Public Fuel and Power Act of 2014 (Final vote)

[Deus Naturae]

I don't really get how the expenditure/price formula is supposed to work.  How would the AEA be able to produce an accurate estimate of the amount of joules to be consumed in a given year? What does it mean that the expenditure would be pegged to 7% of GNP and why is that an appropriate figure? How does the formula work to determine an appropriate price?

[Deus Naturae]

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

[Deus Naturae]

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.

[Deus Naturae]

I like this (the amended version, that is), FTR. It's always irked me that companies make gi-normous profits on things that are essential to daily living considering that this is the 21st century. This is a big, bold bill that I will support! I'm not a big fan of nationalizing everything, but in this instance I think public (regional or otherwise) ownership can streamline energy and keep it affordable. And, almost anything that seeks to end a private, for-mega-profit monopoly will have my support.

I will have further comment if it strikes me.

Which energy company possesses a monopoly? Any evidence that energy profits are higher compared to other sectors?

I'd still like an answer to the concerns I raised (from anyone who supports this bill), though I doubt I'll get any.

[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.

[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.

[Deus Naturae]

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.

They still have an incentive to try and benefit their local area as much as possible by hiring as many people as possible, regardless of the need. I doubt the worker representatives will meet any opposition for unlimited salary and pension increases since the other local representatives have no reason to oppose those things. At the national level, the worker reps won't win every vote, but my point is that this thing is not going to be run in the "public interest" it's going to be a special-interest battleground where various interest groups fight to secure as many benefits as possible for themselves as costs soar.

[Deus Naturae]

What exactly is expected from a redraft? In order to address the criticisms that have been leveled against this thing, the President will have to totally restructure the way this thing is governed, come up with a completely new pricing mechanism, and come up with definitions of the vague terms involved and answer questions (such as Nix's about distributed generation) that the proponents of this bill decided not to. If I were DemPGH, I'd be kind of ticked off that the Labor Senators just decided to dump this thing on my desk and leave me to address all of the issues with it...

[Deus Naturae]

I won't be vetoing this, ftr. I would consider a redraft, but I think Bore has done a good job with his edit. I'll weigh it closely before signing, though.

I also agree we're at an impasse. It sounds to me like the liquor store debates here in Pennsylvania. We have public / state run wine and liquor stores, which do three things: Keep prices stable and affordable, pay reasonably good wages to employees (who actually have a union! - imagine that), and the crucial thing is, they keep money in the system. When you make something public, it feeds itself. Does that make sense? So when I buy my Cabernet Sauvignon, it's going into the state system as opposed to the coffers of some tycoon who bought up the wine store as a side venture and who pays his help as little as he absolutely can get away with (i.e., minimum wage).

That said, I don't support making everything public, but the case has been made here and as someone who owns a [hybrid] car and fills it up with gas so it will run, I support the idea of this.

Except that the case has most certainly not been made...the multitude of criticisms launched against this have yet to be addressed and the only actual reason to do this at all amounts "muh public ownership" and is being made by a communist. That's fine for him but you can't very well claim that "I don't support making everything public" when that's the only argument your side has offered. If this bill is passed, your hybrid will become useless as gasoline will be eliminated by 2030.  This will certainly "feed" itself...by bankrupting ratepayers. No matter how high costs rise (and, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the way this thing is structured will cause costs to explode), the price will just keep rising...talk about "excessive profits." Transforming a huge portion of our economy and passing the cost onto ratepayers is NOT going to keep prices "stable and affordable" in the slightest.

And again, what about distributed generation? What will become of the solar panels on Nix's house? What about the propane generator in my yard? Will that be allowed in this 100% Clean Energy (tm) utopia?

Also worth pointing out that the cost of booze is higher in PA than any of the surrounding States and there are much fewer liquor stores than elsewhere. The alcohol monopoly is highly unpopular even among Democrats and doesn't "feed" itself at all as it has consistently run deficits...

[Deus Naturae]

Deus, the right wing arguments against this are end of the world, etc., and I have no reason to accept that as yet. Because what's behind it is "muh private corporations!"

I mean, I live in PA . . . We at the moment are run top down by the GOP, and they could not privatize the booze stores because it was going to be a financial disaster.

That's a strawman. I haven't just been claiming this would lead to Armageddon without any reasoning. I'v given specific reasons for why this bill specifically will not work...those arguments need to be addressed. You can't just ignore structural incentives, questions of cost and pricing, the need for peak demand-capable generation, and distribution issues that will effect countless people. And, you still haven't given a valid reason for doing this in the first place.

I hate to derail the discussion, but booze is more expensive and less plentiful in PA than in non-monopoly States. That's what happens when you have monopoly instead of competition.

[Deus Naturae]

I didn't choose to put my name toward this bill as a sponsor for any ideological reason. Indeed, there are parts of it that run counter to some of them. I did this because of the reasons I outlined in the debate thread. I grew up with a family that had to use things like LIHEAP in order to get by. I'm not ordinarily someone who favors nationalization of industries, but if it meant families like that have one less bill to worry about, especially in winter, then I'd support it. My reasons are less ideological than they are personal.

I will vote Aye and if it "destroys my reputation", then I guess it's something I'd have to live with.

Sorry but this is getting kind of frustrating at this point. Have you read anything I've written in this thread? This bill will increase energy costs for a number of reasons which I have detailed countless times. It will lead to power outages during cold winters when many households are trying to use heating. Stop pretending that this will make energy free when that is not what the bill does and not the effect it will have.

[Deus Naturae]

I didn't choose to put my name toward this bill as a sponsor for any ideological reason. Indeed, there are parts of it that run counter to some of them. I did this because of the reasons I outlined in the debate thread. I grew up with a family that had to use things like LIHEAP in order to get by. I'm not ordinarily someone who favors nationalization of industries, but if it meant families like that have one less bill to worry about, especially in winter, then I'd support it. My reasons are less ideological than they are personal.

I will vote Aye and if it "destroys my reputation", then I guess it's something I'd have to live with.

Sorry but this is getting kind of frustrating at this point. Have you read anything I've written in this thread? This bill will increase energy costs for a number of reasons which I have detailed countless times. It will lead to power outages during cold winters when many households are trying to use heating. Stop pretending that this will make energy free when that is not what the bill does and not the effect it will have.

Would it piss you off if I told you that I didn't read anything you wrote? I mean, what are you expecting me to say? I didn't agree with your analysis.

If the bill is to be defeated by the votes as it appears, then so be it. It's not personal, nor is it something to get angry about. Keep in mind something... THIS IS A GAME.

Since this bill appears headed for defeat, what's the point of getting your blood pressure up?

I'm not mad lol. I'm just saying, claiming that this bill will eliminate or reduce energy bills makes zero sense based on the text of the bill. Yet people continue to make claims to that effect while never even bothering to address any of the arguments as to why it won't. I'm not particularly invested in most arguments I have on the internet but it does generally annoy me when people continue to claim something while just ignoring and not even responding to tons of reasons why that thing isn't the case.

[Deus Naturae]

Alright, so what is the goal being advocated at this point? To reduce costs (in which case, to what level?) or to transform the energy sector to 100% renewable power? Or to restructure the sector so that it's run by regional and local sub-units operated by randomly selected residents and union representatives? As I've point out many times previously, the latter two goals don't really mesh well with the former. Also, I hate to keep bringing this up, but you really have to answer the questions about distributed generation and peak demand management. Both of these things are pretty huge aspects of the energy sector.

Also, I just realized, why combine fuel and power under one authority at all? Generating electricity doesn't really have anything to do with refining petroleum into gasoline.