Electric Power "Deregulation"

[mweiss]

I read an interesting article today regarding the results of so-called deregulation on the price of consumer energy.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070420/wired_for_f....pf=real-estate

In a nutshell, the states that tried it saw huge increases in rates. Such as residential electric bills going from $280 to $700 a month in just a couple of years. I know. I've seen mine go up that much since 2002. It it getting really scary.

The article points out that under regulation, a 10 year freeze on rates kept rates artificially low. When deregulation occured, rates rose immediately by 30-50% and more, a market 'adjustment'.

Another factor pointed out was that raw energy prices spiked sharply at the same time period as deregulation's implementation.

Of course, we know the leading factors causing power prices to rise: inability to build new plants and environmental prohibitions and regulations. But is that really all there is? Could it be that the energy industry is simply charging what the market will bear, and, like the oil industry, is realizing that they can make higher profits with fewer plants and higher rates? After all, why spend billions on new facilities to generate electricity if it means you'll be charging less per kWH?

Like the cost of medical care, we are in the midst of a national energy price crisis. Rhode Island had 25,000 disconnects because of customers' inability to pay the increased rates. Sometimes a 300% increase exceeds a person's monthly income. I mean, who, but the wealthy, can pay $700 month for electricity for one's home? If you're a senior on a fixed $810/month income, such electric rates are unsustainable.

What we need is to free up the ability to build new facilities, bring new players into the field and shake things up. But with the global warming hysteria gaining so much ground, I'm very concerned that electricity will soon become a luxury, and most of us will have to resort to using small generators a few minutes a day just to pump water from wells, fire up the furnace, or cook a meal, the rest of the time having the house dark, or with solar powered small LED lights.

A message needs to be delivered to the right people that states that we need to stop this enviroNazism and get to the business of making energy profitable again, so that rates can go back down. I think the issue is complicated, but perhaps folks with more information than I can chime in with their thoughts.

[Chris Grieb]

Mark; I've noticed you haven't been posting but I'm glad to see you're back.

Some years ago Arthur Hailey wrote a novel about the power industry called Overload. One of his point was the damage done by environmentalist "wackos". He had some very good chapters on the effects of not be able to produce all the power necessary. I recommend the book highly although I'm afraid it maybe out of print.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[mweiss]

Mark; I've noticed you haven't been posting but I'm glad to see you're back.

Some years ago Arthur Hailey wrote a novel about the power industry called Overload. One of his point was the damage done by environmentalist "wackos". He had some very good chapters on the effects of not be able to produce all the power necessary. I recommend the book highly although I'm afraid it maybe out of print.

I remember that fiction title from the late '70s. There were a slew of books written about various coming calamities and Hailey's story came at the peak of that era. It was somewhat precient, given what California endures now.

I feel that the most dangerous trend now is the so-called 'global warming' movement. It is the most hysterical, irrational and dishonest piece of propaganda ever foisted upon the world. Fortunately there are some people standing up to the lies and lack of evidence. It is a new form of 'economic jihad" and I regard it as just as dangerous to America and civilization in general, as fundamentalist Islam.

- - - - - -

Why I haven't been posting here... How do I word this non-offensively? I felt that, as a person holding an ARI point of view on the philosophy and politics, I was in the wrong camp here. It's a friendly group, for sure, but it seems somewhat liberalized compared to the Objectivists that I dealt with in the 1960s. A lot of the banter here does not even sound like that of an Objectivist group at all.

I was spending quite a bit of time at OOL, however, David and I got off to a bad start, with me bringing to his attention a malware infection of his board software early last year, followed by his bombastic accusation that I am not competent to operate a PC. As it turned out, their board's "skin" was infected with malware. I never received a formal or other apology from David, for his remarks. And our relationship went downhill from there. The moderators over there acuse me of not being an Objectivist and have put me on moderator watch, essentially because I made some cynical remarks about economic slavery in America. They have been rather belligerant and inhospitable to me all along, but have made it clear that they do not appreciate my presense there at all. So I'll take my chances here in the Branden's corner of the world, from time to time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

You are most welcome here. Anybody who can pig out on bass has my full respect.

We will probably disagree on a few issues, but so what? I think agreement on the main principles (primacy of existence, reason, rational self-interest, capitalism, etc.,) are common enough ground for friendly disagreement.

If you start getting irritated with some of the discussions, please keep in mind that one of the purposes of OL is to chew on Objectivist principles to the limit. That is why there is such a high level of intelligence among people who have this or that disagreement with some aspect of Objectivism. My original idea was to surround myself with people generally smarter than me, thus in addition to learning, the Objectivist principles that withstand the best opposition there is will definitely not be dogma or flawed. I could not be more pleased with the results so far.

Please don't feel offended, but when you wrote, "So I'll take my chances here in the Branden's corner of the world, from time to time," my heart swelled with pride.

OL actually is a corner for the Brandens. Thank you for saying that. It feels good to be recognized as such.

(I know I probably don't need to mention the following and I certainly don't ever remember you having a problem with it, but to avoid any misunderstandings, trashing the Brandens is not allowed on OL. This provision has been in the posting guidelines since the beginning.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Mark; I've noticed you haven't been posting but I'm glad to see you're back.

Some years ago Arthur Hailey wrote a novel about the power industry called Overload. One of his point was the damage done by environmentalist "wackos". He had some very good chapters on the effects of not be able to produce all the power necessary. I recommend the book highly although I'm afraid it maybe out of print.

Dangerous but not as violent. In addition, the eco-phreaks are here and any overt activity such as vandalism and sabotage can be handled by normal law enforcement. The Islamic threat is mostly of foreign origin and is not as controllable as a domestic threat. So far PETA and other "friends of the earth" have not hijacked any commercial flights to crash into tall buildings. The closest we had to that was the unabomber, Ted Kazcinsky. He was an aberrant individual, not a jihad knight from a Movement.

My personal inclination is to append any ecofreak to a tree trunk by his own spikes if he is caught putting spikes into tree trunks to break saw blades at the sawmill. The rule should be: As ye do unto to us, so it shall be done unto you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Ba al;

How about stalking both legs and an arm to an anthill and giving them a can of bug spray in the free hand.

Fred; Arthur Hailley wrote novels in which he would take a large business operation,like in his novels Hotel or Airport He recognized that the mind was required to run them and he made heroes of these managers. His novels are what are called pot-boilers and I have not read one in a while but my memories are good. Some of them were made into movies Airport comes to mind. Overload was never done as a movie.

Edited April 27, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

I read Overload years ago.

The hero, a power company executive, had an affair with a woman who was paralyzed from the neck down and she even had an orgasm. (I remember the line during the love scene as something like "Can a quadriplegic have an orgasm? Oh yes. Yes. Yes!")

If I remember the story correctly, she was dependent on electricity to stay alive and got trapped somewhere during an outage where there was no alternative supply and nobody to rescue her, so she died.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; That may explain why it wasn't made into a movie. I told you he wrote pot boilers.

[mweiss]

Mark,

You are most welcome here. Anybody who can pig out on bass has my full respect.

We will probably disagree on a few issues, but so what? I think agreement on the main principles (primacy of existence, reason, rational self-interest, capitalism, etc.,) are common enough ground for friendly disagreement.

If you start getting irritated with some of the discussions, please keep in mind that one of the purposes of OL is to chew on Objectivist principles to the limit. That is why there is such a high level of intelligence among people who have this or that disagreement with some aspect of Objectivism. My original idea was to surround myself with people generally smarter than me, thus in addition to learning, the Objectivist principles that withstand the best opposition there is will definitely not be dogma or flawed. I could not be more pleased with the results so far.

Please don't feel offended, but when you wrote, "So I'll take my chances here in the Branden's corner of the world, from time to time," my heart swelled with pride.

OL actually is a corner for the Brandens. Thank you for saying that. It feels good to be recognized as such.

(I know I probably don't need to mention the following and I certainly don't ever remember you having a problem with it, but to avoid any misunderstandings, trashing the Brandens is not allowed on OL. This provision has been in the posting guidelines since the beginning.)

Michael

Michael,

I had to give some serious thought to whether I wanted to continue being an active member here, for the reasons I mentioned, but some overriding considerations are the degree of tolerance and the generally less robotic and indifferent attitudes present.

I, thinking from an Objectivist point of view, would seriously wonder if a person with my perverse appetite for bass, along with the attendant rights violations that it brings to hundreds of neighbors within a couple miles of the place, would be considered immoral on two counts--that being a self-destructive behavior, and the other being the rights violations of others. I am indeed, a selfish person, who lives for my own pleasure. I suppose Ayn would be proud of me. ;)

I didn't mean calling this forum a place for the Brandens' as a compliment. I meant it as a statement that I am aware that I am treading inside the viper's nest. Now I have not read either Branden's book or the Valiant book, so I don't know all the facts, and I suspect neither book may present all of the facts in an unbiased fashion, but suffice it to say, I have enough personal issues to discuss here that I don't have time to worry about whether Ayn and Nathanial had sex.

Yes, I believe in the primacy of existence, which is why I have trouble with Napolean Hill, the teachings of Abraham and "The Secret". Unfortunately, Primerica, the company I became a representative for last June, seems to be touting a lot of primacy of consciousness ideas. I do believe that my thoughts and true desires seem to steer me in the direction of certain goals. Quantum physics and Shroedinger's Cat seem to suggest that consciousness has an effect on particle/wave behavior. This is an interesting topic for the scientifically-motivated.

I'll probably move my blog from OOL to OL and close my account there with a stern letter to David, expressing my disappointment with his bias against me.

I must also state that I think there are few true Objectivists on any of these forums. There are many who are interested in certain aspects. I don't claim to be an Objectivist either, but I prefer not to waste time discussing issues important to me with pseudo-Objectivists. That's why it is a challenge for me to read and understand the point of view of each of the major contributors on these forums. I made one good friend on David's forum. He and I are in full agreement on all issues we've discussed in private. I do hope that I make a few good friends here. It will be tough, because I can count all my casual friends that I've made since the last century on the fingers of one hand.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

The vipers are only in the minds of those who who like to feed snakes. I doubt you will find any viper here among the regulars. (I understand viper to mean a person with ill will and is sneaky and/or malicious about it. Now as regards mongooses... )

In general, what you will find is good will and independent thinking. You may not agree with someone, but you can almost always be assured that the person you address honestly believes in what he writes and that his writing is due to his own honest thinking. Not always, but almost always. Not only that, someone will usually appear who will be honestly interested in what you think (whether agreeing or not agreeing). Not always, but almost always.

Sometimes there are flare-ups and heated misunderstandings, but they are rare, usually don't last long and usually end up working out.

That's pretty damn good, I think.

Michael