Poor in the South, may have to choose between heating and eating.

[phk]

 Poor may have to choose between heating and eating
Posted by R. Neal

Despite dire warnings of energy shortages and skyrocketing natural gas prices, the Senate this week voted down additional funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program that would assist low-income families with their heating bills this winter.

According to the article, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) "cited estimates that those who heat their homes with fuel oil will need $1,600 this winter, up $380, while the cost of using natural gas for heating could rise $500 to $1,400."

Some local governments are looking at ways to provide assistance. Louisville, Kentucky for example, is considering a proposal to make $250,000 available for assistance after the Kentucky Public Service commission approved Louisville Gas and Electric Co.'s request for a 64% increase in natural gas prices.

Here in East Tennessee, utility companies have been bombarding us for weeks with warnings about natural gas price increases. The Knoxville paper reported last week (registration required):

    KUB customers' natural gas bills could increase 50 to 60 percent this winter, largely because of hurricanes' disruption to the flow of natural gas from the Gulf of Mexico.

    [..]

    Mike Bolin, KUB vice president of business services, said Hurricane Katrina "hit the (natural gas) producing facilities offshore in the Gulf of Mexico at the end of August. Less than a month later, Hurricane Rita came in and what wasn't hit by one hurricane was hit by the other. These hurricanes were very intense and caused a great deal of damage."

The Maryville paper reported nearly a month ago:

    Natural gas prices are forecast to skyrocket this winter, as demand exceeds supply and distribution facilities reel from the effects of two Gulf Coast hurricanes.

    A spokeswoman for Atmos Energy, which provides natural gas to 18,000 Blount County customers, said costs to Blount Countians will increase by 54 percent next month when compared to October [2004].

    "The increase is totally due to increased gas cost," said Atmos public affairs manager Judy Moss.

    She stressed the escalating cost of natural gas does not represent a "rate increase," as the corporation's rates as allowed by the state have remained static since 1996. The company is merely passing on its increased cost of supplying the gas, and Atmos will not realize any additional revenue, Moss said.

    [..]

    She said the effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on distribution networks and an increase in the wholesale cost of natural gas led to the increased cost to customers.

This is the refrain we he hear from energy companies all over the country. Supplies are tight. The hurricanes disrupted supplies. Demand is high. Etc.

Except something doesn't add up.

Click "there's more" for the rest of the story...
According to the DOE's Natural Gas Weekly Update for 9/29/05, "Natural gas spot prices declined this week," and "Spot prices declined $1 per MMBtu or more at trading locations outside of the West Coast as Hurricane Rita proved to be not as strong as anticipated at this time last week."

This week, the report for 10/20/05 says "Since Wednesday, October 12, spot prices decreased at virtually all market locations in the Lower 48 States." The report further states "Generally mild temperatures nationwide, expected mild temperatures for the weekend, and many storage facilities recording nearly full facilities supported a decrease in spot prices on Friday, which declined across the board by an average of 82 cents, with many declines of $1 or more."

The report also says that working gas in storage as of October 14 is "1.8 percent above the 5-year average inventory level for the week," and that the "net addition to storage was about 34 percent above the 5-year average net injection." The report concludes that "moderate temperatures, favorable economics, and possible industrial demand destruction owing to the elevated level of natural gas prices likely contributed to the increased level of injections for the week."

Now, I'm no expert on this and it all seems pretty complicated, but somehow "declining prices" gets translated to "rising costs", and "above average storage injections and inventories" gets translated to "severe shortages". And, "Hurricane Rita proved to be not as strong as anticipated" gets translated to "Hurricane Rita came in and what wasn't hit by one hurricane was hit by the other. These hurricanes were very intense and caused a great deal of damage."

That said, natural gas prices have more than doubled since June of this year (before any hurricanes struck). Why do you suppose that is? Who knows?

What we do know is that energy companies are racking up huge profits. Exxon-Mobil's net income nearly doubled in the third quarter as compared to last year. Gross profits for Atmos Energy have nearly doubled (PDF format) to almost $1 billion for the nine months ending June 30, 2005 as compared to the same period in 2004.

And regarding Atmos Energy, there's this (PDF format):

    Tennessee Attorney General Paul G. Summers has filed a petition with the Tennessee Regulatory Authority asking it to determine whether Atmos Energy Corporation is overcharging its customers more than $10 million annually for natural gas service.

    [..]

    The Attorney General contends Atmos’ delivery costs have declined significantly over recent years due to lower interest rates and corporate down-sizing in Tennessee, but these savings have not been passed on to consumers. The reasonableness of the rates for delivery of Atmos’ gas has not been examined in nearly 10 years.

    [..]

    Similarly, the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office has sought a hearing on similar concerns about Atmos before its Public Service Commission, asking the company to lower its rates by as much as $7.4 million.

So, according to the Tennessee Attorney General, it seems they pass along the increases but not the savings.

OK, then.

[phk]

Quite glad, this might mean that there will be less Southerners.

What a great Christmas present!

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Quite glad, this might mean that there will be less Southerners.

What a great Christmas present!

Please go f**k yourself immediately, kthx.

[opebo]

Quite glad, this might mean that there will be less Southerners.

What a great Christmas present!

Alas, the ones who will expire due to poverty will not generally be the Bush voters.  And the northern parts of the country will probably have more poor freeze to death than the South, in any given year.

[David S]

Quite glad, this might mean that there will be less Southerners.

What a great Christmas present!

There is an unbigoted comment.

[Jake]

Just wondering here, but does the south get very cold in the winter?

[Bono]

Just wondering here, but does the south get very cold in the winter?

LOL. Just what I was thinking.

[DanielX]

Just wondering here, but does the south get very cold in the winter?

Only in the mountains and the outer South. If you're in Florida or Louisiana, it won't be so cold. In Tennessee or Virginia, it might be.

[John Dibble]

Just wondering here, but does the south get very cold in the winter?

Only in the mountains and the outer South. If you're in Florida or Louisiana, it won't be so cold. In Tennessee or Virginia, it might be.

And if you live in the mountains you probably know how to beat the cold in winter.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Just wondering here, but does the south get very cold in the winter?

Relative to northerners, no.  For us, yes.  In Memphis, almost every year there are a few days in January where it dips as low as 10 degrees, though most of the time temperatures hover between 30-45 degrees in the middle of winter.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Why doesn't the government step in and regulate natural gas prices like it should?

The government tells people what to do, but it won't tell Big Business what to do.

The government says people can't marry, or use medicinal marijuana, or play "dirty" video games - yet there's no regulation at all on what an energy company can do.

[Emsworth]

Why doesn't the government step in and regulate natural gas prices like it should?

Because energy companies have the right to sell natural gas at whatever price they please.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Because energy companies have the right to sell natural gas at whatever price they please.

Under what part of the Constitution?

Corporations have no constitutional rights. None.

[Emsworth]

Because energy companies have the right to sell natural gas at whatever price they please.

Under what part of the Constitution?

Corporations have no constitutional rights. None.

I was not making a constitutional argument.

But now that you bring it up, the Constitution clearly does not authorize the federal government to regulate natural gas prices.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

But now that you bring it up, the Constitution clearly does not authorize the federal government to regulate natural gas prices.

Oh yes it does, by authorizing Congress to protect the general welfare.

And you were just arguing in the video game thread that states have a constitutional right to violate the First Amendment.

[opebo]

But now that you bring it up, the Constitution clearly does not authorize the federal government to regulate natural gas prices.

Oh yes it does, by authorizing Congress to protect the general welfare.

Not to mention that the authority to regulate interstate commerce gives the Federal Government full authority to set natural gas prices.

Not that I think it should.  Better to let the prices fall where they may, and tax away the profits (as well as all high incomes) to pay for subsidies to the poor.

[John Dibble]

But now that you bring it up, the Constitution clearly does not authorize the federal government to regulate natural gas prices.

Oh yes it does, by authorizing Congress to protect the general welfare.

And you were just arguing in the video game thread that states have a constitutional right to violate the First Amendment.

1. The general welfare clause isn't a blank check to do anything that isn't forbidden - the means by which the federal government may protect the general welfare is enumerated within the constitution, and is limited to those powers.

2. See the bolded word in Emsworth's quote above.

[Emsworth]

Oh yes it does, by authorizing Congress to protect the general welfare.

The general welfare clause is, obviously, a spending power. It does not authorize Congress to regulate anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nonsense. I merely argued that a certain scenario was not encompassed by "freedom of speech."

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

But now that you bring it up, the Constitution clearly does not authorize the federal government to regulate natural gas prices.

Oh yes it does, by authorizing Congress to protect the general welfare.

And you were just arguing in the video game thread that states have a constitutional right to violate the First Amendment.

1. The general welfare clause isn't a blank check to do anything that isn't forbidden - the means by which the federal government may protect the general welfare is enumerated within the constitution, and is limited to those powers.

2. See the bolded word in Emsworth's quote above.

The federal government explicitly gives corporations a lot of power, through the Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific SCOTUS ruling, which claims that the 14th amendment somehow gives corporate personage. It's a very activist ruling, and anyone against activist judges and activist rulings should be against Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific.

[Emsworth]

The federal government explicitly gives corporations a lot of power, through the Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific SCOTUS ruling, which claims that the 14th amendment somehow gives corporate personage. It's a very activist ruling, and anyone against activist judges and activist rulings should be against Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific.

I think that it is quite obvious that the due process clause protects corporations as well as individuals. Can the government deprive a corporation of property without due process of law?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The federal government explicitly gives corporations a lot of power, through the Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific SCOTUS ruling, which claims that the 14th amendment somehow gives corporate personage. It's a very activist ruling, and anyone against activist judges and activist rulings should be against Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific.

I think that it is quite obvious that the due process clause protects corporations as well as individuals. Can the government deprive a corporation of property without due process of law?

So you claim that the 14th amendment gives corporate personage to corporations? You are an activist conservative.

[Emsworth]

So you claim that the 14th amendment gives corporate personage to corporations?

The Fourteenth Amendment does not "give" anything to anyone.

Just because the state is dealing with a corporation, it does not follow that there are no constitutional limits on its power. Can a state censor the New York Times, because it is published by a corporation? Can a state take away a corporation's property without just compensation? Can a state deny a corporation due process of law.

[opebo]

So you claim that the 14th amendment gives corporate personage to corporations?

The Fourteenth Amendment does not "give" anything to anyone.

Just because the state is dealing with a corporation, it does not follow that there are no constitutional limits on its power. Can a state censor the New York Times, because it is published by a corporation? Can a state take away a corporation's property without just compensation? Can a state deny a corporation due process of law.

The State should treat the corporation as what it is - a creature of the State.  Regulation of corporations should be an administrative matter, like the operation of the bureaucracy.  There is no need for the courts to be involved, as they are intended for the use of actual persons.

[Bono]

So you claim that the 14th amendment gives corporate personage to corporations?

The Fourteenth Amendment does not "give" anything to anyone.

Just because the state is dealing with a corporation, it does not follow that there are no constitutional limits on its power. Can a state censor the New York Times, because it is published by a corporation? Can a state take away a corporation's property without just compensation? Can a state deny a corporation due process of law.

The State should treat the corporation as what it is - a creature of the State.  Regulation of corporations should be an administrative matter, like the operation of the bureaucracy.  There is no need for the courts to be involved, as they are intended for the use of actual persons.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with a bunch of people pooling theri money together and annoucing to theri future creditors that their future debts are only covered by corporate assets. It shouldn't, of coruse, apply to people who never had any agreement of sorts with the corp.

[David S]

Why doesn't the government step in and regulate natural gas prices like it should?

The government tells people what to do, but it won't tell Big Business what to do.

The government says people can't marry, or use medicinal marijuana, or play "dirty" video games - yet there's no regulation at all on what an energy company can do.

I think they do regulate natural gas. However, suppose government set the price at less than it costs to produce and distribute the gas. How much do you think the companies would produce?