What was supposed to be a scripted jeremiad by Danielle Smith attacking the federal government’s proposed clean-electricity regulations yesterday turned into a verbal sparring match with some feisty reporters over when the government actually decided to freeze the application process for new renewable electricity generation projects.
The Globe and Mail’s Emma Graney and Alberta Today’s Catherine Griwkowsky refused to be intimidated by Ms. Smith’s gaslighting during her news conference in Calgary. Ms. Graney’s effort in particular to get the premier to answer her questions about when the government decided to impose the moratorium and why it didn’t consult the industry about it deserves a mention in dispatches. It can be found starting at 25:56 in the government’s video of the newser.
It’s not every day I’d recommend to readers that they sit through the entire 46-minute news conference, including the comedic effort by reporters for a couple of far-right propaganda outfits to pump the premier’s tires while sowing doubt about the independence of the Supreme Court of Canada, but this is one of those times.
When the dust had settled, it was quite clear there’s something suspicious about the premier’s story line that she was asked by Alberta’s utilities and electricity regulators to impose the moratorium and therefore had no choice but to immediately impose the seven-month freeze announced by Utilities Minister Nathan Neudorf on Aug. 3.
As Ms. Graney put it in her story published yesterday evening, “The letters – both dated July 21, two weeks before Mr. Neudorf announced the pause – show no such request.”
Despite the premier’s claim renewable-energy companies should have known the freeze was coming if they’d only listened to the regulators, Ms. Graney wrote, “numerous solar and wind developers with applications in the pipeline told The Globe that the Alberta Utilities Commission had asked for more documents to support their applications mere hours before the government announced the moratorium.”
Also yesterday, University of Alberta energy and environmental economist Andrew Leach laid out the problem with the premier’s timeline in a Twitter thread more bluntly than a reporter for a newspaper that takes itself as seriously as The Globe and Mail would ever be allowed to do.
There’s something fishy about the moratorium timing, Dr. Leach began, referencing the premier’s claim it was requested by the Alberta Utilities Commission and the Alberta Electric System Operator. But as the two reporters pointed out, he added, “that’s not what letters say nor do the dates line up.”
The letter from the AUC was issued on July 21, he noted, and requests direction from the government, but contrary to the premier’s claims does not ask for a pause.
“Here’s where things get fishy,” Dr. Leach continued. The letter from AESO has the same date as the AUC letter, but starts by thanking the government for advising ASEO that it was planning to implement a six-month pause. So, he said, obviously “by that point the government had already decided on a pause.”
Then there is the matter of the electronic signature of AESO President Michael Law on the letter, indicating it was actually signed at 5 p.m. on July 20. So, Dr. Leach asked, “before the letter was received by the government from the AUC ‘requesting’ a pause, gov’t had advised AESO of the pause?”
“And now, for the kicker,” Dr. Leach concluded. “This tells you that the (Government of Alberta) had made the decision to pause AUC wind and solar approvals for six months two full weeks before they announced it. And yet they managed to consult with nobody connected to the industry, it would seem. Scheduling conflicts?”
In response to other reporters’ questions during the news conference Ms. Smith also returned to her original explanation that the freeze was imposed because of rural concerns about the location of wind and solar electricity generation projects on prime agricultural land, whatever that imprecise phrase means.
“I think the industry should expect that we’re going to make sure that prime agriculture land is going to be protected and that these are going to be sited on marginal lands,” she said, giving the impression the outcome of the policy review has already been determined.
About the best you can say about Ms. Smith’s constant positioning and repositioning the reasons for the moratorium is that it’s incoherent. But, as always with this premier, the stories are delivered confidently, and sound convincing as they flow from her lips.
The scripted portion of the news conference included no surprises, just the usual belligerent assertions Alberta will never agree to the current federal proposed regulations, will defy them if imposed by law, and that reaching net-zero electricity generation by 2035 is impossible. “If it comes down to it, we’re gonna do our own thing,” she vowed.
As for the premier’s repeated statements Alberta could reach net-zero by 2050, her government is clearly hoping for the election of a Conservative federal government led by Pierre Poilievre that will scuttle the whole clean electricity plan well before that. That could happen.
In other news, the Servus Centre recreation facility in the Edmonton-area bedroom community of St. Albert was being set up last night as an emergency reception area for evacuees airlifted and bused from Hay River, Fort Smith, and other communities in the Northwest Territories threatened by rampaging forest fires.
What forest fires? What climate change? Everything is fine, I tell you.
Sometimes governments make difficult decisions, perhaps not the best ones, but they have to defend them. Other times, they make bad decisions, that could have been avoided if they gave them more thought and avoided giving into knee jerk ideological impulses. It seems fairly clear this is the later situation, not the former one.
Even worse, when caught out they sometimes desperately try to spin a tangled web to try justify or support that bad decision. Of course, that often only makes things worse. Double down Dani is all about not letting the facts get in the way of her arguments and if necessary manufacturing alternate facts to better support her arguments.
So, I suppose it is no surprise that what seems to be a government initiative is now being mis portrayed as a request coming from energy regulators. Unfortunately for Smith and crew the contents of the letters from the regulators and the dates contradict the story they are trying to peddle.
At the least, I suspect there will be cause for legal action by the companies who were still spending money on projects unaware that government policy had changed. This certainly is not going to help Smith’s credibility and there is political danger for her as it appears the decisions were made at a high political level and not by the regulators who may have been as blind sided by this as everyone else.
The text in paragraph 4 “When the had dust settled”, should perhaps be When the dust had settled,
OA: Thank you. Fixed. D
Surprising no one, the premier and her cabinet were lying.
Smith and the UCP are doing their job just as they are instructed by their financial backers, the petro industry. The UCP are nothing more than a petro-party whose leaders are looking for a seat on the board of directors with a six and sometimes seven figure salary when they are out of office. It’s a quid pro quo agreement between the leaders of the UCP and the industry financially backing them. Indeed, Albertans are living in a corporatocracy, not a democracy, and don’t even realize it.
Danielle Smith’s body language and facial expressions don’t bode well either for her or Alberta. I wonder, too, if the policies she and her government will be cooking up for renewables will be good for that industry or designed to hobble it. Also, will six months (or seven, according to some) be enough or will they need an extension–and another after that? Remember the Allan Report?
When the response to a question specifically asking whether the UCP plans to help workers in the renewable energy field who are suddenly left jobless, is “six months – in six months you’ll have your answers,” I feel ill. I have no more words.
I agree, especially after ditzy Danielle going on endlessly about any job losses in the petroleum industry.
It’s a bad day, made worse by the knowledge that they mess their diapers if we propose workers in non-renewable energy fields be given paid training and new jobs.
Danielle Smith has been caught telling another lie. What a surprise, said no one ever.
If Danielle Smith can get her UCP government into so much trouble in just two and a half months, what are the odds that she’ll have manoeuvred into a position most unfavourable to the CPC’s Pierre Poilievre by the time the next federal election rolls around? I’m just curious how Smith can hold out hope that a federal PP government will come to her emissions rescue when she continually keeps forcing her government’s fatalistic secession threat. Maybe she’ll stop that but, really, she seems easily provoked.
I could see a legitimate appeal to extend the net-zero electric-generation deadline past 2035 succeeding if Smith pleaded that Alberta had been doing the absolute best it could possibly do to get the grid of the carbon-dope—like, by investing smartly and cogently in alternative electricity sources—solar- and wind-power, and corking orphaned, methane-leaking wellheads (no matter who pays for it), just for a few examples. Then Alberta might be forgiven if it didn’t exactly hit the 2035 deadline—admittedly, too, the province is geoclimatically challenged by its increasingly unreliable source of snowpack/glacier-melt that might have afforded more hydro-electric opportunities—cuz, y‘know…[shhhhh: climate change]. Jeez, come to think of it, throwing in some substantial progress on carbon-capture technology might even get her to 2050.
But such an appeal would, it seems to me, fall flat to earth if it was instead pitched this way: ‘Alberta demands and deserves an extension to 2050 because it has done its level best NOT to develop alternatives to CO2/CH4(GHG)-emitting electricity generation—except, naturally [to look conciliatory], where the GHG-saving technologies are matched by the emission equivalent of GHG-emitting technologies.’ Something fishy, alright! —especially when it’s capped with: ‘…or Alberta’s packing up and leaving Canada!’
A student of Dale Carnegie she’s probably not. A politician, or master of the art of the possible, she’s definitely not.
Shoutout to the aforementioned reporters for taking their role as the fourth estate seriously.
I can’t believe I watched the whole 46 minutes of the press conference. The Premier used so much snake oil and slick 50. It appears she wants to blame AESO and the RMA for a botched policy planning effort. The amazing item is she doesn’t give a tinker’s cuss about how many honest hardworking Albertans she and Mr. Anderson wii make jobless. And what of the high tech types now leaving the province. As my professors at the business school use to tell us, capital is mobile.
In any event, this truly proves stupidity knows no limits. I don’t buy that a moratorium was necessary to keep the field level whilst decisions are made. This is more like smother the industry; nothing to see here. And let the forests burn – don’t they look pretty after the fire! I wonder, if and when the scrub in southern Alberta starts burning will the tune change.
A six month moratorum on Alberta’s sustainable energy projects, approximately 36,000 out of work, and more than $24 B in investments on hold, all because Smith wants to own PMJT?
Alberta’s idiocy will be someone else’s gain. But if you’re determined to roll your entire society back to the 19th C, you may as well return to using the technology of the day.
I suspect Alberta will soon be adopting the steam engine, kerosene lamps, medical leeches, and an outbreak of scurvy.
Alberta Uber Alles? More like scorched earth. Burn the whole place down and leave nothing for Trudeau, said Danielle Smith as she giggles and fiddles.
Now’s when we need a forth estate. *Sigh* Sorry! You can’t retire!
David: could you please write one column on happy things? Puppies? Bear cubs playing in a kiddie pool? Your favourite muffin recipe?
Yes we know DS is a crazy, evil person doing the bidding of a crazy, evil cabal. But we need a ray of hope that things may change sooner than later. And more puppies.
Sincerely, with love and respect.
Hi Lefty, get used to it and download some cat videos for feel-good. Albertans elected this dumpster fire with free and prior knowledge so they are responsible for it. The only ray of hope I see is Ms. Smith reflects badly on Skippy and the federal Conservatives but watch as Albertans elect a bunch of federal Conservatives again. It might be possible to move some of “her” MLAs as Christine astutely puts it, but not likely enough to change the course. Christine makes good points but we are already in a dictatorship but refusing to accept it.
Suggest DJC compose an opera buffa, opening number DS and Mr. Peepers warbling Funiculi Funicula off key while whacking each other with nerf bats.
Tom: Wanted to …. but about Alison Redford. DJC
Here is the Cantus Firmus for host’s opera! Ok! I’ll show my self out! https://youtu.be/nUUyFrHERpU?t=1
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
I find it grating when Danielle Smith refers to government minsters as “my Minister of …” as she did during this press conference. This seems to be a deliberate term. I think that it substantiates Danielle Smith’s lack of understanding that members of the legislative assembly are elected by citizens and that the government is public. It comprises duly elected members who are elected to represent citizens. It is called representative government for a reason.
Another problematic example, as DC has pointed out, is “my grid”. The power grid is in place to provide electricity to everyone and is not the property of one person nor should it be under the control of one individual. Of course, it is there to make a profit for the owners of the grid, but there is supposed to be some regulation for the benefit of the public.
I truly believe that Danielle Smith thinks that Alberta is her personal fiefdom and that, as premier, she is a dictator who decides everything.
Despite the likelihood that Danielle Smith is told what to do by Take Back Alberta, CEOs of oil and gas companies as she has publicly admitted, and perhaps some others, she seems to think that she is fully in control of making all decisions. This is a very frightening scenario since dictators also believe that they have the right to make all decisions.
Once citizens become used to the premises that everything is the property of the political leader and that all elected representatives are, in reality, under the control of this leader, it is a short step to public acceptance of the idea of dictatorship.
Unfortunately the truth is they ARE her ministers, each one loyal to a fault and faithfully obedient to her brand of crazy and detachment from reality. Just as she is loyal and faithfully obedient to TBA and American interests, not the Albertans she is supposed to serve.
Indeed!
How odd, but the person who can use the term, my minister, my prime minister is the monarch, or her representative who is the GG. In any event, does Danielle now believe herself to be Queen of Alberta?
The style comes from throne speeches which are read by the representatives of the sovereign: in so doing, these governors refer to government as “my government”—that is, as if the Queen or King was saying it in person.
The thing here is its use which sounds inappropriate because Danielle Smith is not a sovereign (indeed, no Canadian politicians are heads of state or sovereigns; governors are expressly apolitical except insofar as they uphold the King’s guarantee that we have governments which can act at all times). Perhaps Smith commits a ‘Freudian slip’ by using this regal style —or perhaps a presidential style: we’ve heard Donald F tRump emphasize “my army”—which is perfectly legitimate in terms of style because he was the head of state of the republic and specifically styled the Commander in Chief of federal armed forces (but not commander of state National Guard or other militias allowed by the Constitution which, naturally, he openly lamented when state governors and even big-city mayors constitutionally frustrated his demands to deploy a state’s National Guard and have them do his bidding directly). Yet, even in tRump’s usage, he seemed to emphasized “MY…” as if he were not only the head of a republic, but some sort of royalty as well.
It wasn’t only tRump’s presumptuous tone when gleefully suggesting the armed forces belonged to him and were, he seemed to think, duty-bound to obey him without question (he incorrectly bragged that the Constitution allowed him to do whatever he wanted). After tRump’s staff arranged for General Milley, Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, to accompany the presidunce during his hastily-called walk through environs of the Whitehouse, hastily-cleared of Black-Lives-Matter protesters, so’s to perform a political stunt (by holding the Holy Bible upside down in front of a big Washington DC church), Gen. Milley publicly apologized for his presence at this stage-play which he called an inappropriate representation of the army during a civic activity (the protest) which is a constitutionally protected right (in fact the armed forces are expressly forbidden deployment against US citizens). During his apology, Gen. Milley infuriated tRump by asserting that the armed forces’ loyalty is to the US Constitution, not the president or anyone else. tRump was angry because the assertion deflated the way he used “my” with regard the military establishment. Words have always been tRump’s principal political weapon, but there’s no I-Me-Mine in “tRump.”
But tRump carved his infamy into stone forever by acting like a dictator, tyrant, or supreme sovereign in at least three more ways: he appointed family members to his staff as if royalty (his daughter Ivanka revealed her expectation of royal prerogative by yelling at the presidunce’s Chief of Staff that she was “The First Daughter” of the USA—FDOTUS—, when he restricted her access to the POTUS, and her husband, Jared Kushner, was allowed to negotiate foreign deals without involving cabinet, which is the second example of tRump’s royal aspiration: ignoring the advice of cabinet and Congress on foreign matters, and acting unilaterally. Indeed, tRump continually tried to assert ‘royal prerogative’ throughout his presiduncy with respect foreign affairs, effectively destroying the trust among strategic allies in NATO, revealing tactical secrets, and bringing the world closer to nuclear-weapon conflict whilst playing the Little King. Thirdly and finally, tRump proclaimed himself supreme ruler even though he lost the 2020 election—and continues to this day to claim he is the rightful president in spite of the election results—which could only be false if he were actually an all-powerful king. He was impeached once during his term, once immediately after his term, and indicted now four times —including criminal indictments—as a result of his regal presumptuousness, yet he ignores these legalities as if he were above the law—or, as he’d probably put it, “my law.”
So Smith’s similar usage is cringe-worthy on two counts: her misconception of government and politics is underscored by it (she is not the sovereign of Alberta, the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta is) and, second, she appears to be aping tRump, revealing that she would like to have the regal powers she thinks he had or should have.
In the Westminster system of parliamentary government, the leader of the cabinet—and any other employee of the state—is rather the property of the government, not the other way around. There is only one appropriate user of this style: the Sovereign himself (King Charles III of Canada, &c) and, by way of officially representing him personally, his governors, Lieutenants and General. Not only is it inappropriate for Smith to assume this style, it is galling she does it to imitate tRump who, although he had an appropriate right to use it, he did so incorrectly. But at least he did have legitimate right to use this style, irrespective of his misuse: Danielle Smith has no such right whatsoever.
She frames a lot of her statements in this manner. Perhaps she’s been binging Netflix’s documentary series, ‘How to Become a Dictator’.
Hot Dog vendor cum Premier: prepare accordingly!
Well Geoffrey Pounder you got what you worked for – the most petro-favourable, anti-environment, undemocratic whacko elected premier with an unassailable majority government. Satisfied?
Last year AESO figured out ways to reach net-zero by 2035. I believe Smith is dragging her feet because she is serving Big Oil and Gas and Big Utility.
https://energi.media/markham-on-energy/smith-is-smothering-albertas-response-to-energy-system-disruption/