The Rising Cost of Conservation

**zoobernut** · 2013-02-14 13:14

Originally Posted by Lucavi

^ That's like saying capitalism is illegal. Here's a tip:

Its not, and this isn't either, because its profitable.

NV Energy has a monopoly on electricity in my area. I don't get a choice. This isn't capitalism it just just exploitation. I call bullshit on what you said.

Also I didn't mean to say it is illegal I meant that it should be illegal.

**ronin sparthos** · 2013-02-14 13:14

Many markets are dominated by monopolies or oligopolies already. Try avoiding buying something made by an Unilever, P+G or ConAgra and you'll see how much "choice" you really have.

Power companies want to make money and when their "good-guy" marketing team trying to capitalize on the worries of Americans regarding green energy and sustainability eats into profits its only natural you get punished for following what they said to do. What did you think? They'd just eat self-inflicted losses? They know we can't do shit about it anyway. lol

**zoobernut** · 2013-02-14 13:18

Originally Posted by ronin sparthos

Many markets are dominated by monopolies or oligopolies already. Try avoiding buying something made by an Unilever, P+G or ConAgra and you'll see how much "choice" you really have.
Power companies want to make money and when their "good-guy" marketing team trying to capitalize on the worries of Americans regarding green energy and sustainability eats into profits its only natural you get punished for following what they said to do. What did you think? They'd just eat self-inflicted losses? They know we can't do shit about it anyway. lol

I agree with you and this is a major issue in the world today. People don't realize how few companies there actually are when you distill down all the companies to their parent corporations.

**Lucavi** · 2013-02-14 13:47

Originally Posted by zoobernut

NV Energy has a monopoly on electricity in my area. I don't get a choice. This isn't capitalism it just just exploitation. I call bullshit on what you said.

Also I didn't mean to say it is illegal I meant that it should be illegal.

Half the products in the states are owned by a monopoly. Its still capitalism, its just the end result of it: when all of the power companies have either merged or the weaker ones have died off of were absorbed by the larger ones. Free market society, baby. Go republican!

Its still capitalism, just post-time-skip capitalism. You're thinking of some glorious illusion where there are tons of business selling the same product and you can freely pick the one that suits your needs; that existed, sure, but around the same time the initial product was being discovered and marketed.

Once again, its still capitalism. If you know about what you've bolded above, then you'd know this to be true.

**zoobernut** · 2013-02-14 14:00

Originally Posted by Lucavi

Half the products in the states are owned by a monopoly. Its still capitalism, its just the end result of it: when all of the power companies have either merged or the weaker ones have died off of were absorbed by the larger ones. Free market society, baby. Go republican!

Its still capitalism, just post-time-skip capitalism. You're thinking of some glorious illusion where there are tons of business selling the same product and you can freely pick the one that suits your needs; that existed, sure, but around the same time the initial product was being discovered and marketed.

Once again, its still capitalism. If you know about what you've bolded above, then you'd know this to be true.

Ok you are failing to understand what I am posting, which may be due to the way I am saying things. The internet makes it hard to deduce nuances in what someone says. I am not saying I don't understand how it is I am saying I don't like it and don't think it should be that way. I know technically it is the late stages of capitalism I just don't think it should be considered capitalism. I think the situation is shitty and I don't like it. Does that spell it out for you in a simple enough way?

**Jaybar** · 2013-02-14 15:36

When the leverage of profitability falls heavily on the producer, it is no longer capitalism. You can call it "capitalism" if you want because that is what lead to this problem, but you can not lump monopolies and competitive markets into one single ideology. Once you reach the state of monopolism, well that's what you have.

**Kryssan** · 2013-02-14 15:42

Originally Posted by Churchill

Arizona is pretty bad as well. SRP (Salt River Project Hydro) is cheap as fuck, but most of the Greater Phoenix area is serviced by Nuclear and it's expensive as fuck (but only during the daytime, so people are supposed to let their houses turn into ovens during the summer in order to save money, which almost no one does)

You do realize the nuclear bit is inaccurate, right? I'm assuming so, as I now live in Arizona and know all about those 'pricing plans'. You should know that while APS operates Palo Verde NPS, SRP 'owns' the next highest stake in the plant ( something like 30% APS and 20% SRP IIRC, with misc other owners ), thus the reason you pay more has little to do with the plant and everything to do with making money. Not to mention that the SRP shares a large service territory with APS anyway, going back to the monopoly discussions.

Indeed, PVNPS has had nothing but complaints over the 'money' side of things, on everything from where, when, and how it was built to recent operations ( during most of the 2000-2010 decade multiple problems were discovered culminating with a NRC Cat IV risk declaration / assessment ). It also serves a much, much greater region than just Phoenix.

Just as an aside, I remember growing up with my father working at CP&L as an engineer ( CP&L later became a part of Progress Energy ). CP&L stood for Carolina Power & Light, but I grew up hearing just about everyone call it Criminal Plunder & Loot.

Yay for making money and nay for actually fixing the problems. Like our antiquated and quaint electrical grid...

**Churchill** · 2013-02-14 16:25

I'm aware, but if you haven't lived in an SRP zone (mainly Glendale) then you're missing out lol. My summer bill is usually 350-450 for power and as you know, summer is April-October. Under SRP, I'd be paying 125.

I just use APS and SRP to highlight the difference in cost by the difference in the source. The Hydro energy is cheap as fuck.

Edit: And it's just them being dicks.

I had nuclear in Washington and I usually paid 15-35 a month for power

**Mazmaz** · 2013-02-14 18:19

Why are your power companies privately owned instead of state owned?

**Callisto** · 2013-02-14 18:32

because we aren't fucking communists like you guys

**Mazmaz** · 2013-02-14 18:37

>follow a capitalism model of market competition
>monopoly of the energy services
Seems legit.

Really though, if it's already monopolies and the companies are privately owned, then they'll have no accountability. Either encourage competition to move in, or they should be state owned. Especially energy services, which is too important to be left alone like that.

**Stumblingdrunk** · 2013-02-14 18:42

they're privately owned because the mods are in on it

**BaneTheBrawler** · 2013-02-14 19:41

I find myself agreeing with spazmaz. I am deeply concerned. I think I feel a flare coming on...

but fo' cereal, I've always had the notion that basic essentials (water, electric, gas, etc), should be government run... however, shit would have to be regulated heavily (on the production end, not consumer end) to prevent fraud and cronyism and all the other things that eventually cumulatively killed the SSSR. Not food, though. Food should always be independent, because of tastes and reasons.

**6souls** · 2013-02-14 22:17

State governments do have the option to reverse the "fuck you, that's why" charges, and often do, but they first need to see a large public opposition to the new charge. Should they be reversed, the utility company would then have to refund their customers for the time affected.

**Kerberoz** · 2013-02-15 23:27

Buy property with a large elevation change and a water source at the low point.
Build reservoir at high point.
Pump water uphill at night using cheap off-peak energy.
???
Profit.

**6souls** · 2024-02-08 08:12

Bump, but relevant.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/...3-3e83455fec80

Xcel, citing their changeover to predominantly wind energy, has issued a proposal to increase rates in MN and introduce "surge pricing" for what it considers peak hours, 3 PM to 8 PM.

Current rates are 13 cents per kilowatt hour in the summer and 11c/KWH in the winter.

The proposal would raise the base rate to 15c/KWH in the summer and lower the rate in the winter to 9.5c/KWH. The surge pricing would be 28c/KWH in the summer and 19c/KWH in the winter. There would also be off-peak pricing of 4c/KWH from 12 AM to 6 AM for both seasons.

The article states that Colorado's Xcel already has surge pricing, but the costs are 2.5x what it had been, while the Minnesota proposal is 5x the cost altogether.

Thread: The Rising Cost of Conservation

Thread Tools

Latest Threads

Up & Coming Threads

Hottest Threads