Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


" Limbacher notes that a year ago, "Clinton slammed a Bush
administration
proposal to
allow utilities to upgrade their plants by relaxing a few of the more
punishing environmental
regulations. She warned of 'dirtier air and rising temperatures' that
would
expose citizens 'to
increased childhood asthma rates, higher sea levels and more acid rain
and
mercury-tainted
fish.'"

Must be painful when a politician says something which is true,
something
which makes it even more obvious that your president has a huge supply
of
kneepads which he uses when servicing his campaign contributors. Your
boy is
currently doing exactly what Ms. Clinton mentioned: dismantling clean
air
regulations. The results are obvious. Example: Tupper Lake, in the
Adirondacks, where I vacation each year, now has mercury warnings for
most
of its fish. President Nookular Boy couldn't give a damn.

So then we should blame Clinton for the blackout, since Bush is the one
that wants to help them, while the environmental groups would rather the
electric generating plants go bust than relax pollution laws.


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?


If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump built near
an earthquake fault?

Of course not.



Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to our way
of life?

Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay to
see it happen?




Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact that they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact that GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions, Dave.

Accidents happen. That's reality. The threat of an accident should not
keep us from technological progress. Otherwise, we should go back to
living in log cabins, growing our own food, and reading by lamps fuels
with animal fat.


Embraces new technology like wind power.... Unless you're a Kennedy and
oppose the locating of those windmills in your backyard.

If that's true, it's silly.

Tell that to RFK jr. He's the one making the noise.


I think wind farms are cool, and I'm sure the
equipment manufacturers will gradually find ways to make the machinery more
attractive, just as cell tower manufacturers have.

Again, tell that to the people who are actively fighting the "farm" that
was planned for the Hyannisport area.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created, and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.



Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the shareholders of
utilities in Ohio.

But what about affordable electricity for the poor folks in NYC?


That's what it means to you doesn't it? You seem to think that behind
every utility or corporation there's an "Ebeneezer Scrooge" type of CEO,
who's making a gazillion dollars, and any finacial problems are their
own fault, and could be solved if the CEO took a smaller bonus. Life is
not that easy Doug. You seem to live in some sort of utopian world where
we can have everything, if only the few greedy CEO types would share.
The true costs of infrastructure and upgrading to EPA standards, is more
than a CEO's bonus.


Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:



The point, if you still don't get it, is that if we want to play
the
good guy, and respect the sovereignty of all nations, then we have
no
right to cross the borders of any country which hides terrorist
camps,
without their cooperation. Last time I looked, most are not
cooperating. So what's the difference if we send in covert
assasins or
a
full blown military garrison?

Dave

The word "covert" answers your last question. By sending troops into
a
sovereign nation, we did exactly what terrorists have been pointing
at,
as
an excuse for their actions. By using covert assassins, it's a bit
harder to
pin the blame on us, at least in the eyes of the world.


Then we become, in essence, the same sort of terrorist that we're
fighting against.

Dave


Exactly. Take your pick. We can throw our weight around like we've been
doing since the beginning of our imperialist days (Cuba, Phillippines,
1898-ish), or we can be quiet about our adventures. If art is any
indication
of popular opinion, I think people prefer the James Bond approach.

I would tend to disagree. The covert approach implies a certain "cloak
and dagger" mystique about it, and would tend to also imply a "sneaky"
and underhanded methodology.

An overt military operation makes no bones about who we are after and
why.

Dave


But Dave, you've implied that the cloak & dagger routine is a lousy option
because we have to illegally enter a sovereign nation. How did we LEGALLY
enter a sovereign nation when he entered into Iraq? I assume you realize
that the only difference was the name of the operation, not the principle at
work.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have
known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?

Where did you get your theory about bankruptcy, Dave? There are few, if any
bankruptcy rumors floating around for Midwest utilitity companies.

The biggest one coming from the same company that's been at the focal
point of the "blackout".


The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?


Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.


If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due to
the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump built
near
an earthquake fault?

Of course not.

Let's round you up and keep you focused:

"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".


Now, to the important point: Your phrase, above, suggests that you look down
on people who'd like to see nuclear waste handled correctly.

Your comprehensive abilities are as flawed as ever.


But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.
There are other technologies which could be applied as well. The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.
The U.S. standards are light years ahead of the soviets (Communism will
do that), and it is doubtful that it could happen here to the same
degree (Three Mile Island not withstanding). But other than the nuclear
waste, nuke plants are clean and efficient, and help remove the need to
depend on fossil fuel.




Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How
about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite
waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to our
way
of life?

Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay to
see it happen?

I'm willing to pay more. I already pay more than my parents did in 1970, and
our kids will pay more than we do. Who says that the rates of 30 years ago
were realistic for the future?

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the
dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact that
they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact that
GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions, Dave.

Accidents happen. That's reality. The threat of an accident should not
keep us from technological progress. Otherwise, we should go back to
living in log cabins, growing our own food, and reading by lamps fuels
with animal fat.

Exxon Valdez: Right. Accidents happen. But, that doesn't change the fact
that companies should take responsibility for the RESULTS of accidents with
or on their property.

It should also not be an excuse to not take advantage of our own
resources, to lessen our dependancy on foreign oil.

General Electric/Hudson: That was NOT an accident. Read, Dave. It happened
quite a few years ago, but it's in the news at least monthly, even now,
because the company continues to stall on cleanup efforts.

But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created, and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.



Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout, and
the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to
give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the shareholders
of
utilities in Ohio.

But what about affordable electricity for the poor folks in NYC?

Don't even try that trick with me, Dave.

Trick? What trick. You have been a champion of the poor and their
"right" to live a decent lifestyle in America. You have weighed in on
how unfair it is for them to receive such low wages for menial
unskilled jobs. So now the issue comes back to you. Are your pollution
controls so important that they trump the "right" of the poor to have
affordable electricity?

That's the problem when you try to burn the candle from both ends Doug.
Sometimes you get burned in the middle.




Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.


Please provide a list of companies which have NOT had to adjust their
selling prices in the past 100 years, due to changes in costs of raw
materials, employee benefits, legal environment, taxes, etc.


Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have
known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value
here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to
have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?

Care to back up the "double" figure?

Where did you get your theory about bankruptcy, Dave? There are few, if
any
bankruptcy rumors floating around for Midwest utilitity companies.

The biggest one coming from the same company that's been at the focal
point of the "blackout".


The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than
NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Such are the problems of being a monopoly.

So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?

Well duh! This does not add or subtract from the basic argument.

Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.

If we had power for half the price and you could not drink the water is that
a bargain?

Is it just OK if we can't eat the fish we catch? Or does it not matter to
you because *you* don't eat fish? Has it dawned on you that most life in the
Midwest depends on this water. So, using the free market solution, how much
is keeping mercury out of the food and water worth?

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be funny. Everyone complains
about
the cost of energy yet the environmental faction of the left:

Opposes the creation of additional nuclear (nookular) plants, due
to
the
waste disposal issues.

Would YOU like to live within 100 miles of a nuclear waste dump
built
near
an earthquake fault?

Of course not.

Let's round you up and keep you focused:

"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of
additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it
contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds
turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple
picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

And how is it the right does not care if what they eat is not good for you?
Do they have some special power to resist the ill effects of toxic waste?
My best guess is that the only reason the conservative side does not care
about the issue is because the tools of the left happen to be the best
(government control) for tackling the problem, and the right can't swallow
their pride long enough to do the right thing themselves.

Or more cynically: Lets play chicken - let the left burn their political
capitol doing the right thing while we raid the piggy bank.

Now, to the important point: Your phrase, above, suggests that you look
down
on people who'd like to see nuclear waste handled correctly.

Your comprehensive abilities are as flawed as ever.

So, when generating toxic waste that will be dangerous longer than all of
recorded history to date, how much debate should there be on the issue?

Should we at least one workable solution before proceeding forward?

But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please
explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

Launch explosion - bad idea.

There are other technologies which could be applied as well.

They are?

The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

You do?

The U.S. standards are light years ahead of the soviets (Communism will
do that), and it is doubtful that it could happen here to the same
degree (Three Mile Island not withstanding).

Thanks; I was just going to mention that.

But other than the nuclear
waste, nuke plants are clean and efficient, and help remove the need to
depend on fossil fuel.

Except for that one nagging little problem ...

Opposes the expansion of coal burning plants due to pollution
issues.

So, you think the "pollution issues" are acceptable as they are? How
about
if they increase by 25%, and either kill the fish in your favorite
waters,
or make those fish inedible? Do you consider that just incidental to
our
way
of life?

Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay
to
see it happen?

I'm willing to pay more. I already pay more than my parents did in 1970,
and
our kids will pay more than we do. Who says that the rates of 30 years
ago
were realistic for the future?

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Dave, now that is a bit of a reach; now YOU care about the poor?

In any case, part of the cost of production is the cost of pollution
reduction.
End of story.

Opposes the drilling for oil on our own shores to reduce the
dependancy
on foreign oil, due to perceived environmental impacts.

I guess you've forgotten the Exxon Valdez incident, and the fact
that
they
bitched and moaned about taking responsibility for it. Or, the fact
that
GE
still won't own up to its part in poisoning the Hudson River, and
claims
they shouldn't have to help pay for it. These are NOT exceptions,
Dave.

Accidents happen. That's reality. The threat of an accident should not
keep us from technological progress. Otherwise, we should go back to
living in log cabins, growing our own food, and reading by lamps fuels
with animal fat.

Exxon Valdez: Right. Accidents happen. But, that doesn't change the fact
that companies should take responsibility for the RESULTS of accidents
with
or on their property.

It should also not be an excuse to not take advantage of our own
resources, to lessen our dependancy on foreign oil.

General Electric/Hudson: That was NOT an accident. Read, Dave. It
happened
quite a few years ago, but it's in the news at least monthly, even now,
because the company continues to stall on cleanup efforts.

But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

In any case, our domestic sources are mostly inadequate for domestic needs.
Adding six months of production is a sort term solution at best.
whether it 10 years or 100, we are going to run out of oil. The best plan it
to start working towards rational solutions now.

Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

Most aluminum is already produced by electrical extraction driven by hydro
dams. We are already producing about as much hydro power as is practical.
Even this clean power source does have its problems, the chief among them
being siltification and resulting self destruction and the disruption of
natural flood plain restoration of prime farm land. These are not
insignificant problems.

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

I assume that you read well enough to work through the spelling error to
understand the point raised? Personally, I would like to see an effort to
address the point issued.


Meanwhile, we are facing an energy crisis. The latest blackout,
and
the
crisis in California a few yeasr back, should serve as a warning
and a
wake up call. Do we want energy or not? What will we be willing to
give
up to get it?

I'm not willing to give up clean air & water to appease the
shareholders
of
utilities in Ohio.

But what about affordable electricity for the poor folks in NYC?

Don't even try that trick with me, Dave.

Trick? What trick. You have been a champion of the poor and their
"right" to live a decent lifestyle in America. You have weighed in on
how unfair it is for them to receive such low wages for menial
unskilled jobs. So now the issue comes back to you. Are your pollution
controls so important that they trump the "right" of the poor to have
affordable electricity?

That's the problem when you try to burn the candle from both ends Doug.
Sometimes you get burned in the middle.


So, Dave, since you raised the question; Are pollution controls so important
that they trump the "right" of the poor to have affordable electricity?
When my dad was a kid, the day after a new snowfall the snow turned black
because of the coal burning pollution. Would this be OK for a 30% rate cut?



Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual
monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.


Please provide a list of companies which have NOT had to adjust their
selling prices in the past 100 years, due to changes in costs of raw
materials, employee benefits, legal environment, taxes, etc.


Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

Strawman.

You can do better.

Mark Browne


Dave

Or there arn't any.

Also see:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/

Search for "invisible snorg"

Mark Browne

Mark Browne wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Gould 0738 wrote:

I did not know Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11, but since you
believe he was, shouldn't we go after his top 50 henchmen?

You introduced the "top 50 Iraqis" into the discussion about responding
to
9-11.
Even though our government implied that SH conspired with his sworn,
mortal
enemy, OBL, to pull of 9-11, the case seems weak at best.

I thought we were discussing 9-11, but to answer your question anyway,
if I
was a betting man, I would guess they are over in Syria or buried out
in the
middle of the desert. Do you honestly believe that SH was not
stockpiling
weapons of MD?

If he had any, they were manufactured outside of Iraq and brought in.

Not necessarily.


The last
time we were able to detect any trace of WMD manufacture in Iraq was
1998.

By what means?


Inspectors last year not only did not find any weapons, they were unable
to
detect even the slightest chemical or biological trace of any recent
manufacturing activity. The ordinance has a 3- 5year shelf life.

Key phrase: "were unable to find". That does not mean that they were not
there, only that the inspectors failed to find them. You seem to imply
that the Iraqi's were "up front" and honest when it came time to show
the inspectors around. Like I said before, it's a BIG desert.

Or there arn't any.
See:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/skeptic-faq/
Look at point 0.6: mundane, unusual and bull**** claims.


I like this one, and in many cases it applies. Deciding whether a
seemingly outlandish claim is credible or not, has much to do with the
circumstances surrounding the claim. For instance, if I were to say that
I had a garage full of chemical weapons, it would probably fall under
the "BS" claim. But knowing what we know about Saddam Hussein, his
personality, his paranoia, his aspirations, and his ruthlessness, it's
much more believable that HE has them stashed somewhere.

It's certainly possible that there aren't any WMD. It's also equally
possible that there are hidden caches. The real point is that we should
not automatically jump to either conclusion, based solely on flawed
analysis and conjecture.

Dave

Mark Browne wrote:

So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

I know how most businesses operate. This one is not much different.

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Such are the problems of being a monopoly.

It is impractical for a utility to be anything but. At least from a
distribution standpoint.



So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?

Well duh! This does not add or subtract from the basic argument.

And that basic argument has always been that the left wants:

Clean air, minimal pollution, and right now. While they also want
unskilled working poor to be paid a wage that is disproportionate to
their skill level, and the government to provide all sorts of social
services.

Now, all of these things cost money. Money that does not grow on trees.
How do we have cleaner electric plants, yet maintain current rates? If
increased rates are ok, then how high can we go, before we put a
"hurting" on the poor? While digging deeper into our pockets to pay for
these increases, how much less buying power will it take before the
economy goes into a tailspin? How can we afford to pay the poor a "fair"
wage, when our economy is in the tank?


Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.

If we had power for half the price and you could not drink the water is that
a bargain?

Probably not. But the truth is that we've made major steps toward
pollution reduction in the last 20 years. We are not going in the wrong
direction, in most cases.


Is it just OK if we can't eat the fish we catch? Or does it not matter to
you because *you* don't eat fish? Has it dawned on you that most life in the
Midwest depends on this water. So, using the free market solution, how much
is keeping mercury out of the food and water worth?

So are you essentially asking whether the people would choose to live a
life where they can have common modern necesities, as well as some
luxuries and deal with some level of pollution, or to live a life of
poverty, where the cost of living has risen sharply due to increased
pollution regulations? I can't answer that for anyone other than me.



"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of
additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it
contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds
turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple
picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

And how is it the right does not care if what they eat is not good for you?
Do they have some special power to resist the ill effects of toxic waste?

Ever hear of the phrase "Cents wise and dollar foolish"? Conservatives
recognize the need to limit pollution. However, they are more practical
in that if the cost to go from a 75% reduction in pollutants to a 90%
reduction, rise exponentially, that the 75% figure is more workable and
viable, all other factors considered.


My best guess is that the only reason the conservative side does not care
about the issue is because the tools of the left happen to be the best
(government control) for tackling the problem, and the right can't swallow
their pride long enough to do the right thing themselves.

Government interference is never the "best" method to do control
business. All that does is encourage people to "cheat". The "best"
solution is technology. Unfortunately, technology costs money to
develop, and takes time to perfect.

All that government is good at is taking money from those who make it,
and giving it to those who don't, whether that's in business or personal
budgets.



So, when generating toxic waste that will be dangerous longer than all of
recorded history to date, how much debate should there be on the issue?

Should we at least one workable solution before proceeding forward?

Probably. Meanwhile don't complain about the smoke from coal plants.


But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please
explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

Launch explosion - bad idea.

Another potential accident standing in the way of progress?

There are other technologies which could be applied as well.

They are?

I read somewhere once about a sort of "recycling" for spent uranium,
where it could be reused. More research was pending (Laking funds, most
likely).

The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

You do?

Am I not a person? Of course I don't want that either. I'm just
addressing the fear factor.


The U.S. standards are light years ahead of the soviets (Communism will
do that), and it is doubtful that it could happen here to the same
degree (Three Mile Island not withstanding).

Thanks; I was just going to mention that.

TMI was nowhere near the catstrophy that Chernobyl was.

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Dave, now that is a bit of a reach; now YOU care about the poor?

Mark, I care about all people who are willing to help themselves. But
reality is that it will cost more money for electric to bring these
plants into line. Who will it hurt the most?



In any case, part of the cost of production is the cost of pollution
reduction.
End of story.

Then I don't want to hear you cry about the horribly high cost of
electric, and about how much further the poor are being pulled under the
poverty line as a result. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

In any case, our domestic sources are mostly inadequate for domestic needs.
Adding six months of production is a sort term solution at best.
whether it 10 years or 100, we are going to run out of oil. The best plan it
to start working towards rational solutions now.

I wholehardedly agree! We have a finite reserve of fossil fuel. So we'd
better get cracking at a technological solution. Solar power? Fusion?
Matter-Antimatter? (Hey it worked for Scotty!) Hydrogen? Geothermal?

The point is that we need to apply serious resources (people and money)
to this issue.



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

Most aluminum is already produced by electrical extraction driven by hydro
dams. We are already producing about as much hydro power as is practical.

Anywhere there is a large river, it becomes practical to make hydo
power. It also creates wonderful boating lakes!


Even this clean power source does have its problems, the chief among them
being siltification and resulting self destruction and the disruption of
natural flood plain restoration of prime farm land. These are not
insignificant problems.

Accumulation of silt can be dredged away, and is a part of normal
maintenance in some plants. The other issues are a matter of
speculation, and logisical planning. Nothing insurmountable.


It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

I assume that you read well enough to work through the spelling error to
understand the point raised? Personally, I would like to see an effort to
address the point issued.

Tell that to Doug. He's the one critical of spelling, and strangely
silent on the point.


That's the problem when you try to burn the candle from both ends Doug.
Sometimes you get burned in the middle.


So, Dave, since you raised the question; Are pollution controls so important
that they trump the "right" of the poor to have affordable electricity?
When my dad was a kid, the day after a new snowfall the snow turned black
because of the coal burning pollution. Would this be OK for a 30% rate cut?

Ask a poor person, who might not be able to stay warm this winter.

Yea, I know, in typical leftist fashion, someone in congress will come
up with a way for government to subsidize the poor's electric bills,
thereby placing the burden on the rest of us.....



Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

Strawman.

Every good plan starts with a strawman. It does not invalidate the
point..

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Every public company's shareholders face risk, even in a relatively
bulletproof industry like mine (grocery). Utility shareholders have
known
for at least 20 years that this day was coming. Tough ****.

A non-answer. We're not talking about decreased shareholder value
here.
We're talking about bankruptcy. Are you, as a consumer, willing to
have
your electric bill double, or more, so that the electric companies can
be brought into EPA standards, and increase their capacity?

Where did you get your theory about bankruptcy, Dave? There are few, if
any
bankruptcy rumors floating around for Midwest utilitity companies.

The biggest one coming from the same company that's been at the focal
point of the "blackout".

Plenty of utilities have faced bankruptcy over the past 30 years, Dave. Most
have been totally unrelated to the left wing plot to destroy them. Most also
came back stronger, with better management and better accounting methods.
All businesses adjust, or they cease to exist, and that's how it should be.
================================================== ====================


The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than
NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Here's how corporations, in general, raise money for capital projects, Dave:
CLEVELAND ELEC ILLUM CO 8.375% of 12/01/11
Do you know what it is?
================================================== ====================


So you want them to spend money on infrastructure, in order to pollute
less? The SOMEONE is going to have to pay for it. Three guesses who
that someone will ultimately be?


Doubled electric bills? Where did THAT idea come from?

The exact figure is speculative. But if you don't acknowlege that the
rate will grow disproportionately to the level of inflation, you're
living in a vacuum. There's no such thing as a free lunch. You want
modern technology, you're going to pay for it.

Dave, have you read the specifics of what's being called the "20% clause"
for utilities which want to refurbish existing power plants?
================================================== =====================



"..the environmental faction of the left opposes the creation of
additional
nuclear (nookular) plants, due to the
waste disposal issues."

First, a minor point: The environmental "faction" as you call it
contains
quite a few NRA members who'd prefer not to see their hunting grounds
turned
into wastelands. Are NRA members part of the "left", in your simple
picture?

Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

Is is certainly NOT irrelevant. Your generalization is absurd. There's a
huge contingent of citizens who are flag wavers just like you. But secretly,
they contribute money to groups which protect their ability to hunt, fish
and camp on clean, undisturbed land. About 5 years ago, Time magazine ran an
article about this issue. They showed survey results which indicated that
membership in various organizations came as a total surprise to the people
who ran those organizations. For instance, many respondents who said they
were NRA members also contributed heavily to Greenpeace and the Nature
Conservancy. Go figure, eh? Or not, depending on your ability to do so.
================================================== ====================


Now, to the important point: Your phrase, above, suggests that you look
down
on people who'd like to see nuclear waste handled correctly.

Your comprehensive abilities are as flawed as ever.


But then you
say that you would not want to live within 100 miles of the stuff. Since
NOBODY has figured out how to securely handle nuclear waste, please
explain
the dichotomy of your statements.

There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

"SAO LUIS, Brazil, Aug. 25 - Brazil's space program will have difficulty
replacing the scientists and technicians killed in the explosion that
destroyed a rocket at its launch base, the project coordinator said Monday.
Friday's accident killed 21 people, including top scientists and engineers,
days before the unmanned rocket was due to blast off from the jungle launch
site on a mission to place two satellites into orbit."

Fortunately, this never happens here in America. Right???? Let me get this
straight: If a rocket full of nuclear waste explodes, it would harm nobody
because the intentions of its designers were noble ones. But, if a suitcase
full of nuclear waste explodes in a major city, it's a dirty bomb, because
the intentions of its designers were evil. I think I understand the
difference.
================================================== ===================

There are other technologies which could be applied as well. The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

Reactor safety is not the same issue as proper handling of waste. It doesn't
seem to be a problem for you because at the moment, we're sticking the stuff
in some mountain in Nevada, far from YOUR house.

As far as "other technologies", many sane people think we should actually
POSSESS those technologies before we plan on using them. At the moment,
though, they do not exist.
================================================== ===================



Personally, I could care less about fish. But to your point, how much
pollution are you willing to accept? How much are you willing to pay
to
see it happen?

I'm willing to pay more. I already pay more than my parents did in 1970,
and
our kids will pay more than we do. Who says that the rates of 30 years
ago
were realistic for the future?

No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Let's try this: Toyota and Honda saw the writing on the wall and they've
developed models which get gas mileage ranging from "Amazing" to "Holy
**** - that's outrageous". They are now reaping the rewards for spending on
research and development. This is how it should be, right? Do something
good - get paid for it.

The utilities have a better deal: The technology already exists for cleaning
smokestack emissions. It can be installed on existing plants or designed
into new facilities. The utilities don't have to worry about R&D - they just
need to buy the stuff. Then, they can make more electricity and get paid for
it.

There's only one reason they complain about the extra cost: There's a board
of directors which is more concerned with shareholder value. Unfortunately,
this is a short-term view.
================================================== ===================


General Electric/Hudson: That was NOT an accident. Read, Dave. It
happened
quite a few years ago, but it's in the news at least monthly, even now,
because the company continues to stall on cleanup efforts.

But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

No, it's not another story. It's a very important example of a
high-visibility company which refuses to take responsibility for the damage
it's done. It's not limited to utilities - it's common to many industries.
The problem is more insidious with SMALLER companies because they tend to
escape national news coverage.
================================================== ===================



Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

Was it you who, in another thread, whined about how conservation districts
were going to be the downfall of America? This is the same thing. It doesn't
deserve any further discussion. You either heard about this on a hysterical
radio talk show, or read a blurb in the newspaper while in the bathroom, and
you think it's an evil plot all across the nation. Yawn......
================================================== ===================



Every company gets beat up sometimes. The well managed
ones recover just fine, especially when they have a virtual
monopoly.

Sure they'll recover, it'll just cost you more to power your computers
and other appliances.


Please provide a list of companies which have NOT had to adjust their
selling prices in the past 100 years, due to changes in costs of raw
materials, employee benefits, legal environment, taxes, etc.


Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

I keep asking if you read, and you continually prove that you don't.
Investigators now know that the rate increases in California were not
connected to any kind of physical reality which demanded price hikes. In the
past week, the DOE spokespersons have used the word "gouging" repeatedly.
Read, Dave. The California mess has nothing to do with the pollution
problems caused by coal-burning plants in the Midwest. Zero. Zip. Crush the
thought and don't mention it again.

The End

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Mark Browne wrote:

So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

And you? You *do* know this stuff?

I know how most businesses operate. This one is not much different.

Really?
================================================== ===================


OK, Dave. You don't eat fish. How about water. Do you like water? What about
your kids? Here are some bodies of water which supply cities in New York
(all except Tupper Lake, the last in the list below). Lake Ontario's another
one. It provides drinking water to a few million people in NY and Canada.

But, if you don't care about mercury in NY's waters, perhaps you'll enjoy
this link:
http://www.potomacriver.org/about_ICPRB/faqs.htm
It's headed to YOUR neighborhood, Dave! Fortunately, the mercury which
drifts from the Midwest to your neighborhood is highly responsive to prayer.
If you pray real good, it doesn't fall out of the sky into YOUR water
sources.

Mercury is harmless in Pennsylvania, but in other places, it's funny stuff:
http://www.american.edu/TED/MINAMATA.HTM


Amawalk Reservoir (Westchester County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of both largemouth and smallmouth bass larger than 16 inches, based on
elevated mercury levels.

Bog Brook Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH of
walleye larger than 21 inches, based on elevated mercury levels.

Cannonsville Reservoir (Delaware County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER
MONTH of yellow perch (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels in
yellow perch.

Diverting Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH of
walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

East Branch Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

Titicus Reservoir (Westchester County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of white perch (all sizes) from the Titicus Reservoir, based on elevated
mercury levels.

West Branch Reservoir (Putnam County) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH
of walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

New Advisory for Tupper Lake

Tupper Lake (Franklin and St. Lawrence Counties) - EAT NO MORE THAN ONE MEAL
PER MONTH of walleye (all sizes), based on elevated mercury levels.

Doug Kanter wrote:



Plenty of utilities have faced bankruptcy over the past 30 years, Dave. Most
have been totally unrelated to the left wing plot to destroy them.

There is no left wing plot. But it does seem funny, that the people who
generally fail at business, and cry foul against those who succeed, are
now attempting to write the regulations for businesses to follow.


Most also
came back stronger, with better management and better accounting methods.
All businesses adjust, or they cease to exist, and that's how it should be.
================================================== ====================

The equipment necessary to produce cleaner power is more expensive than
NOT
buying it, but not so dear that it breaks companies.


So now you're in the electricity business eh? You know their overhead
costs?

I'll let you in on a little secret; since the electric uutilies are so
heavily regulated by government, they are not allowed to raise their
rates without "permission". The result is that they often run with such
a small profit margin, that they do not have the extra capital to spend
on upgrades.

Here's how corporations, in general, raise money for capital projects, Dave:
CLEVELAND ELEC ILLUM CO 8.375% of 12/01/11
Do you know what it is?

My best guess would have to be some sort of bond. Maybe a FIPS? If
that's the case, then you have to understand that many companies have
already accounted for income growth from bonds into their operating
income. What should be set aside for improvements, is often used for
operating capital.


Dave, have you read the specifics of what's being called the "20% clause"
for utilities which want to refurbish existing power plants?
================================================== =====================

I have not read the specifics. There's only so much time in any given
day.


Irrelevant. It is the left who promotes these "causes".

Is is certainly NOT irrelevant. Your generalization is absurd.

So you're saying that environmental causes are not championed mostly by
the left? Who's being absurd now?


There's a
huge contingent of citizens who are flag wavers just like you. But secretly,
they contribute money to groups which protect their ability to hunt, fish
and camp on clean, undisturbed land.

And I do the same to organizations who attempt to block radical enviro
wacko ideas that stand to limit usage of waterways, and other
recreational areas based, on pie-in-the-sky science. Like bans on 2
strokes, the draining of man-made lakes, manatee madness, snowmobile
bans, etc.

About 5 years ago, Time magazine ran an
article about this issue. They showed survey results which indicated that
membership in various organizations came as a total surprise to the people
who ran those organizations. For instance, many respondents who said they
were NRA members also contributed heavily to Greenpeace and the Nature
Conservancy. Go figure, eh? Or not, depending on your ability to do so.

I see nothing wrong with RESPONSIBLE approaches to environmental
awareness and reduction of pollution. I have a problem with radical
approaches, which call for drastic lifestyle changes, in order to
comply. Many of these costs will not be able to be withstood by the
people with the least ability to pay for them.

And therein lies the conundrum for the left. Do we embrace radical
lifestyle changes in the name of the environment, and forsake our
obligation to the poor?


There are places where we could send the waste, such as into space.

"SAO LUIS, Brazil, Aug. 25 - Brazil's space program will have difficulty
replacing the scientists and technicians killed in the explosion that
destroyed a rocket at its launch base, the project coordinator said Monday.
Friday's accident killed 21 people, including top scientists and engineers,
days before the unmanned rocket was due to blast off from the jungle launch
site on a mission to place two satellites into orbit."

Fortunately, this never happens here in America. Right????

You'd better sell your car then. Every time you drive it, you have the
potential to be involved in a fatal accident. NASA had better close its
doors too since we'll likely never 100% prevent another shuttle
accident. We'd better stop shipping oil by tanker, since they can hit a
stray iceberg, or founder in a storm. God forbid we take a few risks.

Let me get this
straight: If a rocket full of nuclear waste explodes, it would harm nobody
because the intentions of its designers were noble ones. But, if a suitcase
full of nuclear waste explodes in a major city, it's a dirty bomb, because
the intentions of its designers were evil. I think I understand the
difference.

You really have a flair for the dramatic in order to convolute a point.

There are other technologies which could be applied as well. The other
issue is the Chernobyl factor. People don't want that to happen here.

Reactor safety is not the same issue as proper handling of waste.

No, but it's equally important, and does address some of the mindset of
people who oppose nuke plants.

It doesn't
seem to be a problem for you because at the moment, we're sticking the stuff
in some mountain in Nevada, far from YOUR house.

Typical leftist. Make this an issue about me. It's not near your house
either, so the point is irrelevant.


As far as "other technologies", many sane people think we should actually
POSSESS those technologies before we plan on using them. At the moment,
though, they do not exist.

Try looking into nuclear waste reclaimation. I read something on the
subject a while back.


No Doug, you can't weasel out of it that easily. Everyone expects that
things will cost more as inflation increases the overhead and cost of
manufacture. But there is a point where the rate jumps up
disproportionately (like the recent rise in gasoline) to the going
inflation rate. If I'm paying $65 a month for electric one year, and the
next it jumps to $120, that's not a normal increase. By that's what you
can expect if the utility companies are forced to "modernize". Money
doen't grow on trees, it has to come from somewhere. Even a government
subsity, would come out of your tax money. So you're paying more one way
or the other. Since there are people who live from paycheck to paycheck,
how do you explain that to them?

Let's try this: Toyota and Honda saw the writing on the wall and they've
developed models which get gas mileage ranging from "Amazing" to "Holy
**** - that's outrageous".

How about "ho-hum"? The Honda hybrid gets about 12 MPG more than my
conventional 3 cylinder Geo Metro. Not exactly something to write home
about. Not surprising, these hybrids are somewhat wimpy in performance,
and are built light to facilitate better fuel efficiency. And try
pulling a 6000 LB boat with one of those hybrid cars, and then come back
and tell me about it.

You come up with a technology that allows 50+ MPG, develops 300 HP AND
can pull 6000 Lbs, and then I'll sit up and say "wow!".


They are now reaping the rewards for spending on
research and development. This is how it should be, right? Do something
good - get paid for it.

Reaping what rewards? I see maybe one or two Hondas on the road during a
given 6 month period. Usually they're being driven way under the speed
limit, in the right lane, and I get a quick glimpse as I wiz by. I don't
know if they're unable to hold 65 MPH, or if the owners are just a bit
kooky. On the other hand, practically every other car I see is either a
Ford Explorer, or a Dodge mini-van.


The utilities have a better deal: The technology already exists for cleaning
smokestack emissions. It can be installed on existing plants or designed
into new facilities. The utilities don't have to worry about R&D - they just
need to buy the stuff. Then, they can make more electricity and get paid for
it.

Yep, they just have to "buy the stuff". With what money?


There's only one reason they complain about the extra cost: There's a board
of directors which is more concerned with shareholder value. Unfortunately,
this is a short-term view.

Your view is way too cynical. Why would a utility who is a monopoly by
nature, have to be overly concerned with shareholder value? It's not
like they have to trim expenses and move jobs offshore to compete with a
foreign company.


But they have nothing to do with the generation of power. The "G.E.
Story" is another subject entirely.

No, it's not another story. It's a very important example of a
high-visibility company which refuses to take responsibility for the damage
it's done.

But nothing to do with electric generation.


It's not limited to utilities - it's common to many industries.

But we're talking about electric plants. Stay focussed.


Is now making noise about the large lakes (Which are also great
boating
places) created for hydro-electic plants, due to changes to the
natural
habitat. There are some who want to drain lakes like Mead and
Powell.

Do you feel this type of opposition is the rule? In other words, for
every
100 hydro facilities, how many are being picked on?

It all starts with one. If that one falls, a precidence is created,
and
it becomes easier for the rest to follow.

That's "precedent", George. A precedent is created.

Typical. When one cannot refute the issue, they pick on grammar or
spelling errors.

Was it you who, in another thread, whined about how conservation districts
were going to be the downfall of America?

I don't think so.


This is the same thing. It doesn't deserve any further discussion.

Of course not, because it threatens to topple your house of cards.
Deny it all you want, it's a very real threat. You, as a boater, should
be up on the efforts of loonie-tunes who are out to ruin your fun.

You either heard about this on a hysterical
radio talk show, or read a blurb in the newspaper while in the bathroom, and
you think it's an evil plot all across the nation.

Try this newsgroup. And the Sierra Club is as close to a national evil
plot as anything else.

Smokescreen Doug. We're talking about two different things and you know
it. If your electric rate goes up 2 or 3 dollars a month, you dig a
little deeper and don't sweat it all that much. Ask someone living in
California if their sudden rate increases, of a couple of years ago,
were in line with "cost of materials" and inflation. I wonder how many
poor people had their electric cut off, because they couldn't afford
it.....

I keep asking if you read, and you continually prove that you don't.

I don't read the same leftist biased tripe that you do. I read sensible
reports.


Investigators now know that the rate increases in California were not
connected to any kind of physical reality which demanded price hikes. In the
past week, the DOE spokespersons have used the word "gouging" repeatedly.

It was also the result of mismanagement, and of allowing their
generation facilites to be sold (Thereby removing their responsibility
to pay for upgrades), which left them at the mercy of outside electric
suppliers. Those outside suppliers were free to gouge them on price, as
they had a real demand, and there was no competition for the supply.

The point is, why did Cal-Ed sell off their generating plants in the
first place, thus allowing the situation to develop?


Read, Dave. The California mess has nothing to do with the pollution
problems caused by coal-burning plants in the Midwest.

No, but it's a very real example of what happens when the cost of
electric goes up. And it WILL go up if plants are forced to comply with
stricter pollution standards.

Dave