# Direct Energy can eat my socks!!!



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Has anyone been bothered by Direct Energy lately?
We have a locked in contract of a fixed rate and lately Direct Energy has been
calling us night and day trying to get us to redo our contract.

Talk about a bunch of carpet baggers,
There is no way we are going to redo our contract.

Jerks

D tptptptp


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i had one of those idiots come to my door - sent him packing in a hurry


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Yeah, I've had them bugging me to switch to a fixed contract. Them and every other Tom, Dick, and... I guess it's good I didn't take them up on their offer. It sounds as bad as them phoning me to see if I want a coverage plan on my 2-year old furnace that is warranteed for 5 years. They installed the furnace. They know darn well it's warranteed for 5 years. Their own installer told me not to get a coverage plan until the 5th year and YET, they keep phoning me every few months.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What could they possibly be using as a carrot to try to convince you to do that?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

What's their problem with the fixed contract you have? Did they "accidentally" sign you up for a way too low rate or something?   

*My* personal pet peeve is Telus... they call me often so they say "just to check up with me and make sure I've got what I need"... what I've got is a good long distance plan that was only available for a short while that they would love to see me drop...


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Be careful. We have a friend who refused to renegotiate, so they simply did it unilaterally, and cut off his gas with no notice when he refused to pay. Be VERY careful with Direct Energy!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

You're kidding! What ever happened to "breach of contract!!??! They can sure get you if you do something they don't like while under contract.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I think that Direct Energy thinks it has an obligation to go around and not only tell
people that they have taken over the Enbridge contracts but also to try and get as many people
as they can to redo their contracts in their own letterhead, Whether that is to their
advantage or the consumers doesn't seem to matter to them. (Idiots)

I think they should just wait until the Enbridge contracts expire and then send out notices.
This door to door crap and telephone hounding is just plain stupid.

D


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> You're kidding! What ever happened to "breach of contract!!??! They can sure get you if you do something they don't like while under contract.


In the middle of winter you don't really have time to fight it in court. You just do whatever is necessary to stop your house and family from freezing. In this case, that involved not only paying a hefty "reconnction" penalty fee, but also signing away your rights to complain. I imagine that our friend could still have taken them to court, mind you.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

RevMatt said:


> In the middle of winter you don't really have time to fight it in court. You just do whatever is necessary to stop your house and family from freezing. In this case, that involved not only paying a hefty "reconnction" penalty fee, but also signing away your rights to complain. I imagine that our friend could still have taken them to court, mind you.


ah thank goodness for de-regulation
i'm sure when the contract is good for the company they wouldn't be bothering you to "re-do it", but when a "contract" does better for the consumer - time to re-negotiate
reminds me a little bit of the US and NAFTA
market forces and private enterprise are always on the side of the consumer - NOT !


----------



## rondini (Dec 6, 2001)

Direct Energy are lying crooks. If you even show them your current gas bill at the door, that is considered permission to switch you to them. We have stuck with Union Gas (and variable gas pricing) as our supplier and invariably do better in the long run. What people seem to miss is that Union Gas sells the gas itself for what they pay for it. They make their money on delivery and storage. So how does Direct Energy make any money except by marking up the gas itself, or doing better than you can in playing the gas market. Which they can most likely do. I will stick with paying Union Gas and let them negotitiate prices in my interest. We have even received rebates from them.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

*sigh**... Socialism and Communism are not the same thing either... 

Here in Calgary... I didn't have a lot of choice about "switching" to Direct Energy for Nat. Gas... we used to have Atco... but they sold out to D.E. so... as they say... that was that.

What rotted my socks was that I pay the equalized payments so as to make it easier on my budget by paying the same amount every month all year long... about a year ago that rate went from $87/month to $161/month and essentially threw my whole budget out of whack.

I "think" I can contract with another company to supply my Nat. Gas... but I wouldn't have the first clue as to what's best...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> *sigh**... Socialism and Communism are not the same thing either...
> .....
> Here in Calgary... I didn't have a lot of choice about "switching" to Direct Energy for Nat. Gas... we used to have Atco... but they sold out to D.E. so... as they say... that was that.
> .....
> ...


True, but neither one is a good idea.  
.....
Direct Energy offers regulated and unregulated service in Alberta. Atco still runs the pipes. 

You were probably automatically moved to their regulated option when they purchased the rights from Atco. 
.....
Equalized payments hide underlying price and volume movements (your gas price changes monthly; in Ontario it's quarterly and calculated in a less volatile way) so equal-payment plans should be carefully tracked if you want to avoid surprises. Sorry, I know the advice is a little late.  

You can contract with another company, like Enmax, but the same thing applies that was already mentioned: regulated service has no price markup so in a contract you're paying for the stability like fixed interest rates on a mortgage.

You may get lucky (I know some people who had $4/GJ contracts) or you may not. It's a tough choice. Last I checked, you would still get the government rebates so, strangely enough, when market prices go up your price can go down (fixed rate minus the increasing rebate); very odd. Bad economics, popular practice.
....

This site is useful:
http://www.customerchoice.gov.ab.ca/


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Does this not strike anyone as a completely artifical market? We've had this discussion before...

How can any greater efficieny bed had by having multple energy remarketers all buying from the same source? Just another example of inefficiency brought on by privatization.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The remarketers can attain greater efficiency by reading the market better than others. They're glorified commodities buyers. However, it's impossible to achieve the type of efficiency offered by capitalism when large territories are carved ip and given to various companies by government agencies, and when prices are approved by government agencies. Many of these companies will be swept from the market, but the "invisible hand" moves much more slowly in a heavily regulated industry,


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> The remarketers can attain greater efficiency by reading the market better than others. They're glorified commodities buyers. However, it's impossible to achieve the type of efficiency offered by capitalism when large territories are carved ip and given to various companies by government agencies, and when prices are approved by government agencies. Many of these companies will be swept from the market, but the "invisible hand" moves much more slowly in a heavily regulated industry,


I wonder how former customers and employees of Enron would feel about your commentary on capitalism's "efficiency."

The only thing Enron was efficient about was making profit regardless of the cost to its customers or eventually its employees.

(damn this using uppercase for MF's benefit is giving me carpal tunnel syndrome)


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The remarketers can attain greater efficiency by reading the market better than others. They're glorified commodities buyers. However, it's impossible to achieve the type of efficiency offered by capitalism when large territories are carved ip and given to various companies by government agencies, and when prices are approved by government agencies. Many of these companies will be swept from the market, but the "invisible hand" moves much more slowly in a heavily regulated industry,


Yeah I have to second Macspectrum's view on this. Enron is the exact example why privatization of a "PUBLIC" utility is a bad thing.

By your own argument, given that there is one producer who provides the natural gas and one pipe to transport the gas from the source to the consumer... (face it there is only one pipe bringing gas to my house)... Eventually, competition being what it is you will eventually have one remarketer serving the market (unless of course you provide government regulation and subsidies to keep the less competitive options afloat). This is exactly why it shouldn't have been privatized in the first place.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> By your own argument, given that there is one producer who provides the natural gas and one pipe to transport the gas from the source to the consumer... (face it there is only one pipe bringing gas to my house)...


There are many producers. The local pipeline is a natural monopoly but the supply in that pipe need not be. 

As for proof-by-Enron; let's also point out one government failure as proof for no government? Nah, let's not.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the scale of the failure and number of people affected is huge
we're not talking about a few less/extra timbits in your 20 pack


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> the scale of the failure and number of people affected is huge
> we're not talking about a few less/extra timbits in your 20 pack


Huge like Ontario's power debt and legacy of wasting energy? Huge like $800 billion dollars in debt? Huge like a CPP program that was used as a pork-barrel fund while deficits were ramping up? 

There are many examples of government failure and waste and many more that can't be measured, but it's still a good thing to have. There are many examples of corporate failure and waste, but they're still a good thing to have. Shockingly, there's no single answer. Whodathunkit?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dreambird said:


> What rotted my socks was that I pay the equalized payments so as to make it easier on my budget by paying the same amount every month all year long... about a year ago that rate went from $87/month to $161/month and essentially threw my whole budget out of whack.
> 
> I "think" I can contract with another company to supply my Nat. Gas... but I wouldn't have the first clue as to what's best...


Same here in Edmonton area. Mine went from $91/month to $189/month. Crooked #$%^&s.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Macspectrum and MacFury - Do you mind taking the pissing contest out of the sandbox? I've removed the post since they do nothing but derail the trhead.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Chealion: I don't mind at all when you remove them. In fact, responding to some of those posts is the only way to get them taken off.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> There are many producers. The local pipeline is a natural monopoly but the supply in that pipe need not be.


Beej, if for a second you were suggesting that I could choose my producer of natural gas than that argument has some value. I cannot. Regardless of how many producers are providing the supply of natural gas the current system basically treats that as one big pool once it hits those pipes.



Beej said:


> http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2006/05/01/loonie-060501.html
> As for proof-by-Enron; let's also point out one government failure as proof for no government? Nah, let's not.


Care to elaborate on that one?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Beej, if for a second you were suggesting that I could choose my producer of natural gas than that argument has some value. I cannot. Regardless of how many producers are providing the supply of natural gas the current system basically treats that as one big pool once it hits those pipes.
> 
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate on that one?


Just because you can't directly contract with producers (large consumers can) doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Because your use is so small, 'aggregators' are needed; this is not unique to energy.

It is only contractually 'one big pool' if the regulations assume it to be so. Physically, the molecules are 'one big pool' but who is responsible for your demand need not be. That is an artificial concealing of risk and fluctuation. There are many ways to do this and, from experience, some consumers are so jittery and prone to anger that it just isn't worth the trouble. Leave it regulated and let them believe that's a good thing. Hidden costs are, after all, more acceptable than facing real risks. If the collective covers the risk, so many feel better that we may as well let them.

As for the second point, if you are a proof-by-Enron follower, good for you. I won't convince you otherwise, just as the proof-by-sponsorship-scandal folks won't be moved. I've provided examples of how ridiculous that "logic" is. That "logic" would also lead to the following: Ontario governments racked up a huge energy debt therefore government should never touch energy. Same logic, but most don't like it being applied against their personal feelings. It's a very one-sided style of "logic". I don't consider either myopic vision as relevant.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Chealion: I don't mind at all when you remove them. In fact, responding to some of those posts is the only way to get them taken off.


How about ignoring them? Seems like you like pissing matches....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Just because you can't directly contract with producers (large consumers can) doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Because your use is so small, 'aggregators' are needed; this is not unique to energy.


It also happens with internet bandwidth - T1s and such.
What these "aggregators" do is buy in bulk and resell to you factoring part of the discount they get. In the end, the provider is usually Bell. Have a problem, they will send Bell technicians... Is it a good thing? Well, the is very little competition in actuality...


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Just because you can't directly contract with producers (large consumers can) doesn't mean it isn't relevant. Because your use is so small, 'aggregators' are needed; this is not unique to energy.
> 
> It is only contractually 'one big pool' if the regulations assume it to be so. Physically, the molecules are 'one big pool' but who is responsible for your demand need not be. That is an artificial concealing of risk and fluctuation. There are many ways to do this and, from experience, some consumers are so jittery and prone to anger that it just isn't worth the trouble. Leave it regulated and let them believe that's a good thing. Hidden costs are, after all, more acceptable than facing real risks. If the collective covers the risk, so many feel better that we may as well let them.


Time out... If my use is so small that "agregators" are needed how is that in anyway different from having a single producer of gas to me? So long as I cannot choose which producer provide me my gas it is effectively a single source as far as I am concerned.

Energy remarketers have almost zero input in the actually physical process of providing me my natural gas. yet for some they are 100% in control of the cost as represented to me. How is this more efficient? 

I've stated time and time again, and yet I have not heard a single convincing argument in favour of energy remarketing and how it could possibly be more efficient than a single source public utility approach to distribution and costing.

It's is pretty basic... If an energy remarketer sells energy at below cost (which sometimes they have to do to compete) that represents and loss leader, they have no value add to make up the difference. Eventually what will happen is that more and more competitors will fail resulting in an effective monopoloy in energy remarketing.



Beej said:


> As for the second point, if you are a proof-by-Enron follower, good for you. I won't convince you otherwise, just as the proof-by-sponsorship-scandal folks won't be moved. I've provided examples of how ridiculous that "logic" is. That "logic" would also lead to the following: Ontario governments racked up a huge energy debt therefore government should never touch energy. Same logic, but most don't like it being applied against their personal feelings. It's a very one-sided style of "logic". I don't consider either myopic vision as relevant.


The Ontario energy debt is an other example of meddling in a "public" utility. It is well documented that US consultants brought in during the Harris years brought about much of that debt in the way that they handled the refurbishing of the Nuclear plants in Ontario. My neighbour works for OPG at Pickering and he is quite clear what hapened when they brought several perfectly good reactors offline for "refurbishing"... But I digress.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> As for the second point, if you are a proof-by-Enron follower, good for you. I won't convince you otherwise, just as the proof-by-sponsorship-scandal folks won't be moved. I've provided examples of how ridiculous that "logic" is. That "logic" would also lead to the following: Ontario governments racked up a huge energy debt therefore government should never touch energy. Same logic, but most don't like it being applied against their personal feelings. It's a very one-sided style of "logic". I don't consider either myopic vision as relevant.


Enron was a scandal helped by the "greed is good" crowd and deregulation. 
You site Hydro Ontario but not Hydro Quebec. Could it be that a quasi-socialist project actually made sense at the time?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> It also happens with internet bandwidth - T1s and such.
> What these "aggregators" do is buy in bulk and resell to you factoring part of the discount they get. In the end, the provider is usually Bell. Have a problem, they will send Bell technicians... Is it a good thing? Well, the is very little competition in actuality...


Ahhh but, even that is not a good analogy that while Bell may run the "trunks" I still have a choice in terms of the line to house... Ican choose Cable, DSL, Sattelite, soon wifi through Ontario Hydro and Wideband 3G services from various mobile providers...

I still only have one gas pipe into my house.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Maybe Macfury feels like I do: bullies need to be pushed back. I am getting closer to just putting on the 'ignore' switch, but verbal (textual) bullies such as 'spec, in my opinion, should be pushed back. 'Spec is a classic inadequate bully and an example of what he himself seems to detest most. I, for my own relaxation, should choose to ignore him (getting very close to just using that feature) but, for now, I just won't let him push people around with his villifying propaganda.

Trollers can bring this back to some 'I hate the U.S. framework' but, in the end, his style of engagement is clear. Low on facts, low on discussion, low on thoughts, high on propaganda and high on slurs of what he is mad about. Feed him his own style or, as has happened in the past, treat him with the respect he is due, and the martyr syndrome comes out and will be referred to for eternity.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Need a hug The Beej?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Time out... If my use is so small that "agregators" are needed how is that in anyway different from having a single producer of gas to me? So long as I cannot choose which producer provide me my gas it is effectively a single source as far as I am concerned.
> .....
> I've stated time and time again, and yet I have not heard a single convincing argument in favour of energy remarketing and how it could possibly be more efficient than a single source public utility approach to distribution and costing.
> ...
> The Ontario energy debt is an other example of meddling in a "public" utility. It is well documented that US consultants brought in during the Harris years brought about much of that debt in the way that they handled the refurbishing of the Nuclear plants in Ontario. My neighbour works for OPG at Pickering and he is quite clear what hapened when they brought several perfectly good reactors offline for "refurbishing"... But I digress.


Very different. You get different agregators. Look around at what you buy.
....
It is not 'efficient' to have a 1000 kinds of shampoo, yet we do. Same for mortgages and more. The 'efficiency' is in the variety and, with current restrictions, we are sometimes in the worst of reasonable situations. We could regulate #X options into existence from one regulated monopoly. What makes you think that would be a good idea? Different people do want different options, so how are they provided?
.....
As for the Ontario situation, it happened way before Harris. It is fashionable to blame Harris for everything, but Ontario's energy debt and waste was well in place before he was elected. He didn't improve things but read up on the rest.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Enron was a scandal helped by the "greed is good" crowd and deregulation.
> You site Hydro Ontario but not Hydro Quebec. Could it be that a quasi-socialist project actually made sense at the time?


Hydro Quebec's government policy is sitting on billions of dollars. Hydro Quebec should be a cash-cow just like Alberta's royalties are (more so, they're renewable) but people think [edit: typo] cheap electricity is a good policy.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Need a hug The Beej?


Usually. Care to oblige? We've had our differences, and sometimes (many times, recently) I wonder, but a good hug is worth a lot. :love2:


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Beej said:


> Very different. You get different agregators. Look around at what you buy.
> ....
> It is not 'efficient' to have a 1000 kinds of shampoo, yet we do. Same for mortgages and more. The 'efficiency' is in the variety and, with current restrictions, we are sometimes in the worst of reasonable situations. We could regulate #X options into existence from one regulated monopoly. What makes you think that would be a good idea? Different people do want different options, so how are they provided?
> .....


It is not the same... people don't freeze when they run out of Shampoo. Last I heard shampoo wasn't a "public" utility. In defense of a capitalist free market approach... nothing prevents anyone from getting into the Shampoo business (well maybe some health regulations have to be followed)... but to suggest that we lay out an entirely seperate gas supply infrastructure to promote a free market in energy distribution won't fly either.

Give me another... better example.



Beej said:


> As for the Ontario situation, it happened way before Harris. It is fashionable to blame Harris for everything, but Ontario's energy debt and waste was well in place before he was elected. He didn't improve things but read up on the rest.


Granted it was well underway in the David Peterson days... and I'm sure that some of the Ray policies didn't help either. But is was Harris that took two basic organizations Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Ministry of Energy andexploded that into the 5 or 6 (depends on how you see it) regulatory beauracratic bodies that oversee Hydro in Ontario. Care to explain the efficiency in that?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Beej, to you it's should be a cash cow but it goes against the reasons why the monopoly was given in the first place. Our liberal-in-name-only government is turning it into a cash cow - the regular consumer are paying for that - whilst corporate welfare recipients get hefty discounts (often bellow cost). The exports should be the cash cow, not domestic consumption. We (the population of Quebec), are the owners of the company and should get the benefits. The contract was a national (yes provincial) body and we gave the company certain benefits (like Bay James and such) - now we should reap the benefits. We don't have the cheapest electricity in the country (Manitoba does). 

Hydro-Quebec does it's best to promote conservation (rebates on Energy Star appliances and such). The net income of the company is over 2 Billion - as you stated - it is renewable so there is no need to go nuts with the price just because you think they should.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> It is not the same... people don't freeze when they run out of Shampoo. Last I heard shampoo wasn't a "public" utility. In defense of a capitalist free market approach... nothing prevents anyone from getting into the Shampoo business (well maybe some health regulations have to be followed)... but to suggest that we lay out an entirely seperate gas supply infrastructure to promote a free market in energy distribution won't fly either.
> 
> Give me another... better example.
> .....
> Granted it was well underway in the David Peterson days... and I'm sure that some of the Ray policies didn't help either. But is was Harris that took two basic organizations Ontario Hydro and the Ontario Ministry of Energy andexploded that into the 5 or 6 (depends on how you see it) regulatory beauracratic bodies that oversee Hydro in Ontario. Care to explain the efficiency in that?


That's where what I said was missed: the local pipes themselves are a natural monopoly, the gas in them isn't. There are hundreds of gas produces and a handful of aggregators (not efficient for every owner of every well to talk with every consumer, go figure). Separate the gas from the pipes. They are very different things.
....
The debt problem was there before Harris. His spineless rate freeze (or was it Eves?) made it worse. But pretty much all the mistakes were in place before Harris before he added a couple more of his own. The regulatory mess in Ontario has been pointed out before: so you want less regulation?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> Usually. Care to oblige? We've had our differences, and sometimes (many times, recently) I wonder, but a good hug is worth a lot. :love2:


Sure Beej - and if I'm in Ottawa for cinco de mayo, beers on me....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The exports should be the cash cow, not domestic consumption. We (the population of Quebec), are the owners of the company and should get the benefits.


It should be sold for what it's worth with the benefits going to taxpayers, not ratepayers. When ratepayers get the benefits (through low rates) the true owners of the resource (voters) get more only if they use more. When the power is sold for what it's worth and profits taken by the government, it goes to the owners (as represented by tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum). This is the basic mistake in QC's, MB's and BC's (even ON's) treatment of electricity and the basic sucess in Alberta's (with an exception). You don't fully realize the value of the people's resource by giving it away at half-price to the consumers. There is a difference.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

To you it's a mistake. 
First if you can produce a product for "x" that just happens to be less expense than elsewhere are you saying that you artfully boost the prices?
Get on the phone to China, they are doing something wrong (insert sarcasm here)....

Hydro-Quebec has a healthy bottom line, so more profits is not the answer that most want to hear. 

You could view the value of the resource by the corporate welfare recipients that have an edge in energy cost - this should translate to a healthier economy and better/more secure/ jobs - and more taxes into the government coffers...

You see it as being given away - are you saying that we as consumers should be penalized because Hydro-Quebec is efficient? 

When you look at the U.S., they have certain advantages over Canada and they do use them - are you going to argue we should somehow factor in this discrepancy into trade agreements?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Did I read Alberta is a success? 

Our government allows a crooked, corrupt and convicted company like Direct Energy access to our market and you call that a success?

Bullsh!t.

It is the single most colossal blunder of government in Canada.

Privatization of energy is just plain wrong for consumers and right for profit driven corporate pirates.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> You could view the value of the resource by the corporate welfare recipients that have an edge in energy cost - this should translate to a healthier economy and better/more secure/ jobs - and more taxes into the government coffers...
> ....
> You see it as being given away - are you saying that we as consumers should be penalized because Hydro-Quebec is efficient?
> ....
> When you look at the U.S., they have certain advantages over Canada and they do use them - are you going to argue we should somehow factor in this discrepancy into trade agreements?


This is where the mistake is made. Undervalue the resource to support industry X. People are so jealous of AB's royalties; they didn't get them by giving away their resource locally. Subordinating one industry to artificially boost another (more voter-focussed) industry is politically expedient and nothing else. So, no, it doesn't translate into a healthier economy. It subsidises specific industries (healthier local economies) at the expense of everyone else. The standard political game. Government, overall, gets lower revenues because they are underselling something they own.
....
They are sitting on a very valuable resource. Selling it for less than it is worth is selling out the owners (you) to whomever uses the most (you with a bigger house). This is a very fundamental mistake made in hydro provinces and all of them, despite massive resources, are starting to run into over consumption problems. Big surprise.
....
Yes, look at the nearby U.S. states and their expensive power yet much higher GDP per capita. A reliable power system is an economic advantage, an artificially cheap one is not. 

That $4 billion (roughly) could eliminate provincial corporate taxes in QC and still have a lot left over to give directly back to the voters. Do you really think the current approach is better? This is a heritage mistake made by most energy-rich regions. I don't expect it to go away anytime soon. I just wish (optimist-Beej makes an appearance) that people who blindly assume Alberta's wealth is solely a natural advantage that they first look at how badly their own province is squandering their natural advantage. Quebec is sitting on a gold mine and selling it for lead prices because they think people having more gold is inherently good.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

SINC said:


> Did I read Alberta is a success?
> 
> Our government allows a crooked, corrupt and convicted company like Direct Energy access to our market and you call that a success?
> 
> ...


Er, yes. The economy is doing well and government coffers are overflowing. The only question is how to spend/invest the money. Quite a success.

As for Direct and deregulation, that has very little to do with the success. The success was the federal government deregulating the oil and gas markets. 

As for opinions on privitisation in Alberta, we disagree, although I will say it was unnecessary and the gains were too small for the personal heartache.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej, I don't think we will agree on all elements here. I think it will be one of perspective and optics. I'm hoping to see more lobby groups present their cases in an unbiased manner showing the pros/cons. Your replies seems a good start. 



Beej said:


> This is where the mistake is made. Undervalue the resource to support industry X. People are so jealous of AB's royalties; they didn't get them by giving away their resource locally. Subordinating one industry to artificially boost another (more voter-focussed) industry is politically expedient and nothing else. So, no, it doesn't translate into a healthier economy. It subsidises specific industries (healthier local economies) at the expense of everyone else. The standard political game. Government, overall, gets lower revenues because they are underselling something they own.


You say "undervalue the resource", I'm saying they are more efficient at producing it at a lower cost. And if you can do that, there is no need to artificially boost the price. By your logic, China should be tripling the price of what it produces... this does not work in the global economy. It seems that you are making exception to satisfy your position. 



Beej said:


> They are sitting on a very valuable resource. Selling it for less than it is worth is selling out the owners (you) to whomever uses the most (you with a bigger house). This is a very fundamental mistake made in hydro provinces and all of them, despite massive resources, are starting to run into over consumption problems. Big surprise.


Traditional economic policies are that the cost of a product = raw cost of production + profit margin. H-Q is making lots of profits. 
Consumption is tied to the cost but in part it's also a inelastic expenditure. We live in a winter climate - for sure we may consume more because we heat with electricity. I think that you are ignoring geographic realities of being in Canada.



Beej said:


> Yes, look at the nearby U.S. states and their expensive power yet much higher GDP per capita. A reliable power system is an economic advantage, an artificially cheap one is not.


Who said anything about Hydro-Q not being reliable? The U.S. has other advantage economically due to their policies/population/government. I don't think you should/can make a direct comparison...



Beej said:


> That $4 billion (roughly) could eliminate provincial corporate taxes in QC and still have a lot left over to give directly back to the voters. Do you really think the current approach is better? This is a heritage mistake made by most energy-rich regions. I don't expect it to go away anytime soon. I just wish (optimist-Beej makes an appearance) that people who blindly assume Alberta's wealth is solely a natural advantage that they first look at how badly their own province is squandering their natural advantage. Quebec is sitting on a gold mine and selling it for lead prices because they think people having more gold is inherently good.


Better at the moment? Not sure. 
I see an advantage in Quebec that the resource in renewable (barring extreme weather changes - global warming). Who said anything about eliminating corporate taxes? Pay your fair share is all I ask.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Beej, I don't think we will agree on all elements here. I think it will be one of perspective and optics.
> .....
> I'm hoping to see more lobby groups present their cases in an unbiased manner showing the pros/cons. Your replies seems a good start.
> .....
> ...


I was just going to say we've about hit the limit. Odd coincidence.
....
Well, the energy strategy will be coming out soon, I think.
....
No, but just because you can make it cheaper doesn't mean you sell it for less. You sell it for what it's worth otherwise you are doing the owners (voters) a disservice. China is selling its stuff for as much as it can get, as do local stores, Apple and more. Sometimes its directly estimatable (commodities) other times it's more complicated (long-term 'branding' and 'loss leaders'). 

You may be able to stick to a 'I don't trust government with the money argument' (with great merit but, ultimately, voter responsibility), but the other arguments do fall by the wayside. 
....
Cost does not equal value except at the margin. Low-cost producers get 'economic rents' because they get marginal prices. In manufacturing, the latest plant design will often capture this because the 'marginal' plant is less efficient. Standard supply curve.

When the government (people) own the rights to that economic rent (royalties), giving them away is a bad idea. It redistributes owners' rights to consumers. They are not quite the same thing in the way that a 500 sqft apartment is not the same as a 4000 sqft mansion.
....
Coincidentally, QC is a heavy user of electric heat relative to other provinces. To be fair, I work for gas, but most cold regions use gas heat because it is a cheaper heating fuel. QC could buy gas for $X to heat and sell the extra electricity for 2*$X, roughly. That's economic gain. 
....
I was pointing out a common energy policy mistake -- price versus dependability. Dependability is of value to the economy, artificially low prices are not. QC has a very reliable system, from what I've heard, the low prices are a hinderance.

Regarding tax cuts, I was pointing out the magnitude of waste. For those who think QC's low pricing helps the economy (through subsidising select industries), do you really think it would help more than 0 provincial corporate taxes + direct handouts to everyone? That's how large the waste is.

'Fair' is loaded.  

Thanks for a great discussion. :clap:


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The only aside - Hydro-Quebec pushed electrical heating in houses for years - stating that it was less expensive than other means. The offered discounts to those who switched, this maybe why the % is higher here...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Definitely. Manitoba Hydro took a more moderate approach (they now run electric and gas!), but is facing much the same problem, just moderated by history. In the end, health care may drive energy policy: the governments need money, and they're sitting on it. 

QC and BC are already in, or on the verge of, permanent import status for electricity. Shameful, considering they're importing gas-fired power (personal pet peeve and lobbying -- you get a two-for!).

Generate power in a 50% efficient plant, using gas, to heat a home instead of using a 90% efficient furnace. [email protected]#$ing hell, my job aside, that's just irritating to think about. But I digress. Maybe if I wordsmith this paragraph I can call it 'work'.


----------

