This is an interesting article from the Calgary Herald.

http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/economic-withholding-goes-under-the-microscope-after-spring-power-price-spike

Essentially, it suggests that an unnamed power producer in Alberta consciously withheld electrical supply in order to increase the spot price.  The price apparently quadrupled in April.  It will be recalled that, in April, Alberta is becoming warmer, so one would expect demand to be less.  The article suggests that such a practice was legal under the rules brought in by the former Provincial Tories.

While many people (correctly) associate Enron with its eventual accounting scandal, I think an analogy can be drawn to its effect on the California energy crisis of the early 2000s.  Mz. McLean and Mr. Elkind in their book “The Smartest Guys in the Room,” outline this in Ch 17, “Gaming California.”  Very broadly, they suggest that several energy companies, including Enron, consciously manipulated the deregulated market to increase the price of power, in some cases jumping from $1.00 per megawatt hour to as much as $5,000.00 (see McLean, p. 267).

They argue that using complex trading strategies with names like “Death Star” and “Fat Man,” Enron was able to manipulate the market.  At p. 273, they write:

“To [the California regulators and politicians], the problem was simple:  the big power companies, including Enron, were manipulating the market for their own benefit.  And state officials wanted the federal government to do something about it.  San Diego Gas & Electric filed a complaint with the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission], requesting lower price caps.  On August 10 the [Independent Systems Operator] issued a report, blaming the crisis on the exercise of market power;  on August 17, representatives from the California utilities presented a detailed list of alleged trading abuses to the FERC, including the intentional creation of congestion and ‘megawatt laundering…'”

See also, Power Failure by Mz. Swartz and Watkins, Ch. 14 “Flakes and Cowboys.”

The Calgary Herald article does not name the producer in question.  If it is a publicly held company, it would be interesting to review its financials.

This is my first attempt at a blog, so I trust that the reader will bear with me.  I’m a Canadian Lawyer, and (for now) will be writing mainly about politics, the economy and (to a lesser extent) law.  For the next month or so, I’m going to be dealing with election issues.

In the interests of Full, Fair and Frank disclosure, I’ll also state that I have (more or less) decided to vote for Mr. Trudeau (*spits at mention*).

On fiscal and monetary policy, I’m generally a pretty right-of-center person, although I don’t naturally self-identify as either Keynesian or Neo-Liberal.  Notwithstanding this,  I’ve basically decided to not vote for Mr. Harper this time out.  Very broadly, I think Mr. Harper has made some positive policy decisions over the past ten years.  Notably, he got ride of the Canadian Wheat Board, got ride of the gun registry and generally left provincial matters to the provinces.  Moreover, notwithstanding the fact that we are currently in a recession, I think his management of the economy has basically been sound (this is actually somewhat debatable, but I think a fair generalization).

Having said that, why would I not vote for him?  This article makes the point well:

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/08/31/opinion/harpers-war-law

I’ll be expanding on these points in later posts, but the short version is that Mr. Harper has been BRUTAL on the issue of civil liberties.  I don’t think this gets a lot of play in the mainstream media, but over the past 10 years this guy has done a total hatchet job on basic due process, immigration and many of our core civil liberties.

Quoting from the article:

“Canada doesn’t have an activist court at war with the prime minister.

It has a prime minister who is at war with the law.”

This really is it in a nutshell, and (amazingly) the examples given in the article aren’t even the worst thing I could think of.  Time and time again, over the past 10 years, I’ve seen massive “Omnibus” bills with Orwellian names like the “Protecting Freedom While Putting Scumbags In Jail Act” (I am paraphrasing).  It’s as if he read “1984” as nothing more than a fucking “How-To” manual.

For example, I recall distinctly, sitting in court several years ago while a very young lawyer plead a client guilty to some non-violent drug offences.  This isn’t a common part of my practice, but I instinctively “knew” that it should be a non-custodial sentence.  The client was an elderly, female, newcomer Canadian, with limited English, who had come from a relatively “high conflict” part of the world.  She had no criminal record.  The crown and defence offered the sentencing judge a joint submission for a federal sentence.  A “federal sentence” means it’s two (2) years, and a “joint submission” means that the crown and the defence are  basically asking for the same thing.  As a practical matter, judges almost always follow joint submissions, unless they are completely from mars.

I’d known the judge in question for over 15 years, and had appeared in front of him many times.  I knew that he was very experienced and well versed in the law.  Before he was called to the bench, he was universally regarded as one of the “top” lawyers in our area of Canada.

Basically, I assumed that he was going to reject the joint submission, because it was too high, and it looked like the (very) young defence lawyer had made a mistake.  This particular judge also generally doesn’t suffer fools lightly, especially the defence bar, so I also thought that there would be a great deal of entertainment value.

I was wrong.  The judge in question, correctly, noted the recent amendment to the relevant section of the Criminal Code, noted that this was the lowest sentence possible, and followed the joint submission.  And the little old immigrant lady went through the door to prison 10 seconds later, having never harmed a person in her life.

This is something that is often lost in “tough on crime” rhetoric.  When the general public thinks of “violent criminals,” they often rely on the images found in movies and TV, which deal with sensational murders and rapes. As understandable as this is, it is far removed from reality.  While thoughtful people can disagree that (say) a murderer should get 20, 25, 30 years, or even life, these are not the laws that Mr. Harper has (for the most part) targeted.

Using the example above, Mr. Harper has (essentially) used criminal law to limit judicial discretion.  He doesn’t trust the bench to make these kinds of decisions, which is exactly why we have a bench in the first place.  Judges exist, in part, to say things like “Hey, why are we putting this elderly women in jail for years for a non-violent offence?  WTF?” (again, paraphrasing).

As such, I shan’t be voting Tory this time out.  And I don’t care what tax bracket you’re in, you shouldn’t either.

This is a test post. It is only a test. Had this been an actual post, I wouldn’t be using the word “test” so much. That’s how you know it’s a test (also because I told you several times). This is only a test