People educated in government schools? I once had a respiratory
therapist tell me that CO was carbon dioxide. I could not get
her to understand that CO is carbon monoxide. I hope I don't
wind up in the hospital where she works.
Well, there's the confusion right there. Many utilities are in the
sector. For example, my "city" is Pittsfield Township. My electric
DTE Energy, a publicly traded corporation.
On 2/17/2010 12:15 PM The Daring Dufas spake thus:
I take "educated" to mean at least some post-secondary education, let's
say a bachelor's degree. And not at some diploma mill where the only
goal is to get a barely passing grade so one can get into business, real
estate, or some other money-grubbing profession.
On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal puts a different sping on the
"The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the EPA had the power to
regulate carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, but didn't require the agency
to find that it was a danger to public welfare and also didn't require the
agency to regulate greenhouse gases. Instead, the EPA was required to
"ground its reasons for action or inaction" within federal law."
So, here's the conclusions:
1. The EPA has the right to regulate CO2.
2. If it does not, if must give compelling reasons for declining to do so.
3. The EPA is NOT required to regulate CO2.
Here's the actual decision:
This is a decision from August 2007. You'll note it is replete with
justifications from the IPCC.
There is a fundamental principle in law that a plaintiff must have
"standing" in order to place a matter before the court. That is, the
litigant must have a dog in the fight. Interestingly, the five wild-eyed
liberals on the court who were so exercised they painted themselves blue and
began stabbing each other, saw fit to bypass this hallowed tradition so they
could save the planet. Specifically:
"Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional argument [not
one of the petitioners has demonstrable standing under Article III] and the
absence of any conflicting decisions ... the unusual importance of the
underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ.... [and take up the
I used to work as a programmer for a company that monitored electric loads
for smaller power companies, typically Rural Electric Cooperatives. One of
the selling points of our software was the administrators would be better
able to correct transformer loading. One director told our sales
"What's to monitor? If a transformer blows, we replace it with a bigger one.
End of story."
On 2/17/2010 4:14 AM HeyBub spake thus:
Right; the most important reason is enriching the investors and owners
of the companies building the goddamned things.
Can you say "Bechtel"? or "Combustion Engineering"?
Well the batteries will last longer at a lower charge rate, given that's
the bulk of the vehicle cost, there's plenty of incentive for educated
owners to charge at a rate only as high as they need. That of course
makes the big assumption that a lot of people count as educated.
On 2/17/2010 1:00 PM Michael A. Terrell spake thus:
You've never heard of municipal power companies? Lessee, not far from
where I live, Palo Alto, Sacramento, and several others I can't think of
just at the moment run their own power systems within their cities.
Marin County just decided to set up a county-wide power authority. So
yes, in many places "the power utility is the city".
Now who's laughing?
Yeah, but that's California where the word for government ownership of the
means of production is "normal."
Now my city owns the water system - and makes a small profit. The real
reason for city ownership, I've been told, is so the city can keep up with
buildings and so forth for tax purposes.
Everything you've just posted above is consistent with what I said
from the start. Of course the Supreme Court did not thell the EPA
that they HAD to regulate CO2. They told the EPA they could not
ignore CO2 and had to determine if it was harmful in excess amounts as
they have done with all the other pollutants. The EPA proceeded to
do that and said, once again:
"(Washington, D.C. =96 April 17, 2009) After a thorough scientific
review ordered in 2007 by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Environmental
Protection Agency issued a proposed finding Friday that greenhouse
gases contribute to air pollution that may endanger public health or
welfare. The proposed finding, which now moves to a public comment
period, identified six greenhouse gases that pose a potential threat."
So. like I said with my initial post, if you want to argue that CO2
emissions aren't a pollutant, you need to take it up with the Supreme
Court and the EPA, at least as far as the USA is concerned. I don't
understand why you're arguing with me. I'm not saying any govt should
or shouldn't be treating CO2 as a pollutant. Only that they are. I
don't see how any rational and intelligent person today could say that
CO2 is not being treated as a pollutant both by the USA and
Several cities in that greatest of red states, Texas, own their electric
utilities, including the capital, Austin (a blue island in a sea of red). Also,
Garland, near Dallas, as red as you can get.
OK, when did red shift from liberal pinko commie red to god fearing conservative
I didn't say that. Read it again.
Doesn't say they aren't the same in some places, but it does say it
isn't true everywhere. Two cities near me by bulk electric, then rip
off residents and business by doubling the cost to everyone else in the
Me, at you for your very poor reading skills.
When one of the TV networks news department painted a large US map on
the floor of their studio and chose red and blue for the two major
political parties for a presidential election. We know how liberal most
of MSM is.
I guess we still are laughing because the real issue was that the
poster claimed utilities are routinely notified by residential
customers when they add significant loads to their homes. First he
claimed it was required of homeowners by utilities directly. Then he
claimed it was because you had to get a permit for electrical work.
Then he claimed that because his electric utility happens to be run by
the municipality, that when you get an electric permit, that counts as
notifying the utility.
No question there are some electric utilities owned and run by
municipalities. The rest of that is obvious hogwash. Any of us
that have actually pulled permits know that the permit doesn't ask for
or calculate the actual load. You get a permit to put in a new 50
amp sub-panel or a permit to put in six 15 amp circuits. Big deal,
what does that mean? It says nothing about what might or might not
actually be connected to those circuits, only the theoretical
maximum. And the utility already knows what the theoretical maximum
is. It's the service rating installed to the house, eg 200 amps.
He also claimed that the muni *always* notified the power company,
even were they weren't under the same political entity.
The only permit I have ever pulled was for a garage and the power was
ancillary. There was no mention of number of circuits or their
ampacity or any other implementation details.
The inspector inspected what was there.
Liers? You mean 'Liars', unless the 'P' fell off your Pliers. :)
It's more likely that they are not well trained. Any time I wanted
real answers, I contacted the city engineer or the engineers at what
ever utility was involved.