Public Fuel and Power Act of 2014 (Final vote)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Adam Griffin

[windjammer]

A message to all senators:
When you delete a bill you have introduced in the "Legislative Introduction Thread", please, inform me.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well if it counts as anything I do like the composition of the board of and such for administering it.

I would prefer a competative model, with the gov't owning a fully up-to-date smart grid as a sort of exchange whereby local co-ops, private firms and such can then compete with each other putting a certain amount in at one end and then selling that same amount at the other, like of like the way a share oil pipeline works.  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ah, anybody? Adam, bill?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Well if it counts as anything I do like the composition of the board of and such for administering it.

I would prefer a competative model, with the gov't owning a fully up-to-date smart grid as a sort of exchange whereby local co-ops, private firms and such can then compete with each other putting a certain amount in at one end and then selling that same amount at the other, like of like the way a share oil pipeline works.  

I think that's not too far off from what we have now:
https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Smart_Grid_Electrical_Distribution_Act

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think techology has provided the answer to the natural monopoly status of power distribution. Yes, I knew we had the grid, but I do think there are other key aspects and of course there is the flat rate charge that should be changed somehow, since that would prevent competition.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I think techology has provided the answer to the natural monopoly status of power distribution. Yes, I knew we had the grid, but I do think there are other key aspects and of course there is the flat rate charge that should be changed somehow, since that would prevent competition.

What exactly does the flat rate refer to?

[Adam Griffin]

This is a simplification of TNF's original bill, which focuses solely on public utilities and expands the provisions in regards to setting a firm ceiling price for energy, which will eliminate price-gouging by private energy companies.

By pegging the cost of energy to a relevant and prudent size of our economy, we will restore sanity to a market sector that has experienced inflation at a rate of roughly one and a half times that of the general market over the past fifty years. Energy is obviously a prerequisite for any economic activity and as such, we should strive to ensure that its costs are at its absolute lowest possible. You simply cannot do that with a private sector model, as the goal of profit will always interfere.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why should energy costs be at the lowest possible price?  What does that do for conservation?

[Adam Griffin]

Why should energy costs be at the lowest possible price?  What does that do for conservation?

I suppose it's a personal preference: why should energy costs in part be due to profit when the public sector can simply break even? I imagine that a good chunk of the money saved by consumers will find its way into the economy in other areas. Energy is a job-sparse industry (save for wind and solar); I'd rather people spend what they are currently spending on fuel on retail and the like, since we'd get a better bang for our buck.

If conservation is a legitimate worry, then the amount of available energy could be capped (though that's not my plan here). Labor may be a green party but energy affordability comes first for me personally; ensuring that we derive as much of it as possible from renewable sources should be the goal.

The end game for an energy independent Atlasia shouldn't be one where people are reliant upon private utility companies nor the the public sector, but rather, a deregulated model. Since we're talking about eliminating profit and not subsidizing the industry, the rate of innovation shouldn't be impacted. In the interim, however, we should attempt to get the costs of finite energy under control - not by reducing or increasing supply necessarily, but by eliminating profit from it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I think techology has provided the answer to the natural monopoly status of power distribution. Yes, I knew we had the grid, but I do think there are other key aspects and of course there is the flat rate charge that should be changed somehow, since that would prevent competition.

What exactly does the flat rate refer to?

I was probably misreading it, but this line here: "The same rate must be charged to all transmission grid users." That is probably for the use of the grid though, and that would make sense in that case I guess.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a simplification of TNF's original bill, which focuses solely on public utilities and expands the provisions in regards to setting a firm ceiling price for energy, which will eliminate price-gouging by private energy companies.

By pegging the cost of energy to a relevant and prudent size of our economy, we will restore sanity to a market sector that has experienced inflation at a rate of roughly one and a half times that of the general market over the past fifty years. Energy is obviously a prerequisite for any economic activity and as such, we should strive to ensure that its costs are at its absolute lowest possible. You simply cannot do that with a private sector model, as the goal of profit will always interfere.

You said the end goal is a "deregulated model" in a subsequent post, how does that square with the peg itself though? What regulations become unnecessary with this model? Also how would the peg itself affect supply?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Honestly, I think it would be preferable to buy up power companies and  then put them under regional control, if we're going to do this at all. I'm not aware of all the specifics, but I know a few regions have at least debated legislation regarding power plants. To put facilities under federal control, even while consulting regional stakeholders, would really complicate the issue of which level of government can do what regarding energy policy.

Also, if the senate is going to actually peg a price for power, I would suggest pegging a range and letting the regions decide what to charge based on what they think is the best way to budget things.

[TNF]

Honestly, I think it would be preferable to buy up power companies and  then put them under regional control, if we're going to do this at all. I'm not aware of all the specifics, but I know a few regions have at least debated legislation regarding power plants. To put facilities under federal control, even while consulting regional stakeholders, would really complicate the issue of which level of government can do what regarding energy policy.

Also, if the senate is going to actually peg a price for power, I would suggest pegging a range and letting the regions decide what to charge based on what they think is the best way to budget things.

I actually agree with Hagrid here, upon further reflection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I as well, provided they be allowed to experiment with some degree of competiveness using co-opts and such forth.


Dear god, its a Revolution here.

[windjammer]

Senators?

[Adam Griffin]

I'm not inherently against regional ownership (just private ownership), but I'll leave it to someone else to begin the gutting amendment of this bill.

[TNF]

I'm not inherently against regional ownership (just private ownership), but I'll leave it to someone else to begin the gutting amendment of this bill.

I'll have an amendment up tonight.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thanks for making the change, TNF.

That being said (and I mean no disrespect here)... is all this detail really necessary?

I also feel like 1(iii) provides a dangerously idealistic time frame. The government will be spending possibly billions of dollars to acquire nuclear, coal, and natural gas facilities, only to shut them down in 15 years? Plus, if we're keeping prices as low as possible for consumers, it may take longer than 15 years for the revenues to cover a 100% changeover to renewable power. If the solution is to jack prices up so the revenues are sufficient, the burden on consumers may be too big.

I know I'm not a senator, but energy policy seems to fall under the purview of the Department of Internal Affairs, and I don't necessarily want to take on a project with an irresponsible deadline. I mean, it's possible that 2030 is workable, but I don't know for sure. Maybe the GM can help here. I'll try and find some numbers tomorrow myself.

[windjammer]

Senator Griffin, are you friendly or hostile to Senator TNF's amendment?

[TNF]

Thanks for making the change, TNF.

That being said (and I mean no disrespect here)... is all this detail really necessary?

I also feel like 1(iii) provides a dangerously idealistic time frame. The government will be spending possibly billions of dollars to acquire nuclear, coal, and natural gas facilities, only to shut them down in 15 years? Plus, if we're keeping prices as low as possible for consumers, it may take longer than 15 years for the revenues to cover a 100% changeover to renewable power. If the solution is to jack prices up so the revenues are sufficient, the burden on consumers may be too big.

I know I'm not a senator, but energy policy seems to fall under the purview of the Department of Internal Affairs, and I don't necessarily want to take on a project with an irresponsible deadline. I mean, it's possible that 2030 is workable, but I don't know for sure. Maybe the GM can help here. I'll try and find some numbers tomorrow myself.

Two things:

1) I went as detailed as possible precisely because this is a very delicate subject. State ownership needs to be fleshed out otherwise we don't really know what we're dealing with and we could just be making a shot in the dark here. I might have went overboard with that in some areas, but hey, I'd rather err on the side of detail than on the side of being too vague here.

2) The 2030 deadline is, I think, completely and totally possible, and I think that acquiring some of those industries that will be phased out is totally reasonable in this context because their acquisition will still allow us to plan accordingly and gradually phase them out, as well as retool them and put their workforces to work doing the necessary work for the transition. Atlasia is already years ahead of the real life United States on transitioning to a clean energy economy, thanks to legislation produced during President Marokai's term by (then) Senator Nix. If Nix would like to weigh in on this, I'd welcome him into the discussion. But I still think 2030 is doable. Hell (and I hate to engage in cliches, but entertain this one), we set a goal of putting a man on the Moon when the technology for doing so didn't even exist yet and did that within a decade. The technology for a carbon-neutral economy already exists, and so I think it's totally within the realm of reality and possibility that we could achieve 100 percent carbon neutral power by 2030, but that's just my two cents. I'll let AdamGriffin be the judge on this amendment.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Why should we nationalize our energy industry? Why such animus towards private ownership?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Why should we nationalize our energy industry? Why such animus towards private ownership?

My friends in the Labor Party and I think that energy should be produced and use for and by the people instead of corporations that seek only profit.

[Adam Griffin]

Amendment is friendly.