Power outage problem, de-regulation, related issues... MY THOUGHTS!

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sava
well next time be sure to specify what the hell you are talking about...

I'm sorry, but it's getting harder to understand you.

so much antagonism, so lil time. I feel ur pain.

[reds4ever]

Is de-regulation a recent thing in the US? I'd always assumed because its always had right(ish) wing governments that utilities like power had been privatised years ago?

[Berzerker]

Sava, how do the blackouts of '65 and '77 fit into your little theory? Btw, energy wasn't de-regulated, the pols just replaced one set of regulations with another. Try to understand that when you go off on one of your anti-free market diatribes. Blaming the marketplace ("de-regulation") for the failures of government intervention in the marketplace is downright deceitful (or ignorant, take your pick).

[Japher]

deregulation is new... it's going on in a lot of industries too...

Power cost? My wife pays, but I know it's about $60-70/mo in the summer since it's just the two of us, and we don't have an air conditioner, goes up to about $100/mo in the winter due to gas... This winter is going to be worse since gas prices are huge (in Cali it will b even worse since I think we are paying like 8x more than any other state for ours)... Electricty is about 14cents per kwh to a certain point, then they just hit you with whatever they want.

[reds4ever]

de-regulation = profit making = corners get cut

[Sava]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sava, how do the blackouts of '65 and '77 fit into your little theory? Btw, energy wasn't de-regulated, the pols just replaced one set of regulations with another. Try to understand that when you go off on one of your anti-free market diatribes. Blaming the marketplace ("de-regulation") for the failures of government intervention in the marketplace is downright deceitful (or ignorant, take your pick).

If '65 and '77 blackouts were at all similar to this blackout, then I'd be concerned. But they aren't, so I won't.

And this rant of mine isn't "anti-free market" or whatever little ignorant catch phrase you want to make up. Power shouldn't be a market. At this point in our society, it's a necessity. Power should be provided WITHOUT PROFIT by whoever can do it for the highest quality at the lowest cost. But instead, you get rich corporations seizing control of energy production... they cut jobs, they reap huge bonuses, they cut quality, they reap huge bonuses. Now how in God's green earth could you be in support of such a stupid policy?

You don't know what you are talking about Berz, stick to marijuana debates and leave such discussion to people who ARE INFORMED.

[Adam Smith]

I was waiting for this thread to show up...and it took almost an entire day...you folks are slipping.

The economic predictions for electric deregulation were that all prices would fall as local monopolies were broken up, and high cost, inefficient firms were subjected to competition. Prices would fall a bit more in higher cost areas (Northeast, Midwest), and a bit less in lower cost areas (South, West).

So what actually did happen? I am at home now, so I don't have access to specific studies. But there is data from the Consumer Price Index.. IIRC electric deregulation got rolling about 1996, so lets use that date. Prices index values in various regions of the country since then:

Northeast: 1996 136.8 2003 134.2
South: 1996 123.7 2003 124.0
Midwest: 1996 122.2 2003 123.6
West: 1996 144.0 2003 184.3

The West is obviously affected by California, where state regulators explicitly ignored economists recommendations for how to deregulate the electricity market. These data show that, aside from California, consumers are clearly benefitting. How many other commodities can you name (aside from computers) where the price today is the same or less than the price seven years ago?

[Az]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Is de-regulation a recent thing in the US? I'd always assumed because its always had right(ish) wing governments that utilities like power had been privatised years ago?

There is regulation, and there is government ownership, those two are different things, IIANM.

[Chemical Ollie]

I'm normally a free enterprise evil capitalist, but in some rare cases government-owned compaines might work better. This is especially the case for all fixed infra structure like roads, railroads, electricity, telephone and internet. Sweden has experimented with both public ownership and a private free market for electricity, telephone and railroads during my adult life and I would vote for public ownership in all three of those cases.

[Berzerker]

Oh, one more point - why did California have to go outside the state (Enron was a middleman) to buy energy? Oh, what's that? Because California lacked the facilities to produce the needed energy to meet it's growing demands? Why? Oh yeah, because Californians dumped nuclear power and offshore drilling, etc., because they had to "save" the "environment". I understand Davis and the Democrats made some really bad contracts that led to the problem, Enron just didn't walk in and hold the state up.

[Japher]

the price for silly-putty has hardly gone up in the last 50 years!

yup, electronics have all gone down...

Thing is electricity is more of a necessity/service than an actualy commodity. I associate it with mail. Since UPS and FedEX have come around prices have dropped.

[Sava]

Adam Smith: I agree with the general notion that deregulation can be beneficial in theory. But that's no different than Communism being good in theory. The fact is, corporations are run by greedy *******s whose sole purpose is to make money. All other concerns, reliability, safety, quality, low prices, etc... are second fiddle to MONEY.

In reality, your free-market wet dream of deregulation (in terms of energy) turns into less jobs, less maintenance, higher prices, and obscene corporate profits. There isn't just one instance of precedence for this reality. There are many; as I listed above. California, Brazil, Montana, and now New York.

[Elok]

Y'know, I was just thinking: "If only I knew what Sava thought about our energy problems! Wouldn't that be wonderful?" I bet I wasn't the only one either.

Seriously, though, while I'm not familiar personally with the problems of deregulating power, it stands to reason that there would be piggies there just like every other trough in the nation. It's only a matter of time before the fit hits the shan big-time, though. Bush is cleverly, if unethically, leaving hell for the next administration to pay by soothing and delaying. Problem is, while Bush isn't too great of a president, the only alternatives are:
A. apparently incompetent,
B. fighting each other for votes, and
C. dividing the democratic caucus eight ways.
This is why the Mandate of Heaven is a superior form of government to democracy. People don't screw around when they know they'll die together with their families if they get the people mad. It's a more impressive penalty than embarassment.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh, one more point - why did California have to go outside the state (Enron was a middleman) to buy energy? Oh, what's that? Because California lacked the facilities to produce the needed energy to meet it's growing demands? Why? Oh yeah, because Californians dumped nuclear power and offshore drilling, etc., because they had to "save" the "environment". I understand Davis and the Democrats made some really bad contracts that led to the problem, Enron just didn't walk in and hold the state up.

because Houston Natural Gas aka Enron, cornered the market and gained a monopoly

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Azazel


There is regulation, and there is government ownership, those two are different things, IIANM.

Ah, I didn't realize....we had gov. ownership in the UK...