California electric rates are getting ridiculous

Page 9 of 9  
scorpster wrote:

You are, in part, but the mock "deregulation" CA tried to pull also backfired badly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/5/2008 9:07 PM Pete C. spake thus:

There was nothing "mock" about it--and by the bye, we have a California Democrat, Steve Peace*, to thank for that disastrous deregulation that left us open to the depredations of Enron, et al. (See "The Smartest Kids in the Room" for the full story.)
* Not to mention the deposed Gov. Gray Davis, also a Democrat.
--
Washing one\'s hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

It was indeed "mock" deregulation as in typical CA fashion, they tried to lock consumer utility rates while making the utilities absorb all risk from fluctuation in the energy markets.
Here in Texas deregulation is legitimate and we have a wide array of supplier choices and rates that are pretty midrange relative to other states. We can even select a 100% wind generation source if we want for a few cents more per kwh. Of course given the intermittent generation of wind, we're still dependent on other generation technologies to fill in the gaps, the primary drawback of wind generation, but they claim 100% wind on an equivalent KWH basis at any rate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would have to question just how legitimate the deregulation is in Texas. Yes, it has been deregulated to the point that you have options to choose from more than one provider but the way they have setup the system, it really doesn't provide for true competition. The base rates are still set based on the cost structure of natural gas even though more cost effective fuels are used for much of the generation. Most of the providers are actually resellers who buy on bulk rates and resell to consumers. Several have gone under during the last year because they were buying on the spot market and the price they were paying was well above what they were charging. True deregulation will only come when there is true competition in the generation of power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

-snip-
In upstate NY where Niagara Mohawk used to be king and was the cheapest power outside of the TVA until they tried and failed to go nuclear. . .
National Grid bought them out a while back. In the past 2 years the "stated cost" has gone from 7.1 to 15 [and back down to 7.8cents this month]. But the delivery fees & all the other crap has upped the rate from 14.6 to 16.4- and last month was 14.2.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So, what does that mean?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One other component here to consider when comparing standards of living is this. How much does Norway, Sweden or Switzerland spend to keep the world free? And how much has the US spent, since WWII doing exactly that? How many aircraft carriers do those countries have in hot spots like the Straits of Hormoz, keeping the worlds oil supply lanes, which their own economies depend on, open and protected from countries like Iran?
Had the US not spent trillions on defense over the last 6 decades, we could have spent that money on a higher standard of living. But then those other three countries likely wouldn't be free because the communists would have taken them over, and perhaps the rest of the world too. Must be nice to be one of those countries, living so well, knowing that someone else is bearing the majority costs of defending the world and will be there to save you if necessary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You make an excellent point. We ARE the world's policeman, but, like police everywhere, we don't do a perfect job. We do do a good enough job to (mostly) discourage the really bad perps from taking over the world. As the Color Sergeant said in "Zulu" when asked "Why us?" he replied: "Because we're here, lad. No one else. Just us. Now face to the front. Mark your target when he comes. And button that tunic. That's a good lad."
In his book, "The Pentagon's New Map," Thomas Barnett makes exactly the point you raise.
It's also interesting that the United States Coast Guard is larger than any other country's navy.
Consider Sadaam Hussein - he pissed off somebody. So we invaded his country, evicted him from his homes, confiscated his fortune, exiled his family, killed his children, imprisoned most of his friends, and ultimately hanged his ass. Presumably this will have a sobering effect on others similarly inclined.
As an aside, the complaint that some soldiers die as a result of American adventures is specious. Our warriors volunteered knowing that death or injury was possible. Exactly the same as someone who wants to climb a mountain or drive a race car or take a dive to the Titantic. But those hobbyists don't get an opportunity to kill people and blow things up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can only wonder what would happen if someone came to you anti-nuke extremists with some other ideas. How about a device with 4 wheels and a motor that could transport 4 people at 60MPH? But the downside is that 50,000 a year in the US will die in it due to accidents. Yet, we all live with automobiles. Should we eliminate them too?
Or how about airplanes? We have those and huge international airports close to major cities. I could conjure up images of plane crashes in highly populated areas and make the case for eliminating them too.
As a side note, the only reason all that nuclear waste is still sitting around at nukes, both operating and decommissioned, is that extremists have blocked moving it to a single, safe, secure storage facility, ie Yucca. Had extremists not still be doing everything they can to try to stop or slow it down, the waste would be there now.
Nuclear isn't perfect or without risks. Neither is any other form of energy. Particularly amusing to me is how the same environmental extremists who rail against nukes are telling us that in a few more decades we're going to have disastrous climate change from CO2 emissions which will kill hundreds of millions, if not all of us. So, we have nuclear power, which could be a quick and major way to reduce CO2 emissions, yet we shouldn't use it even as other supposedly enlightened countries like France openly embrace it?
And I'm tired of the usual nonsense about how we can just conserve. The simple fact is that the world's population is growing every year. And countries like India and China are becoming rapidly developed. At most, conservation can slow the rate of increase of energy growth. And BTW, these other countries are going to build nukes whether we do or not. By not doing so ourselves, all we do is put ourselves at an economic disadvantage to them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Excellent points, all.
The bottom line is that anti-nukes, evironmentalism, and conservation are all MOVEMENTS. The logic behind the movement is immaterial, it is membership in the movement that is important - to be a part of something, to give meaning to an otherwise useless life. The same people who are members of the anti-nuke movement are also members of the ban-the-bra parade, promote (or oppose) metrification, home owner association advocates, or any other protest group.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately 'nuclear' electric power has NOT proven to be as economical as originally thought. Also, leaving aside Chernobyl and much lesser dramatic, Three Mile island accidents etc. and the problem of 10,000 to 100,000 year disposal/storage of nuclear wastes, nuclear after some 50 years has not yet proved itself a viable technology for the day to day production of electrcity. Isotopes and other medical products etc. yes. In norther Canada, especially Labrador there is a vast potential for (although it does involve further flooding of native lands) less polluting further production of electrcity that can and will be developed during next few years. It would be wise for the rulers of California and other energy hungry and inefficient users of energy to a) Conserve, get more efficient. b) Think internationally for the purchase of energy from a politically stable and friendly country to the north. There is no doubt that Canada is expanding it's own East-West energy corridors/links and that hydro generated power is relatively cheaper, and less directly polluting (especially at point of use). And just wait until electric cars are a an actuality! As opposed to dragging barrels of oil from the political turmoil of the Middle East, past the pirates of Somali-land, burning off some of it to make gasoline etc.! Plug into an outlet and recharge your vehicle in a few hours. There is a story (true or otherwise?) that some hybrid car owners are already doing some home recharging after daily commuting? Also that it is economical?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
terry wrote:

Electricity is not a power SOURCE, it is a power DISTRIBUTION system.
Charging the batteries in an electric car is conceptually NOT the same as filling the tank with gas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As much as it pains me, I respectfully disagree.
Electricity is a phenonimon of nature that we harnessed to our great benefit.
--
:)
JR

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.