buried_lede t1_iy6fl0l wrote
The only thing that could tick me off more than Eversource/Dereg/ISO-NE ( in that order) is if legislators go into those hearings underprepared and let Avangrid and Eversource run circles around them with mumbo jumbo about the difference in their energy pools etc.
Do not go to the hearing if you don’t know the facts and answers before you ask the questions.
Do Not ask how Munis do it if you do not know how munis do it!!!!!
Sen Duff- please note!
Call the munis before the hearings and find out. And get their opinions too about Eversource claims - they could have a lot of insight
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy7xljv wrote
We need some Katie porter types in there with graphs and charts
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy8e29z wrote
Yes let's pick someone from the state that charges the highest cost for electricity, to explain to the state with the second highest cost how to do better.
How about we get some electrical engineers, economists and supply chain specialists, hired by the state, to discuss this instead?
Edit: I'm not counting Hawaii since it is an island and the cost makes sense there
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy8q25j wrote
What CA charges has nothing to do with her effectiveness at calling out corporate greed, which she’s been better at than just about anyone in a Congress. And she does it in a direct and succinct, easy to understand and difficult to argue against manner. You can get information from the EEs, economists, supply chain people, etc. and put their information into easy to understand messages. You don’t need to be one of those people.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy8vani wrote
Has she gotten results, or just talked? I work in energy. I understand why our power generation and distribution is so messed up. I even worked at millstone for a while. It will take a decade of new production that involves large steam plants. Instead of discussing what we should use to boil the water, besides oil and natural gas, I see politicians waste time misrepresenting inflation and supply crunches. We could look into geothermal, tidal turbines or nuclear and we are busy debating how to keep aging natural gas plants alive while trying to get every household to buy crappy solar panels to make up for the ignorance. Eventually those plants are going to need to be retired, and it will take 10 years to replace them with something better.
Edit: we have a 2 billion dollar surplus in CT for the first time in a long time, we should invest in new sources of energy and not waste it on solar, and more natural gas plants because that surplus came from Covid policy and will not last.
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy9000c wrote
Your opinions seem valid but you’re missing the overall point of getting people in position to make changes be able to actually call out the bad actors, show evidence in a clear manner. One person alone can’t get results. You know that’s not how the political system works.
Here’s one of many examples of Katie Porters work. I’d love to see something similar done with Eversource - not that it would result in meaningful change, but I’d still like to see it.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy91x8l wrote
So I understand this video and why you like it. Here is my point, she could propose a bill tomorrow that allows the US to buy generic equivalents of the drugs these companies make, from Canada, Europe or elsewhere where they are significantly cheaper than the ones produced in the US. She has tunnel vision for the US pharmaceutical companies simply deciding to do the right thing.
This is similar to the problem with CT energy prices. We have tunnel vision for keeping all power plants natural gas power plants. So we are beholden to the price of natural gas. All we would need to do to break this, is switch to an efficient renewable or a power source that doesn't require a constant supply of fossil fuels, thereby creating a competing source that would force the gas power plants to drop prices to compete. That conversation isn't even happening.
Edit: basically most politicians are playing these companies games instead of writing their own rules.
mynameisnotshamus t1_iy94onh wrote
They need to do both though don’t they? Short term and long term goals. Focusing on renewable will not help lower current prices.
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy97dij wrote
We already began production on a new natural gas plant, plans were approved in September 2021. We have extended the life of millstone for now, and eversource is raking in money it could use to upgrade the power lines and such, so we have the short term covered. Long term we are doing nothing but the same.
In addition, everyone talking about renewables in government is talking about wind and solar. Neither of those is practical on a large scale. I understand the concerns with nuclear, though I worked in nuclear and there at least 15 nuclear reactors in the Thames river at any one time, but beyond that, there are other large scale options that would drastically reduce our energy cost. The only down side is it would hurt the fossil fuel companies.
buried_lede t1_iy8q7nk wrote
Electrical engineers, maybe, but economists? What’s next, witchcraft? (Just kidding, sort of)
SKIPPY_IS_REAL t1_iy8vi75 wrote
Economists because they will determine what resources are about to become available and provide cheap alternatives to natural gas, coal and oil. They can determine under represented markets that CT could tap into, kinda the same as supply chains but more prospecting and looking to the future.
buried_lede t1_iy9h0gs wrote
He’s got the right idea. It wouldn’t hurt if someone pulled out a pointer and rolled out some charts. I do want this anatomy laid out in detail and accurately and not shallow. Tired of the regurgitated press releases explaining why rates are high. They are all full of shit.
Lobbyists at Ever-score - - you know what they are giving to legislators? Loungewear catalogs with the latest Black Friday prices
Myotherside t1_iy7repv wrote
Hanlon’s Razor is not applicable to politics.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments