Public Fuel and Power Act of 2014 (Final vote)

[Dr. Cynic]

I'm now sponsoring this bill for ex-Senator Griffin.

[TNF]

I would like to serve as co-sponsor.

[windjammer]

According to the senate rules:
Article 3, section 1, clause 8

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article 4 section 1 clause 8:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Article 4, Section 1, Clause 7:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, if my interpretation of the rules is correct,
Senators, you have 48 hours to object to Senator Cynic taking sponsorship.

Just to say I have Senator TNF's willingness to be co-sponsor. I just need to find the rules about co sponsorship before doing anything.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Co-sponsors have little procedural significance and I cannot even remember if they are mentioned save for them being prohibited from withdrawing a bill. The primary/main sponsor just has to approve them.

Cynic first has to approved as new main sponsor.

[GAworth]

So how exactly would this bill affect the Royalty bill we created in the Midwest, or would it? https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Midwest_Statute_(Passed_by_Al%C3%BEing)#Midwest_Oil.2C_Natural_Gas.2C_and_Coal_Royalty_Rates_Bill

[Deus Naturae]

The price is set at the national level, but the local and municipal sub-units are governed by representatives of local people and representatives of workers employed by that sub-unit. Local representatives have an incentive to hire as many people as possible, even if they aren't necessary, in order to get votes and benefit their local area. They have little disincentive to engage in such activity because the costs incurred by one sub-unit will have a minimal effect on the national price of energy. However, when many sub-units engage in such activity, the costs add up and energy becomes more expensive. It's kind of a tragedy of the commons situation where each sub-unit acting in the interest of its local area will increase the national cost of energy and make everyone worse off.

Similarly, worker representatives have an incentive for push for salary and pension increases regardless of the cost. Each individual sub-unit won't have a huge impact on costs, but it adds up at the national level. Furthermore, even national worker representatives have an incentive to increase salaries and pensions regardless of the effect on production costs, because AEA employees will still be marginally better off if their salaries are increased generously and the cost of energy rises.

I'd also point out that there is zero need to transition to a "zero-carbon" economy. No climate scientist is saying that any amount of CO₂ will lead to catastrophic warming, just that too much of it will. If we're going to try and eliminate its use totally just because it's a greenhouse gas, we might as well ban water, as water vapor has a stronger greenhouse effect.

The idea that we can just transform the entire energy sector without massive cost to the ratepayer is ludicrous. What percentage of our current energy sector is made up by oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear? None of the energy sources listed in this bill have the ability to easily meet peak demand across Atlasia and will lead to massive power outages. Skyrocketing rates and powerless days, in addition to the insane rent-seeking the structure of this thing will enable, are what we can expect from socialized energy.

[TNF]

Cynic and myself are now the sponsors of this bill.

Unless he objects, I am prepared to take this to a final vote. What do you think, Cynic?

[Dr. Cynic]

Fine with me. I'm ready to vote on it.

[DemPGH]

Yeah, I like this for reasons I mentioned earlier. I just think, to those who might object, that the private sector, because it is based upon profit, is not always the answer to every issue - particularly with regard to providing a service like clean energy and power. That said, there are definitely instances in which I do not favor public management or ownership, but there are legitimate [RL] issues that I think this bill addresses.

[Deus Naturae]

Yeah, I like this for reasons I mentioned earlier. I just think, to those who might object, that the private sector, because it is based upon profit, is not always the answer to every issue - particularly with regard to providing a service like clean energy and power. That said, there are definitely instances in which I do not favor public management or ownership, but there are legitimate [RL] issues that I think this bill addresses.

That doesn't really address what I've been saying. I've never argued that this would automatically fail because it wasn't private...I've pointed out structural flaws that would create perverse incentives that would drive up the cost of energy. I've pointed out that totally transforming the entire energy sector (which, as I've also point out, is unnecessary) is going to be extremely expensive and cause rates to sky-rocket (which defeats the argument that this will result in lower rates because it isn't for-profit) . I've pointed out that the energy sources that this bill will limit the choices of Atlasians to are incapable of meeting peak demand. Peak demand refers to periods in which consumers attempt to use an especially large amount of energy, like during hot summers when everyone's AC is on. When this occurs, the electrical company needs to supply more electricity to consumers. With a fossil fuel plant, you can burn more oil/coal/natural gas and produce more energy. With a nuclear plant, I think you can speed up the rate at which the fission process occurs within the reactor. With a wind farm, you can't make the wind stronger. With a hydroelectric plant, you can't make the river flow faster. That's why those kinds of energy sources are only work well in areas where there is consistently strong wind or a very fast river. Absent that, you're going to experience power outages during periods of strong demand.

[windjammer]

A final vote is now open.
Please senators,
Vote AYE, NAY or Abstain.

[Dr. Cynic]

Aye

[President Tyrion]

Aye

EDIT: I eventually did vote AYE but I changed to abstain in the middle.

[bore]

Aye

[Simfan34]

What incentive does the AEA or any of its sub-units have to increase efficiency or otherwise reduce production costs?

Well, there's the fact that it's a democratically governed structure, and the people running it have an obvious interest in making costs as low as possible for themselves.

The price is set at the national level, but the local and municipal sub-units are governed by representatives of local people and representatives of workers employed by that sub-unit. Local representatives have an incentive to hire as many people as possible, even if they aren't necessary, in order to get votes and benefit their local area. They have little disincentive to engage in such activity because the costs incurred by one sub-unit will have a minimal effect on the national price of energy. However, when many sub-units engage in such activity, the costs add up and energy becomes more expensive. It's kind of a tragedy of the commons situation where each sub-unit acting in the interest of its local area will increase the national cost of energy and make everyone worse off.

Similarly, worker representatives have an incentive for push for salary and pension increases regardless of the cost. Each individual sub-unit won't have a huge impact on costs, but it adds up at the national level. Furthermore, even national worker representatives have an incentive to increase salaries and pensions regardless of the effect on production costs, because AEA employees will still be marginally better off if their salaries are increased generously and the cost of energy rises.

Why hasn't this been responded to?

[DemPGH]

I really don't understand how two different sides can look at an issue and forecast geometrically opposite outcomes. Besides, I don't think wind and water are all we're talking about either and I don't know why the government running it would result in catastrophe.

I need real life examples, not forecasts and numbers and so on because all that can be manipulated. Where was this tried, did it fail, did it not fail? Why is the TVA a success?

If 100% renewable is a problem, that could be scaled back. Look, I'm not anti-nuclear. I know there are dangers associated with it, but it's technology that needs to be pursued. I mean a spoonful of nuclear material could run a household for a couple lifetimes.

[Cassius]

Nay

[Lumine]

Nay.

[TNF]

Aye

[TNF]

What incentive does the AEA or any of its sub-units have to increase efficiency or otherwise reduce production costs?

Well, there's the fact that it's a democratically governed structure, and the people running it have an obvious interest in making costs as low as possible for themselves.

The price is set at the national level, but the local and municipal sub-units are governed by representatives of local people and representatives of workers employed by that sub-unit. Local representatives have an incentive to hire as many people as possible, even if they aren't necessary, in order to get votes and benefit their local area. They have little disincentive to engage in such activity because the costs incurred by one sub-unit will have a minimal effect on the national price of energy. However, when many sub-units engage in such activity, the costs add up and energy becomes more expensive. It's kind of a tragedy of the commons situation where each sub-unit acting in the interest of its local area will increase the national cost of energy and make everyone worse off.

Similarly, worker representatives have an incentive for push for salary and pension increases regardless of the cost. Each individual sub-unit won't have a huge impact on costs, but it adds up at the national level. Furthermore, even national worker representatives have an incentive to increase salaries and pensions regardless of the effect on production costs, because AEA employees will still be marginally better off if their salaries are increased generously and the cost of energy rises.

Except that local representatives are not elected. Did you even read the bill? The only elected representatives in questions are those of the workers themselves, not the localities. Local representatives are chosen the same way we choose juries.

The workers cannot unilaterally vote themselves pay and pension increases. They are numerical minorities on each of the assemblies fleshed out in this bill.

[Simfan34]

But surely these randomly selected boards (even if this was viable) would be susceptible to graft and generalised lobbying efforts by the unions?

[TNF]

But surely these randomly selected boards (even if this was viable) would be susceptible to graft and generalised lobbying efforts by the unions?

The unions have a right to lobby just as everyone else would, but the people have the final say, owing to their numbers on the assemblies in question. 'Graft'? Not sure why you assume that unions would want to bribe the assemblies in question when they've already got a voice in said assemblies via the worker representatives and when they can already make their case to the other members of said assemblies. How would that even work? This is just pure anti-union nonsense coming from a noted union-hating right-winger.

[Simfan34]

They could easily persuade these random citizens with relatively small gifts to vote to raise their salaries. If I am your average Atlasian earning $45,000 a year, and some union person offers me a comparatively small $20,000 to vote to raise their salaries, how likely is it that I say no? Even if not so direct, how likely is it that, 10 years down the road, these randomly selected individuals would also be members of a union with a quid pro quo where their members all vote to raise wages for union workers in another sector?

[Simfan34]

What exactly is a "fuel company", anyway? I assume this would extend to suppliers of heating oil (isn't this a competitive industry?), but what about, say, jet fuel? Gasoline? At the very least the language needs to be more precise.

[PPT Spiral]

Nay. I share the same concerns as people like Deus and Nix here, and I don't see it improving efficiency at all.