Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, if you read the first article and the other article I posted, the plan is to get hydroelectricity from Quebec as an alternative.
I’m sure there are some things that are discussed as a technicality, but then why are there conflicting stories about what will/could/may happen? Even in the original article, if one reads it, it discusses the hydroelectric power from Quebec plan and also has an article attached to it stating that the plants in the Bronx and Queens aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. Let alone the other article I found where it mentions that the two NYC may be used intermittently and the original article barely mentions Upstate. So, what is the real plan? That is what makes this tough to follow and why I’m wondering where those that live near those plants are in terms of being involved in the process.
I have always been in favor of pulling down more power from Quebec. The problem it begets is that the Greta Thunbergs of the world have already, multiple times, blocked power lines that would enable that transmission. The politicians who present that as an alternative know that would never fly politically. The Democratic Party (of which I am a member) controls the Governor's mansion and both houses of the legislature. The Democrats are rapidly gaining control of the judiciary. In effect, there are no "guardrails." And it is a powerful faction within the Democratic Party that is blocking transmission lines from Upstate and Canada.
What the goal is is to "reduce, reuse and recycle," to quote one of the slogans.
Thus, such relatively clean alternatives as nuclear power and natural gas are flatly out of the question, as are transmission power lines. Again, I don't like to sound like I'm repeating mantras (I have been asked nicely not to), but this faction, almost Luddite in their intensity, has their sights set on the goal of conservation being the only alternative. In the late 1960's and early 1970's the area suffered "brownouts," or reduction in voltage. That doesn't sound so bad, but with current technology use, such as the desktop on which I am typing, that may be its problems.
All this is going to fuel more companies pulling out of NYC offices, they couldn't have picked a better times as 2024-2025 is going to be epic when many developers' loans will need to convert to newer rates away from the pandemic 0% rates. If the offices stay empty above 20% and the power outages come as well as congestion pricing.
Good questions, but I would say that there are actually parts of Upstate NY that are even more affordable in terms of COL. So, that depends on where you are.
Also, as I mentioned in the previous post, NYPA does provide electricity at low rates to municipal utility companies across the state, as this map illustrates: https://coreenv.com/wp-content/uploa...ct-300x230.jpg
Costs may be passed off within taxes, but electric bills in these places are low. So, if this could become more widespread, it would be great, even if it is for industrial reasons to attract companies/jobs.
Yeah, I don’t currently really have an issue with rates, but that’s always been a line in the sand for me. RG+E is apparently a little suspicious at times too, though I personally haven’t had a problem. I just don’t want another hit on top of the other things which are kinda expensive here, that’s all. It’s more of an eye to the future than a right here, right now concern.
I have always been in favor of pulling down more power from Quebec. The problem it begets is that the Greta Thunbergs of the world have already, multiple times, blocked power lines that would enable that transmission. The politicians who present that as an alternative know that would never fly politically. The Democratic Party (of which I am a member) controls the Governor's mansion and both houses of the legislature. The Democrats are rapidly gaining control of the judiciary. In effect, there are no "guardrails." And it is a powerful faction within the Democratic Party that is blocking transmission lines from Upstate and Canada.
What the goal is is to "reduce, reuse and recycle," to quote one of the slogans.
Thus, such relatively clean alternatives as nuclear power and natural gas are flatly out of the question, as are transmission power lines. Again, I don't like to sound like I'm repeating mantras (I have been asked nicely not to), but this faction, almost Luddite in their intensity, has their sights set on the goal of conservation being the only alternative. In the late 1960's and early 1970's the area suffered "brownouts," or reduction in voltage. That doesn't sound so bad, but with current technology use, such as the desktop on which I am typing, that may be its problems.
How does Greta even factor into this equation though? Who are the people that make up this faction blocking transmission lines from Upstate and Quebec?
Yeah, I don’t currently really have an issue with rates, but that’s always been a line in the sand for me. RG+E is apparently a little suspicious at times too, though I personally haven’t had a problem. I just don’t want another hit on top of the other things which are kinda expensive here, that’s all. It’s more of an eye to the future than a right here, right now concern.
The thing is that rates can vary within a small area. So, those in the village of Spencerport and select parts of the town of Ogden are paying a low rate, but those surrounding that coverage area in the town of Ogden are paying the rates for RG+E. So, I'm wonder as to what could be done to increase the footprint of a municipal electric company like that of Spencerport and others like it.
Interesting when the article said that the government was anti housing, yet is getting a bunch of pushback about its housing plan. That is including the multiple threads in this forum about the housing plan. So, I found that statement to be "interesting". Same with the fracking statement, given that it has some legitimate cons as well.
It also touched on something I was referring to in the politics issues thread about how companies have paid those at the top, like the executive of Con Ed getting a 4% hike.
Interesting when the article said that the government was anti housing, yet is getting a bunch of pushback about its housing plan. That is including the multiple threads in this forum about the housing plan. So, I found that statement to be "interesting". Same with the fracking statement, given that it has some legitimate cons as well.
It also touched on something I was referring to in the politics issues thread about how companies have paid those at the top, like the executive of Con Ed getting a 4% hike.
What does any of this have to do with rising energy bills?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
