An Industry Trapped by a Theory - NYTimes op-ed

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/16/opinion/16KUTT.html

" In addition, in the old days of regulation, a utility like Con Ed would be required to regularly submit a resource plan to a state's public service commission. The two organizations would forecast demand and decide how much money should be invested in power plants and transmission lines. Rates would be adjusted to cover costs. Under deregulation, however, nobody plays that crucial planning role.

Much of the Southeast, by contrast, has retained traditional regulation — and cheap, reliable electricity. "

Now that my lights are back on.....
I'm reading letters to the editors of various papers, and * and the Repugs are picking up some blame for this. The public is connecting a few more dots.

the Repugs are picking up some blame for this.

The free-market conservatives (typicaly Repugs, but surely includes some Dems) are going to get hurt BIG TIME over this.

The WH is going to try very hard to spin this. They do NOT want to get back into the utility regulation business.

Apparently, deregulation only sucks for the rich. I knew that, but most seem to not be aware of that fact. Some things, utilities, medical, financial markets, absolutely have to be regulated, or they will abuse their positions. Too bad the media can't honestly report these problems, rather than cover it up. Yet more proof of the right-wing tilt of the media.

Where are you going to get your power from?

The Energy Bill calls for 50 more nuclear power plants. If we did that, maybe the northeast, and east, could have local power. But then there's the waste. The Wyden Amendment was proposed to block the nuclear plants, it got Yes votes by Edwards and Kerry, No by Graham, and No Vote by Lieberman.

I'm trying to sort through this Bill because when I saw the 50 nuclear plants I kind of freaked out. Plus, it looks like there's a provision for States to 'opt in' to renewable fuels. OPT in???

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.6:

Deregulation, under Richardson's plan, was supposed to allow alternative energy into the system to compete with and force changes to the local power company that didn't want to upgrade old coal burning plants, take proper care of their leaking nuclear plant, upgrade transmission lines. The local company didn't have to, they had monopolies. One article I read said local companies intentionally avoid fixing the antiquated power generation source by creating power transmission problems. Then extra energy can't run over their lines and they hold on to a local money-making monopoly, which is usually a dirty power source.

The Times article, clearly shows why deregulation didn't work so well. But still, how are sections of the country that have no real local power generating source going to generate power? And how are we going to create a system that forces local power monopolies to allow cleaner, renewable energy sources into the system?

I'm not promoting deregulation here at all, I think it's stupid. I am saying I see the problem with the environmental behavior of some local power companies.