Public Fuel and Power Act of 2014 (Final vote)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TNF]

I'm kind of leery about a mandate on the price, personally. I think it would be better to phrase Section 2 as something that would mandate a ceiling on the amount of money that could be collected at a profit. We don't want to be building up huge profits through public power, but we do want to be bringing in a very small amount of a surplus so that we can invest in and expand production of renewable energy.

[TNF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/s]

[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.

[TNF]

I don't see us getting anywhere else on this, so I'm prepared for a final vote if our sponsor is.

[TNF]

I'm so sorry - was the last amendment ever adopted out of my inactivity? If not, amendment is friendly.

I assume it was, given that no one objected in the 24 hour period after I proposed it.

[TNF]

He said it was friendly two posts above yours.

[TNF]

I would like to serve as co-sponsor.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[TNF]

muh private ownership of energy

[TNF]

muh private ownership of energy

I think you need a better reason at this point.

I've already outlined my reasons for supporting this. (1) energy should not be held in private hands and (2) energy should be owned by the public and democratically managed in their interests. There's really not a lot else to say about either one of those. You, oakvale and Nix (both of whom I respect a ton and consider close friends), and deus believe in private ownership. You've made your case. I don't believe in the private ownership of anything, so again, we're not going to see eye to eye on it, so it's not even worth debating. This will have the necessary votes to pass and be enacted as law at 1 pm, although I'm sure we're going to debate it further because the President has noted his support for a redraft, which I will support because I trust the President to make the correct decision here.

[TNF]

Ah, thank you- my next question was going to be when the vote on this closed, Mr (or is it Comrade?) PPT.

Comrade PPT is the new proper form of address.

[TNF]

Aye(s): Senator Cynic, Senator Tyrion, Senator bore, PPT TNF, Senator Alfred F. Jones
Nay(s): Senator Cassius, Senator Lumine, Senator Spiral, Senator Goldwater
Not voting: Senator North Carolina Yankee

With 5 votes in the affirmative and 4 votes opposed, this bill has passed the Senate and shall now be presented to the President for his consideration.

[TNF]

So this fails then, it looks like. No matter, I'll simply reintroduce it into the queue and we can resume debate, since it looks like at least the majority actually wants to pass this bill, they just don't feel entirely comfortable with the version as is proposed. Of course, this entire debacle could have been avoided had anyone other than me or Griffin or Cynic had bothered to comment in the early stages of this debate.

[TNF]

I'm not entirely sure, but is there a way to resume debate without having to put this through the queue again and waiting it out, Yankee? I seem to recall us having done something like this in the past.

[TNF]

Since it is apparent we are going to move forward with this, can someone explain to me how foreign energy companies will operate in a hypothetical Atlasia where our domestic energy corporations are nationalized? Will they still be allowed to do business in this country and compete with Atlasia? Or will they be forbidden to operate here?

I would hope that they wouldn't.

[TNF]

For the purpose of moving forward (and making sure that we get a chance to address everything that's worth addressing this session), I motion that we end debate for the time being and let this go out as it clearly has. If an individual Senator would like to bring this back up, he can do so via the queue, but it's clear to me that, at least for the time being, there's a whole lot of yapping going on here by non-Senators and very little input from the Senate itself. If non-Senators wish to discuss this or discuss their plans for energy or any of this or that going forward, I would prefer they do so on the Atlas Fantasy Elections board, rather than here, from this point out.

As far as I'm concerned this bill has failed and I will be withdrawing it from the floor in favor of the next piece of legislation in queue. Thank you.