bidding process
February 25, 2013 By
Calgary Herald
Regulation change necessary to expand process
By Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald February 16, 2013
The Alberta Utilities Commission has ruled the construction and operation of two new major power lines must be contracted out through a competitive bidding process, but critics who
support the change say it’s too little and too late.
The decision announced late Thursday by the government-appointed commission applies only to two critical transmission infrastructure projects planned for the Fort McMurray area and intertie
lines – not the two controversial high-voltage north-south lines already approved at a cost of $3 billion or the Edmonton-area Heartland project.
“This is a case of the PC government closing the barn door once the horses have gone,” said NDP Leader Brian Mason.
The application was brought forward by another arms-length government agency, the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), in 2011. AESO spokeswoman Ally Taylor said the agency is
reviewing the decision to see if it satisfies the original intent of introducing competition to Alberta’s transmission sector.
“It was intended to be a generic process that can be used for other future projects,” she said.
“Certainly the intent was not just to design it for one project, or even two, but beyond that.”
The commission found the scope of the application of the competitive process cannot be expanded to include all major infrastructure projects that are not critical transmission
infrastructure projects without changes to the Electric Utilities Act and transmission regulations.
But Colette Cherkerda, executive director of Alberta Direct Connect Consumer Association, urged the government to make amendments to enable the competitive process to be used on other
large transmission projects to help control costs.
“Directionally, I think it is good in that it provides an opportunity to bring some competitive pressures to bear on transmission costs,” she said.
Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) spokesman Jim Law said that if desired, with a change in legislation, AESO could come forward with the plan as a basis for a more generic model for
other major power line projects.
But Alberta Energy spokesman Mike Deising said the government has no plan to change the law or bring forward new legislation to do that.
“At this point it is just the two Fort McMurray lines,” he said.
“We will wait to see how this process unfolds.”
Vittoria Bellissimo, executive director of the Industrial Power Consumers Association of Alberta, said the industry group is concerned such a long and expensive development process will be used only on the two lines. But she said allowing more proponents to bid on the two projects is a positive feature. “Alberta would do well to have new Transmission Facility Owners competing against the incumbents,” she said. “We want everyone to sharpen their pencils and work toward reducing the delivered cost of electricity for ratepayers.
AltaLink, which is building one of the north-south lines, said it was looking forward to participating in the competitive process. “We’ve been keeping the lights on in Alberta – between us and our predecessor – for the last 100
years so we’re well qualified to continue to do it in a competitive world,” said spokesman Scott Schreiner.
“The goal is to deliver safe, reliable and affordable electricity to everybody in Alberta and I think that’s going to continue.”
Officials at ATCO, which is building the second north-south line, were not available for comment.
Land rights lawyer Keith Wilson said the AUC ruling follows the theme of other recent electricity file decisions by the provincial government. Like the repeal of Bill 50, which gave cabinet arbitrary power to approve the critical transmission infrastructure without a public hearing to determine if they were necessary, it comes after most of the decisions have been made and the money has already been spent, he said. He, too, urged the government to amend the law to enable competitive bidding on all major future transmission projects.
“They are the government,” he noted. “They have the key to the lawmaking machine in the legislature. Save us these billions of dollars.”
______________________________________________________________________________
For more Articles go to website: AlbertaLandownersCouncil.com
Bill 50 Fall Out
February 25, 2013 By
Everyone,
Over the last two years the Alberta Landowners Council and thousands of you have been working hard to get the word out about the harmful effects of new Alberta Government laws.
Bill 50 Fall Out
You will all recall the many public information meetings, fanouts, letters to the editor, media coverage and even formal written submissions we made about Bill 50 and how the massive transmission line overbuild will impact power rates and our economy. Despite all of the mounting evidence showing that Bill 50 was going to be a wreck for Alberta, the government ignored the experts and marched forward committing more and more of our money to useless mega-transmission lines.
With all of that in mind, it was a little strange to read the Edmonton Journal last week about what a new government report has found about the impact of the Bill 50 transmission lines on power rates and our economy. Yes, you guessed it. Just like we were saying: the lines will lead to a huge increase in power rates and drive value-added industries out of Alberta.
We have attached the Edmonton Journal article and pasted it below as well as the link:
Also last week, right after the Edmonton Journal exposed the government report confirming what the ALC has been saying all along was true, the government announced that it would put in some cost controls through a ‘competitive procurement process’. While this sounds good in theory, the Calgary Herald news story attached explains why it is simply too little too late.
But what both of these news stories show is the importance of what the ALC and each of you have been doing. We kept the issue alive and we kept it in the media in order to pressure the government.
This brings us to the Shaw-Heartland Court of Appeal case. While we would have preferred to have won in court and stopped all of the Bill 50 lines, we need to remember that one of the goals of launching the appeal was to keep the pressure on the government and to expose the folly of Bill 50 in the media. We did that. The Court of Appeal confirmed that Bill 50 meant that the government used its law-making powers to remove all of the checks and balances from the regulatory system. The court ruled that Bill 50 meant that the Cabinet can approve billions of dollars in transmission lines without doing a needs assessment and without cost controls. In so doing, we were able to keep the issue in the media which has led to the news stories from last week.
________________________________________
Important Update re: Shaw-Heartland Appeal
Last year, the Alberta Landowners Council felt that it was extremely important to appeal the AUC’s decision to continue with the unneeded Bill 50 Heartland Transmission line. We also knew that this Appeal would have a direct bearing on the outcome of the EATL and WATL transmission lines (also Bill 50 lines).
Many of you made donations to help fund the Court of Appeal challenge in the Shaw case. Stuart and Karen Shaw agreed to put their names and faces forward to make the appeal happen.
One of the dangers for anyone who is courageous enough to put their name on appeal papers is that at the end of the process, that person can get stuck with paying “court costs” if the appeal does not succeed.
We told the Shaws that we would not expose them to this risk given that they were doing all Albertans a service by putting their names on the appeal.
To protect them, our lawyer Keith Wilson, waived some of his fees and we set up a contingency fund of $8,000 to cover the estimated court costs in case we lost the appeal.
Well, the cost claims are starting to arrive from the utility companies. Because of the complexity of the appeal and the lengthy court processes, it appears that the total cost claim may reach $24,000. Hence, we are making a further appeal for donations to close the gap between our $8,000 contingency fund balance and the amount the Shaws may be exposed to have to pay.
The Shaws represented all of us who wanted to stop this boondoggle, so Alberta Landowners Council is asking for your financial help so that we can protect the Shaws.
We are counting on your donations, big or small. Thank you.
Donations can be made online, at AlbertaLandownersCouncil.com , or by mailing us a cheque with your donation to:
Alberta Landowners Council
55017 Range Road 262
Sturgeon County, AB
T8T 1A4
__________________________________________
Byline TV Interview
As promised, we have put the Sun Media TV “Byline” Brian Lilley interview of Keith Wilson up on our website under “videos” or by going to the following link:
Colleen Boddez
Alberta Landowners Council
__________________________________________________
Transmission charges set to double, report warns
Residential bills could jump by up to $20 per month
Building two 500-kilovolt north-south power lines in Alberta could increase the transmission “wire” costs from $14 per megawatt-hour in 2011 to about $32 by 2018.
Photograph by: Steve Hockstein , Bloomberg
By Darcy Henton, Calgary Herald February 14, 2013
The cost of constructing transmission lines will more than double the transmission charges on residential electricity bills and could drive some commercial and industrial users out of the province, says a report prepared for the Alberta Utilities Commission.
The report by the industry experts on a transmission cost recovery subcommittee warns that transmission “wire” costs are forecast to increase from $14 per megawatt-hour in 2011 to about $32 by 2018.
While that could boost transmission costs on residential bills $15 to $20 per month, large industries could see their bills jump to several hundred thousand dollars monthly – and that could have an even greater impact on households, says the report.
The subcommittee, chaired by Henry Yip, says higher transmission costs are difficult for some customers to absorb.
“Higher transmission wire costs may result in load customers reducing their dependence on the transmission grid with behind-the-fence (cogeneration) or by relocating outside of Alberta,” the report says. “If this were to occur, it would result in an increased cost burden on the remaining ratepayers.”
Industrial users pay 80 per cent of the cost of transmission in Alberta.
The report is posted on the Alberta Energy website, but the provincial government said it was not prepared or approved on its behalf, nor is it a statement of policy.
Wildrose utilities critic Joe Anglin said the costs of the controversial high-voltage transmission lines will have a much larger impact on residential consumers than the government stated when cabinet approved the lines without a cost analysis or public hearings to determine whether they were necessary.
“What is clear from the report is the government did not tell us the truth or didn’t know the truth,” he said. “They always maintained that the transmission lines were not going to cost that much … nothing more than the cost of a cup of coffee on your monthly bill. Well, that’s not what this report is saying. The report is saying we have to mitigate these costs and we can’t pay them off like we normally do because they are too outrageous.”
Last February, the government’s panel of experts forecast the $3-billion cost of two major 500-kilovolt DC north-south power lines would add about $3 a month for residential consumers and $3.75 per megawatt-hour for industrial consumers.
However, the cost of all critical transmission lines is forecast to top $8 billion and the total planned transmission infrastructure costs top $15 billion.
Alberta Energy spokeswoman Janice Schroeder said the provincial government won’t respond to the report, but it does question the forecast costs.
“As is so often the case with financial information, the data used in the model is based on information available at a particular point in time,” she said in an email. “They should not be considered official forecasts of future costs. The government will not be using the estimates.”
But Sheldon Fulton, a subcommittee member, said the costs were based on a model created by the Alberta Electric System Operator.
“They may not want to use them, but that’s the most recently available estimate as to what the cost impacts will be and it’s all data provided by the Alberta Electric System Operator and the transmission facility operators,” he said. “The rates will go from $8 to $32. It will be a $21 increase per bill.”
Fulton said it was the magnitude of those costs that triggered the formation of the subcommittee to look at options to reduce the impact or spread them out over 40 years since the current system would see the costs heavily front-loaded on today’s ratepayers.
It came up with seven options, including government loans or loan guarantees, but highlighted three that would likely have the largest impact on deferring immediate costs.
The committee endorsed the use of a fixed-price cap as an option, as well as fixed-term deferral account mechanism. It also suggested funds could be drawn from climate change and carbon capture and storage programs to partly finance transmission lines to support wind farms in southern Alberta.
It estimated a rate cap would reduce household bills by $5 monthly, but could cut large industrial monthly bills by as much as $157,000.
Alberta Utilities Commission spokesman Jim Law said the report will be one piece of information the commission will consider when it develops a plan to reduce the immediate impact of the critical transmission projects underway.
“What weight it is given remains to be seen,” he said in an email. “We expect to hear from many interested parties directly once we determine what kind of process we want to use. They will have views of their own and some will undoubtedly want to comment on the report.”
David Gray, former executive director in the office of the province’s Utility Consumers Advocate, said it’s ironic the Alberta Utilities Commission now has to mitigate the costs related to the cabinet decision to proceed with two 500-kilovolt transmission lines against the arguments of a long list of consumer groups and academics who said it was an expensive overbuild that could hurt Alberta businesses.
“The real story here is how did a $750-million transmission line that was necessary become a $3.5 billion make-work project,” he said.
“The discussion around price caps and other means of relocating the costs aren’t going to change the costs very much. You can fudge it a bit but there’s no free lunch.”
______________________________________________________________________________
For this Article and more go to website: AlbertaLandownersCouncil.com