JSGreen wrote:Not if you live in a BInary world, in which case you are either a conservative or NOT a conservative, then everyone not a conservative is by defination a liberal.
Not if you live in a BInary world, in which case you are either a conservative or NOT a conservative, then everyone not a conservative is by defination a liberal.
I wouldn't go as far as to call FM bi-polar. But you might have a point
Actually, his incessant railing to end individual ownership and communize this country's rail infastructure, sounds pretty left leaning to me.
TheAntiGates wrote:...one need only look at the often referenced BNSF coal map to see the oddity that there are no longer any major coalfired electric plants in California to see the disparity with the rest of the country, but I wouldn't say that alone deserves the 'most' of the blame. Certainly no small part though
...one need only look at the often referenced BNSF coal map to see the oddity that there are no longer any major coalfired electric plants in California to see the disparity with the rest of the country, but I wouldn't say that alone deserves the 'most' of the blame. Certainly no small part though
I remember hearing suring hte peak of the "crisis" that CA was using that as incentive to build smaller, kind of localized gneerationfacilities, that were by and large fueled by Natural gas, under the theory that Natural Gas burns much cleaner than coal. In the LA Basin, thats not a small thing. Seems like they decided to pay a little more for power, so they could have clean air...which also helps solve the NIBY issue. If you want power, generate it in your own backyard.
Having lived in Northern New Mexico, (four corners) where two major power plants supply power to the rest of the state, and to parts of Arizona, and seen firsthand the brown haze eminating directly from those plants, I am becoming a believer in local generation...that way, the folks that use the electriciry get to put up with the results....
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote:Clarification - Pete Wilson described himself as a "moderate", which is code for "I'm a liberal but I don't want to admit it"! LOL, illogical!!
futuremodal wrote:Clarification - Pete Wilson described himself as a "moderate", which is code for "I'm a liberal but I don't want to admit it"!
Clarification - Pete Wilson described himself as a "moderate", which is code for "I'm a liberal but I don't want to admit it"!
LOL, illogical!!
In my experiance (or is it just my outlook?) it doesnt have to be an either-or world. Its a lot like trying to force an octagonal peg into a hole that is either a square or a circle. If either hole is large enough, the peg will go into the hole....but that doesnt mean it actually fits.
Just because I am not against you, doesnt mean I am for you, either.
JOdom wrote:As long as we're apportioning blame, let's put most of it where it belongs, on the treehuggers and other chowderheads who wanted all their electrical conveniences but didn't want those nasty, smelly old power plants around. .
You are correct in stating they share the blame, one need only look at the often referenced BNSF coal map to see the oddity that there are no longer any major coalfired electric plants in California to see the disparity with the rest of the country, but I wouldn't say that alone deserves the 'most' of the blame. Certainly no small part though
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: Comment, Spock? citation?
futuremodal wrote: Comment, Spock?
Comment, Spock?
citation?
The point you are avoiding is that the whole Cal partial dereg scheme was cooked up by politicos who at the very least lean to the left if indeed they are not technically immersed in the left. However, if you'd like you could show me some names associated with the failed scheme who are true conservatives.
Same with Staggers, for what it's worth.
YoHo1975 wrote: Oh, I would never suggest that California's elected officials didn't drop the ball on this, but that doesn't change the Malice with which companies acted. It's one thing to take advantage of the system and take my money. It's another to do it while insulting me too my face. The second is more likely to get you a punch in the face or a cosey jailcell with a cosey roommate. Of course, at the time this was going on, I was sitting pretty in the Pacific Northwest myself listening to pundits suggest that if Oregon had the economy of California, then it's government would be proven to be the equal or worse to California's and wondering why the wonderful standard of living and low cost of living wasn't creating more jobs. But that's a completely different story.
Oh, I would never suggest that California's elected officials didn't drop the ball on this, but that doesn't change the Malice with which companies acted.
It's one thing to take advantage of the system and take my money. It's another to do it while insulting me too my face. The second is more likely to get you a punch in the face or a cosey jailcell with a cosey roommate.
Of course, at the time this was going on, I was sitting pretty in the Pacific Northwest myself listening to pundits suggest that if Oregon had the economy of California, then it's government would be proven to be the equal or worse to California's and wondering why the wonderful standard of living and low cost of living wasn't creating more jobs.
But that's a completely different story.
All I'm saying is that the energy companies took what the California ISO gave them. Should they have known that there would be an uprising and eventual scapegoating? Absolutely.
It's like I've said regarding some of the anti-social practices of the US railroads - eventually it'll come back to haunt them.
The regulators aren't going to scapegoat themselves!
Erik, you live in Cardiff as in Encinitas?
I work in broadband myself, so trust me, I understand. Of course, deregulation of wireless is much more complex.
For me personally, the more things like BoP fail, the better my company's product will sell.
YoHo1975 wrote:I guess going off topic is the way of the world here, but to comment on my "Current" Home state's retarded energy policy. You're right, California did mess up their energy supply through retarded dergulation. They also got screwed by Enron who was far worse then even the most jaded of you would find the railroads. However, other deregulation efforts throughout the country have not managed to reduce energy rates either. The fact of the matter is that fuel supply is only apart of the equation. There's no way DME can have a significant effect on your price per kwh.
I guess going off topic is the way of the world here, but to comment on my "Current" Home state's retarded energy policy. You're right, California did mess up their energy supply through retarded dergulation. They also got screwed by Enron who was far worse then even the most jaded of you would find the railroads. However, other deregulation efforts throughout the country have not managed to reduce energy rates either. The fact of the matter is that fuel supply is only apart of the equation. There's no way DME can have a significant effect on your price per kwh.
A good part of the problem was that the deregulation was being pushed by people who had little experience with running a power system and it also didn't help that there was little construction of new generation capacity in California from the time of the Jerry Brown administration to the power crisis of 2000-2001. There were a few things that could have been done differently that would have made deregulation work a lot better.
#1 would have made the seller responsible for arranging sufficient transmission capacity for the power being sold - if no sufficient capacity could be had then the seller would be responsible for providing alternative generation capacity.
#2 would have been phasing in "time of day" metering for all but the smallest customers.
#3 would have been letting the utilities keep 50% of their generation as allowed by the deregulation law.
I'm expecting that similar problems will crop up in the wireless biz as deregulation becomes the new fad in that industry - the whole thing being driven be people who have little understanding of the technical issues involving radio communication (you don't want to get me started on broadband over powerline).
YoHo1975 wrote: Well, you've just killed your credibility with me. Institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud is now aggressive but overly greedy marketing mistakes?There are audio tapes of Enron chief executives discribing how they were going to "screw" California residents. Ken Lay has said the following:"In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money." And finally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2003 released a report saying:"Electricity prices in California’s spot markets were affected by economic withholding and inflated price bidding, in violation of tariff anti-gaming provisions." In other words, Enron and Reliant and others broke the law.
Well, you've just killed your credibility with me.
Institutionalized, systematic, and creatively planned accounting fraud is now aggressive but overly greedy marketing mistakes?
There are audio tapes of Enron chief executives discribing how they were going to "screw" California residents.
Ken Lay has said the following:
"In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money."
And finally, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2003 released a report saying:
"Electricity prices in California’s spot markets were affected by economic withholding and inflated price bidding, in violation of tariff anti-gaming provisions."
In other words, Enron and Reliant and others broke the law.
What you left out is the fact that the California ISO set up the bidding rules, including forcing all wholesale electricity buyers to accept the highest bid, not the more usual low bid wins. Traders, who are logically directed by their employers to garner the most profit they can, took the bait.
Now, most reasonable folks would call that entrapment, but then again this is California we're talking about. After this self-induced debacle, those California politicos needed a scapegoat or two, and the FERC capitulated on that one.
You see, Yo, it was the California ISO that set up the rules for energy trading that apparently were in violation of those "anti-gaming" provisions. And do you know who one of the major players in setting up those ostensibly illegal rules?
You guessed it. Lockyer himself.
Yeah, it's too bad the FERC lacked the testicular fortitude to bring to justice the primary culprits in the 2000 energy debacle, but really now - did anyone expect that to happen?
futuremodal wrote:Comment, Spock?
TheAntiGates wrote: futuremodal wrote: (yes, AG, like Pete Wilson) with corporate bigwigs? LOL, I keep forgetting that anyone who doesn't march with locked knees looks like a liberal to you.
futuremodal wrote: (yes, AG, like Pete Wilson) with corporate bigwigs?
(yes, AG, like Pete Wilson) with corporate bigwigs?
LOL, I keep forgetting that anyone who doesn't march with locked knees looks like a liberal to you.
Well, Pete Wilson himself called himself a liberal.
MP173 wrote: YoHo:Enron did really put the screws to the California energy market. I read a book this fall called 24 Days. IT was written by 2 Wall Street Journal reporters that were on the Jeff Skilling resignation all the way thru the meltdown.In the book they quoted the California AG, who said something to the effect that his dream is to see Kenneth Lay in prison with a very sexual excited roommate. Well, it didnt quite happen that way, as Kenneth Lay headed upstairs or downstairs this past summer.ed
YoHo:
Enron did really put the screws to the California energy market. I read a book this fall called 24 Days. IT was written by 2 Wall Street Journal reporters that were on the Jeff Skilling resignation all the way thru the meltdown.
In the book they quoted the California AG, who said something to the effect that his dream is to see Kenneth Lay in prison with a very sexual excited roommate. Well, it didnt quite happen that way, as Kenneth Lay headed upstairs or downstairs this past summer.
ed
Personally, I'd rather the California AG got the *roommate* treatment. He's so much a real crook, as opposed to the aggressive but overly greedy marketing mistakes of Lay, et al.
Datafever wrote: futuremodal wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: The name of that pantload was "deregulation" in california, and we know now how well that "deal so good that we dare not waste time with skeptcism" turned out for everyone. My typical season high monthly bill went from $135/mo to over $350. First of all, the "pantload" to which you most elegantly refer was not true dereg, it was partial dereg. It was created by a bunch of *well meaning* liberals who thought that it was perfectly logical to dereg the supply side of the energy markets, but not the demand (read: consumer) side of the market. Meanwhile, newer and stricter eco rules put the kabosh on building new power plants. When the inevitable lack of new power sources finally caught up with the eco-apologists during the all time spike in electric demand, the consumer rates that should have gone up due to the supply/demand constraints didn't, so there was no price incentive for consumers to reduce energy usage. Eventually, all the Cal utilities went predictably bankrupt, as they were buying merchant priced power at up to $100 mw, but selling it at the regulated consumer rate around $25 to $35 mw.Well, it would appear as though you just proved AG's point for him. I.e. deregulation was not capable of reducing the rates. Shown by your own facts that since rates were not allowed to rise, the system ended up collapsing. Which is to say that the polotico promises were nothing but hot air. Which justifies AG's scepticism.
futuremodal wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: The name of that pantload was "deregulation" in california, and we know now how well that "deal so good that we dare not waste time with skeptcism" turned out for everyone. My typical season high monthly bill went from $135/mo to over $350. First of all, the "pantload" to which you most elegantly refer was not true dereg, it was partial dereg. It was created by a bunch of *well meaning* liberals who thought that it was perfectly logical to dereg the supply side of the energy markets, but not the demand (read: consumer) side of the market. Meanwhile, newer and stricter eco rules put the kabosh on building new power plants. When the inevitable lack of new power sources finally caught up with the eco-apologists during the all time spike in electric demand, the consumer rates that should have gone up due to the supply/demand constraints didn't, so there was no price incentive for consumers to reduce energy usage. Eventually, all the Cal utilities went predictably bankrupt, as they were buying merchant priced power at up to $100 mw, but selling it at the regulated consumer rate around $25 to $35 mw.
TheAntiGates wrote: The name of that pantload was "deregulation" in california, and we know now how well that "deal so good that we dare not waste time with skeptcism" turned out for everyone. My typical season high monthly bill went from $135/mo to over $350.
The name of that pantload was "deregulation" in california, and we know now how well that "deal so good that we dare not waste time with skeptcism" turned out for everyone. My typical season high monthly bill went from $135/mo to over $350.
First of all, the "pantload" to which you most elegantly refer was not true dereg, it was partial dereg. It was created by a bunch of *well meaning* liberals who thought that it was perfectly logical to dereg the supply side of the energy markets, but not the demand (read: consumer) side of the market. Meanwhile, newer and stricter eco rules put the kabosh on building new power plants. When the inevitable lack of new power sources finally caught up with the eco-apologists during the all time spike in electric demand, the consumer rates that should have gone up due to the supply/demand constraints didn't, so there was no price incentive for consumers to reduce energy usage. Eventually, all the Cal utilities went predictably bankrupt, as they were buying merchant priced power at up to $100 mw, but selling it at the regulated consumer rate around $25 to $35 mw.
Well, it would appear as though you just proved AG's point for him. I.e. deregulation was not capable of reducing the rates. Shown by your own facts that since rates were not allowed to rise, the system ended up collapsing. Which is to say that the polotico promises were nothing but hot air. Which justifies AG's scepticism.
Careful with your wording! There's a black and white difference between "deregulation" and "partial deregulation". Kind of like the difference between the California energy snafu and the Texas dereg success.
The bottom line is this:
What do you get when you mate liberal politicians (yes, AG, like Pete Wilson) with corporate bigwigs?
Answer: The California partial energy dereg scheme.
futuremodal wrote:.And I'll bet you probably voted for all those morons, didn't you!
.
And I'll bet you probably voted for all those morons, didn't you!
Funny you choose to generalize in that fashion. The ground rules for dereg were layed under Pete Wilson's watch, so it hardly qualifies as a "liberal" snafu. (though I'll admit that they certainly had their hands in it too)
I worked for a large electricity consumer in southern California at the time, we were very interested in it all as it unfolded, from the perspective of the ones having our pocket picked, so I'm probably more familiar with all that went wrong than you suspect. Yes some of the things are what you mention, but there is considerably more, that i won't bother to go into here, suffice it to say that "too many cooks" spoiled that broth, each special interest had to put their mark on the legislation, and created a frankenstein.
The relevant similarity was in the way the self coronated experts alluded to big savings, just over the horizon, if everyone would just shut up and let them drive. ( begging blind trust)
Consequently, I've grown skeptical of such offers , unless there is a concrete blueprint to get me to the promised returns. And it's pretty unlikely that there is anything you can say or do that would change that, fwiw.
Fool me once, then shame on you, fool me twice...etc.
People willing to buy into those nebulous bargains requiring their immediate cooperation in exchange for a path down the yellowbrick road later, usually get exactly what they deserve, regardless of whatever they had been led to expect.
Tell you what I'd like to see ...the argument that the loan will help the ecomomies of the involved states makes more sense to me than all the other excelsior combined. Which states are expected to gain jobs, and how many jobs are we talking about? As part of an economic recovery, this might actually be worthwhile. Always happy to help our northern neighbors.
Still, the risk of default concerns me. Why not have the states that expect to have tangible gain to their economies cosign the loan, where the states become responsible for repayment if the railroad should fail (think the states would go for it?)
With that done, then there is just the matter of the need for DME to find an acceptable a solution with Mayo. If they could come to mutually acceptable compromise solution between them, I'd be good to go on the whole deal.
Dan
As was said, gotrac has no real relevence to the project. They're goal is to drum up support. What they say has no relevence to reality.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against the DME and I'm certainly not suggesting the BNSF and UP are somehow altruistic, but come on, there's this funny thing called middleground where reality lives.
DME will certainly be a good addition to Powder River, but UP and BNSF aren't evil either.
Jobs and taxes will be created, but significant changes in your electric bill just aren't going to happen.
Aren't most political promises just that, hot air? Can you tell us when the last one was turned real?
futuremodal wrote: TheAntiGates wrote:The name of that pantload was "deregulation" in california, and we know now how well that "deal so good that we dare not waste time with skeptcism" turned out for everyone. My typical season high monthly bill went from $135/mo to over $350. First of all, the "pantload" to which you most elegantly refer was not true dereg, it was partial dereg. It was created by a bunch of *well meaning* liberals who thought that it was perfectly logical to dereg the supply side of the energy markets, but not the demand (read: consumer) side of the market. Meanwhile, newer and stricter eco rules put the kabosh on building new power plants. When the inevitable lack of new power sources finally caught up with the eco-apologists during the all time spike in electric demand, the consumer rates that should have gone up due to the supply/demand constraints didn't, so there was no price incentive for consumers to reduce energy usage. Eventually, all the Cal utilities went predictably bankrupt, as they were buying merchant priced power at up to $100 mw, but selling it at the regulated consumer rate around $25 to $35 mw.
TheAntiGates wrote:The name of that pantload was "deregulation" in california, and we know now how well that "deal so good that we dare not waste time with skeptcism" turned out for everyone. My typical season high monthly bill went from $135/mo to over $350.
TheAntiGates wrote: CNW 6000 wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: Trust me when I say that lower energy bills was NEVER part of the equation. It has been advanced in debate here, as a carrot on the stick, many times .Hold the phone gentlemen:Read this page (http://www.gotrac.org/index.cfm?page=265) where it's clearly stated:" It's About Reducing Electric Utility Bills Increased shipments of clean coal from the Power River Basin will help meet growing consumer demand for electricity at lower prices. Thank you, so .....clearly someone IS trying to make that claim. Shame that someone has zero authority to extend that pipedream as a binding promise . I don't recall seeing gotrac even in attendance at the last PUC hearing that I attended. I do, however, recall the last time that expert lobbyists assured electric ratepayers that reduced electric rates werea CERTAIN REWARD if they would just support the unquestionably good cause being considered. The name of that pantload was "deregulation" in california, and we know now how well that "deal so good that we dare not waste time with skeptcism" turned out for everyone. My typical season high monthly bill went from $135/mo to over $350. Ever since then, blind trust and unbridled optimism have seemed pound foolish whenever the benefit to be realized is cast in the light of "just you wait and see, trust me". Bahhh!
CNW 6000 wrote: TheAntiGates wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: Trust me when I say that lower energy bills was NEVER part of the equation. It has been advanced in debate here, as a carrot on the stick, many times .Hold the phone gentlemen:Read this page (http://www.gotrac.org/index.cfm?page=265) where it's clearly stated:" It's About Reducing Electric Utility Bills Increased shipments of clean coal from the Power River Basin will help meet growing consumer demand for electricity at lower prices.
TheAntiGates wrote: YoHo1975 wrote: Trust me when I say that lower energy bills was NEVER part of the equation. It has been advanced in debate here, as a carrot on the stick, many times .
YoHo1975 wrote: Trust me when I say that lower energy bills was NEVER part of the equation.
It has been advanced in debate here, as a carrot on the stick, many times .
Hold the phone gentlemen:Read this page (http://www.gotrac.org/index.cfm?page=265) where it's clearly stated:
" It's About Reducing Electric Utility Bills
Increased shipments of clean coal from the Power River Basin will help meet growing consumer demand for electricity at lower prices.
Thank you, so .....clearly someone IS trying to make that claim.
Shame that someone has zero authority to extend that pipedream as a binding promise . I don't recall seeing gotrac even in attendance at the last PUC hearing that I attended.
I do, however, recall the last time that expert lobbyists assured electric ratepayers that reduced electric rates werea CERTAIN REWARD if they would just support the unquestionably good cause being considered.
Ever since then, blind trust and unbridled optimism have seemed pound foolish whenever the benefit to be realized is cast in the light of "just you wait and see, trust me". Bahhh!
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that one. Too bad there weren't enough over-100 IQ types in the Cal legislature at the time.
solzrules wrote:. (Nice use of the term 'liberal' to describe my way of thinking - had a bit of a laugh over that one.)
. (Nice use of the term 'liberal' to describe my way of thinking - had a bit of a laugh over that one.)
I had hoped you might get a smile out of that. It certainly was the spirit in which it was intended.
nanaimo73 wrote: spokyone wrote:I see that BNSF filed a paper with the STB stating that if PRB coal is shipped on proposed DM&E line, it would interfere with intermodal traffic, specifically at Savanna Junction. Can anyone explain that.Coal trains from DME heading to Chicago would cross the Mississippi River at Savanna on IC&E's former Milwaukee Road line, probaly very slowly. BNSF's busy line from the west coast and the Twin Cities crosses this line at the eastern end of the bridge, before splitting into lines to Chicago and Galesburg.http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=11&Z=15&X=1838&Y=11658&W=1&qs=%7csavanna%7c%7chttp://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=57249
spokyone wrote:I see that BNSF filed a paper with the STB stating that if PRB coal is shipped on proposed DM&E line, it would interfere with intermodal traffic, specifically at Savanna Junction. Can anyone explain that.
Coal trains from DME heading to Chicago would cross the Mississippi River at Savanna on IC&E's former Milwaukee Road line, probaly very slowly. BNSF's busy line from the west coast and the Twin Cities crosses this line at the eastern end of the bridge, before splitting into lines to Chicago and Galesburg.
http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=11&Z=15&X=1838&Y=11658&W=1&qs=%7csavanna%7c%7c
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=57249
Anyone outside of a BNSF disciple should be rather indignant over this latest BS job by Matt Rose and BNSF. This latest attempt to delay or deny the DM&E project from going forward is almost comical.
ICE could just as well claim that BNSF's trainloads of Chinese imports are delaying domestic coal shipments at this crossing. Hmmmmm, maybe they should!
Here's the same item from ProgressiveRailroading.com:
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/freightnews/article.asp?id=9938
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.