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.
Second your argument about company A charing company B is EXACTLY what I stated!
This is not what I said at all. I'll try again, the power distributor charges ME the fees for distribution. That rate is the same whether they are generating the electric or some other company is.
I think the issue here is lack of reading comprehension.
You just actually are naive enough to believe that they don't actually have talks with the other company about transmission.
So your point is.
"Oh they send me the bill! Not the other guys! They obviously can determine what the charge is between the two of them for transmission. So regardless of how it gets to you it would be determined by company A. This is just plain naivety. Do you honestly believe that they say nothing about who gets to access the wires and the costs it takes to do that? Because in order for your argument to work they would simply have to give access to anyone who has a generation source without raising the price of the charge to the competitor.
This obviously has been happening go look it up. One of the main arguments that utilities have been using against renewable energy is that it drives up the costs on non-renewable energy owners. Obviously they don't want competition so they complain and PASS THE COSTS DOWN. In this way, they charge people for company B to access the wires. No company is going to give them a "fair" deal to a competitor who is going to put them out of business. In this way company B gets to take all of the credit for the higher prices regardless of whether or not he gives it directly to company A or whether or not company A simply raises prices on all customers. And by the way, this would never happen without regulation forcing it to be this way. So this would still require the government to get involved.
Your entire argument is predicated on the silly notion that someone with complete control of the wires will simply allow for a competitor to put them out of the generation business on their own wires. That would be like Apple simply allowing Microsoft to sell their laptops inside of the Apple store. Apple being totally willing to simply allow them to take away their market share inside of their own store, it's ridiculous.
Second your point about profits of Apple vs. utilities is only true because THE GOVERNMENT DETERMINES THEIR PROFITS. They have to apply to the government about how much money they will make. So it still requires regulation. That's why it's called a utility. You quoting it would be ridiculous unless you don't believe in regulation. Otherwise the electric companies would make plenty more money since they have no competition.
You agreed already that electricity is a monopoly (since you tried to rebut me by claiming it). And you also gave up the negative externality argument. That means on both accounts you agree with the entire reason for regulating the industry and yet you still hold to this non-regulation view. Either you are extremely naive, or just just plain ridiculous.
Last edited by Logicist027; 12-02-2015 at 07:48 PM..
"Oh they send me the bill! Not the other guys! They obviously can determine what the charge is between the two of them for transmission.
You've gone from the argument of company A using their monopoly the power lines to drive company B ou t of business to very other end of the spectrum of company A and B colluding.
Quote:
One of the main arguments that utilities have been using against renewable energy is that it drives up the costs on non-renewable energy owners.
Now you have switched gears again, make up your mind.
The cost of renewables is passed onto both the taxpayer and ratepayer in various forms. There is massive subsidies to begin with paid by the taxpayer. There is also what they call a renewable energy credit or REC. These are simply pieces of paper that power distributors will buy from renewable energy generators to meet renewable energy mandates. Those costs are passed onto ratepayers.
A homeowner with a grid tied system where the distributor is not charging them for use of infrastructure is going to pass those costs onto the other ratepayers. Clearly they need to pay for that service or cut the cord if they want too avoid those costs. The utility may also have to pay retail rates for excess generation, this should be capped and set at wholesale rates.
Quote:
That means on both accounts you agree with the entire reason for regulating the industry and yet you still hold to this non-regulation view.
Specifically what have I posted that has given you the impression that I don't support regulating the utility where they hold a monopoly? My power distributor holds a monopoly on power distribution, they do not hold a monopoly on power generation. There is no reason they should not be able to compete in that market. I have about 122 options from various companies.
You've gone from the argument of company A using their monopoly the power lines to drive company B ou t of business to very other end of the spectrum of company A and B colluding.
Now you have switched gears again, make up your mind.
No you just didn't understand what I said. Once again your failure to read. "They" is referring to singular company A which gets to determine the costs for both users. In a normal market "they" (company A) would charge company B for access because that is the normal way things work. But because the utilities are regulated they are forced to allow company B to sell their generation. So "they" (company A) will simply try to raise rates on wires for everyone beyond what the actual costs of company B's contribution so that they can complain about it. There is no collusion, company A is simply trying to make it harder for company B to sell their generation. This is the same thing as raising the rate on company B. They simply do it a different way because regulation is a factor. Company A can either charge company B directly or indirectly. Obviously you fall for it. That is why the utilities claim that renewable energy drives up costs on non-customers. I'm not switching gears, it's the same point.
Quote:
The cost of renewables is passed onto both the taxpayer and ratepayer in various forms. There is massive subsidies to begin with paid by the taxpayer. There is also what they call a renewable energy credit or REC. These are simply pieces of paper that power distributors will buy from renewable energy generators to meet renewable energy mandates. Those costs are passed onto ratepayers.
A homeowner with a grid tied system where the distributor is not charging them for use of infrastructure is going to pass those costs onto the other ratepayers. Clearly they need to pay for that service or cut the cord if they want too avoid those costs. The utility may also have to pay retail rates for excess generation, this should be capped and set at wholesale rates.
This is exactly what I mean. Renewables get a subsidy and the world ends. Fossil fuels get to pollute and have a guaranteed monopoly owner and you say it's ok. (Apparently it's too difficult to try to make a tax on pollution or have a serious competitive space not be ruined by a player with monopoly power) The subsidy that renewables are getting is to try to even the playing field so that it would even be a genuine competition.
If you want a serious valuation of different technologies, I don't buy the comparison when it is being made by the person who's job it depends on one to win. (the utilities) If the cost of using the grid was at the actual price that they quote, then I would be ok. However I don't buy, (and sensible people be skeptical) when a power utility says that it costs so much for a panel to be tied to their system. If the costs passed down really did exceed the benefit that the panel gave to the system, then it should raise prices. That would be a real concern. It is simply likely that it is being skewed (which was my whole point) by a utility that is in competition with panels.
Getting the utility out of both spheres simply helps the process of evaluating the technologies. It is a first step in getting accurate prices which is why it is important.
Quote:
Specifically what have I posted that has given you the impression that I don't support regulating the utility where they hold a monopoly? My power distributor holds a monopoly on power distribution, they do not hold a monopoly on power generation. There is no reason they should not be able to compete in that market. I have about 122 options from various companies.
Well earlier when I said that you believe in regulation you still try to fight me. So your position is better. It is still ridiculous, but not flat-ass nonsense.
Only you would be silly enough to believe that it is serious competition. So let's draw up an analogy since you can't figure it out. Let's use the Apple store again. So if Apple was selling Microsoft surface inside of their stores, do you think that Apple sellers wouldn't use tricks to get the Surface out of their stores? They would complain and say something like, "Their products are too bulky and raise the cost of shipping!" Or, "Their products take up too much space in the store!" They would raise the price on shipping their competitors shipping. They might even charge a higher price on their customers since people like you would say, "It's ok, they are charging me for the higher rates!" They would lobby to get the rules changed in order to favor their products over their competitors. All of these tactics already happen in the utility space.
Obviously the sensible thing to do would be to get a third party, say Best Buy, to run the store. Then the customer would get a better deal since Best Buy wouldn't care which brand they bought from. Best Buy wouldn't fight for one type of computer or the other, they would just sell the one in which the customer liked better. They would try to get fair pricing and be far less likely to favor one over the other since they don't have allegiance to one manufacturer.
So do you honestly believe that Apple would do nothing in their own store to prevent Microsoft from selling their products competitively? Are you really that naive to say, "Well its ok, its still competition." If you seriously believe that it makes more sense to have Apple selling Microsoft products inside their stores as opposed to a third party selling both, I don't know what to tell you.
Obviously the companies who are generating don't want to have competition. So guess what; they use the law to try to gain an advantage. In your world, you would say that is ok; it's just silly.
company A is simply trying to make it harder for company B to sell their generation.
I'm still not following what point you are trying too make and I'm pretty sue you don't understand it either. You're going around in circles trying to defend something that is undefendable. The cost to me the consumer is the same for distribution whether I buy electric from Company A or Company B.
Quote:
Company A can either charge company B directly or indirectly.
Again, I pay that charge.
Quote:
The subsidy that renewables are getting is to try to even the playing field so that it would even be a genuine competition.
Fossil fuels do not hold a monopoly, they dominate the market simply because they are cheap, reliable and readily available. Subsidies do not even the playing field, they raise the playing field and those costs are passed onto consumers.
Quote:
I don't buy the comparison when it is being made by the person who's job it depends on one to win.
Nice try but my only financial involvement with coal is a web site I own for homeowners that want to use coal for residential heat. Any increase in the cost of energy no matter what sector will put money in my pocket.
Quote:
Well earlier when I said that you believe in regulation you still try to fight me.
I asked specifically what gave you that impression, I'm awaiting your response.
Quote:
Only you would be silly enough to believe that it is serious competition. So let's draw up an analogy since you can't figure it out. Let's use the Apple store again. So if Apple was selling Microsoft surface inside of their stores, do you think that Apple sellers wouldn't use tricks to get the Surface out of their stores?
If you are going to make analogies make accurate ones. Apple in this case is mandated to sell MS products which allows MS to charge them a great deal for the product. Apple then has to sell that MS product at a loss and recoups that loss by jacking up the price of their own products.
For example the cost of wholesale electric from a coal plant might be about 3 or 4 cents/kWh. That wind farm in Massachusetts that made the news a few years back has a 15 year contract that started at 18 cents and increases 2.5% a year giving it value of almost 30 cents per kWh at the end of it. They are able to do that because of state mandates requiring the power distributor to have X amount of renewable energy in the mix. Those costs are passed onto consumers.
Why not take this discussion to its ultimate conclusion. Let's say we turn everything over to the federal government. Motor vehicle innovation will virtually cease or slow to a crawl. You'd be provided with the vehicle the government decides you need. If single, it may be a microcar. If married you'd have to show proof you need more than one vehicle or a vehicle that can hold more than 2 passengers. If having a child then they may approve a larger capacity vehicle before the child turns 5 years old. Of course politicians and their friends and family will always get approved for the largest class vehicle available. With increased government control over vehicle development, the most logical method of increasing fuel economy and decreasing cost is weight reduction. Doing so would increase the danger of death in crashes so then the Feds will once again institute a national maximum speed limit of 55mph like in the 70s and early 80s. They'll regulate the maximum size tire and rims you can purchase because narrow width tires of small diameter use less fuel, cost less to produce, and weigh less. Sound insulation, stereos, and air bags will be removed for further weight reduction.
For the home, say good bye to your electronic toys and gadgets. Back to the land line phone and not the cordless kind. One tv and one radio per home to receive to government's news and information. It'll be set up to turn off at preset times when you should be working and turn on when there's things the government wants you to know.
The thing about federal government control is it makes the goods or service more expensive and less efficient. It opens the door to corruption on a massive scale.
sheesh you people never cease to amaze me...Try to focus like a laser beam. The interconnected transmission grid is already controlled by Government based organizations, they are regulated by by law. MISO is in control of just one section of the country. CALISO, ERCOT, PJM are others. They are all overseen by FERC.....
MISO is an essential link in the safe, cost-effective delivery of electric power across all or parts of 15 U.S. states and the Canadian province of Manitoba. As a Regional Transmission Organization, MISO assures consumers of unbiased regional grid management and open access to the transmission facilities under MISO’s functional supervision. https://www.misoenergy.org/AboutUs/H...s/History.aspx https://www.misoenergy.org/Library/R...ct%20Sheet.pdf
You just don't get it so I don't know where to go.
Quote:
Nice try but my only financial involvement with coal is a web site I own for homeowners that want to use coal for residential heat. Any increase in the cost of energy no matter what sector will put money in my pocket.
Once again you failed to understand. I was talking about the companies that sell coal and distribute energy, not you. Keep on the topic. I don't believe them when they complain about the costs when they are competitors.
The point is simple. Yes, Apple in the analogy would jack up the price of everyone (including their own) and complain that it is their competitors fault. That was an indirect method. I was saying that, that was a method earlier. Read what I said again
Quote:
So "they" (company A) will simply try to raise rates on wires for everyone beyond what the actual costs of company B's contribution so that they can complain about it.
How and why would they do this? By making extra charges, by being slow to incorporate renewables into their systems effectively (like upgrading their systems, or the grid), by submitting to the regulators that they need additional revenue to incorporate renewables beyond what is reasonable. Not to mention taking them to court and complaining over the rules. All this to keep them out of their territory & people believing that it is just so damn expensive. If they can get regulators and average citizens to believe that it is so expensive, then they can make keep it ACTUALLY expensive. Once again the cost-benefit analysis is skewed when it is a competitor who is doing the calculation. Of course Apple will say that MS has "expensive" products when compared to themselves.
And once again do you don't want to internalize the costs of pollution? Should be able to pollute for free? That isn't an added cost that shouldn't be internalized? Accurate prices are what makes markets work.
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.
