Solar panels could destroy U.S. utilities, according to U.S. utilities

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ah, yes, it's all a rigged consipiracy.

I'd point out that you're free to live where you want in this country, to a place where you feel less manipulated and ripped off, but you're likely to moan and complain wherever you go.

I'd point out to you that I live where I can make a good living for my family doing what I enjoy. That, at current, is here in the sunshine state. I don't understand why it is acceptable to some that a utility monopoly rips consumers off. They pay legislators to pass legislation that allows them to not only charge for plants for which not even a building permission has been obtained. It's a plant that isn't viable yet consumers already paid $1.5 billion dollars with 10% of that going straight to the utility's bottom line whether that plant is ever built or not. That's a rip-off any way you slice it. Might work for you but I think it stinks.

[del-2-5-2014 1,339]

Back to caves! Yay!

No. It's called making a choice where your money goes.

Absolutely!

(1) carrier would be my minimum.

The point was, deregulation reduced the number of options available. There was plenty of choice/competition before. Deregulation drove competition in a different direction which has not resulted in a better product/service, just a cheaper one.

Well, we of the Nigerian contingent thinks this worked out great.

Before it was only Pan Am. Now we have United, Delta with direct non stops.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No. It's called making a choice where your money goes.

No, it's called making a straw man argument. The discussion was not about whether or not one requires electricity but whether or not a utility rips consumers off.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

(1) carrier would be my minimum.

The point was, deregulation reduced the number of options available. There was plenty of choice/competition before. Deregulation drove competition in a different direction which has not resulted in a better product/service, just a cheaper one.

You complain about lack of competition but only require 1 carrier to be available to service the route you are looking to travel. Some competition.

If you want to read the case for airline deregulation, here's a good read on that. Out of it comes this little gem:

-- In 1974, it was illegal for an airline to charge less than $1,442 in inflation-adjusted dollars for a flight between New York City and Los Angeles. On Kayak, just now, I found one for $278.

Deregulation certainly sucks. We'd be so much better off if the airlines were still required by law to charge minimum fares.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[erynaught 43]

I'd point out to you that I live where I can make a good living for my family doing what I enjoy. That, at current, is here in the sunshine state. I don't understand why it is acceptable to some that a utility monopoly rips consumers off. They pay legislators to pass legislation that allows them to not only charge for plants for which not even a building permission has been obtained. It's a plant that isn't viable yet consumers already paid $1.5 billion dollars with 10% of that going straight to the utility's bottom line whether that plant is ever built or not. That's a rip-off any way you slice it. Might work for you but I think it stinks.

I still don't see a ripoff. I see a business decision to build a plant and a regulatory decision to allow some/all of the costs to be passed along to ratepayers. I see a cost per kw/h that is lower than the national average.

Do you contend that poor business decisions are ripoffs?

Don't like what your legislators do, then vote for new legislators. Don't like the direction of your govenment, then get involved.

[erynaught 43]

You complain about lack of competition but only require 1 carrier to be available to service the route you are looking to travel. Some competition.

If you want to read the case for airline deregulation, here's a good read on that. Out of it comes this little gem:

-- In 1974, it was illegal for an airline to charge less than $1,442 in inflation-adjusted dollars for a flight between New York City and Los Angeles. On Kayak, just now, I found one for $278.

Deregulation certainly sucks. We'd be so much better off if the airlines were still required by law to charge minimum fares.

You asked what the minimum requirement would be ... I can only fly one plane at a time, so my minumum to get me from one point to another is (1).

I wasn't complaining of the lack of competition, only that deregulation brought about less competition (overall; there were markets that saw increased options). I do like choice. I agree that deregulation brought prices down substantially, but as I noted earlier, it also resulted in many nasty side effects I noted earlier. I like lower costs, but don't always agree that cheaper/cheapest is better.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I still don't see a ripoff. I see a business decision to build a plant and a regulatory decision to allow some/all of the costs to be passed along to ratepayers.

There's nothing being built. There's only a $1.5 billion sucked from the consumers and 10% of that used to pad the bottom line. Everyone knows that the plant won't ever be build and yet the charges for the consumers and the padding of the bottom line continue. That's a rip-off.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That's bull and you know it.

People lived for hundreds of thousands of years without it. If you are that mad about it, stick to your guns and live off the grid.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

People lived for hundreds of thousands of years without it. If you are that mad about it, stick to your guns and live off the grid.

I'll say it again for the cheap seats in the back: That is completely irrelevant to the discussion.