90 amps for electric car charge!

Well, there's the confusion right there. Many utilities are in the private sector. For example, my "city" is Pittsfield Township. My electric utility is DTE Energy, a publicly traded corporation.

Cindy Hamilton

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.

I've never lived anywhere where "the power utility is the city", so you are laughable.

On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal puts a different sping on the court's ruling:

"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.
   formatting link
   Here's the actual decision:
   formatting link
   This is a decision from August 2007. You'll note it is replete with justifications from the IPCC.

Aside: 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 issue]."

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 representative:

"What's to monitor? If a transformer blows, we replace it with a bigger one. End of story."

The city here has the power company, but I assure you that their planning tsars aren't counting hot tubs. Tax assessors, OTOH...

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?

Well, SOMEBODY'S got to take the money.

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 internationally.

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 red?

-- Doug

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 area.

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.

On 2/18/2010 3:19 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Yup, that's what Dillinger, Morgan, Luciano, Capone, et al, always used to say.