> The rates are going up because Oil and Gas supply is low which increases the costs paid by Eversource to the Power Plant. That cost is passed onto the consumer and doesn't go into Eversource's pockets.

Right, but they have a responsibility to provide returns to their shareholders, making reduction in their profits impossible. Even if it were in the best interest of the consumer. I'm agreeing with you.

>You realize this makes those "sky high profits" are worth less to them too, inflation hits both ways. They haven't increased the transmission charges by a large amount, which is what they profit from, so I don't see how it is all on them when both the total cost consumers pay and the change in costs are both dominated by the Power Plants and not the Utility company.

I agree. We should take control of power plants. I would prefer a cooperative-ownership type model which have been proven to be more stable in their decision-making (as consumers have a say), and responsive to the needs of their communities, rather than the detached wants of stock-owners.

>You seem angry that profit and private industry exist at all. Need I remind you that even the successful left wing countries don't nationalize most things, at most they create public-private corporations. Profit incentives are what drive investment, and that is what supplies Tax Dollars as well. You also seem to prefer shortages to high prices, which is the trade-off.

I am not a Communist. I'm not in favor of the State running everything. But I am in favor of the State running things that all humans require to live, and providing for the basic needs of our citizens.

I am okay with companies selling widgets or lamps. I'm not okay with middlemen profiting off the disabled not being able to heat their homes.

>First off, we ARE NOT an OPEC member. OPEC is a cartel of nations whose wealth is predominantly controlled by Oil and Gas profits, there incentive is the same as a private company, but with large militaries enforcing their will in addition to profit motives.

Excellent attempt at a dunk. I never said the US was a member. I said we participate in the system. Which we do, as we purchase oil (as you mentioned) from that exchange.

>Second, did you not see the production numbers? No, we couldn't make a fucking dent. 81.5%, what OPEC produces, is so significantly more than the 14.5% the United States produces that we alone cannot lower Oil and Gas prices.

You're highlighting the issue, not producing a solution. Energy is going to continue to get more expensive. We can either create more of our own, use less, or buy more from elsewhere.

I see it likely being a combination of all three, with a gravitation toward the first two over time.

>No we wouldn't, we we just move that power and more to Saudi Arabia's Aramco instead.

It's funny you mention this, because Aramco is owned by the Saudi royal family, is it not? They own 100% stock I believe. And they have created a Saudi-centric energy policy. Why wouldn't we try and do the same for the US?

>but if you run it at a net loss then austerity measures hit those less well connected first.

I'm confused. Austerity as in 'removal of subsidies'?

>They only affect the price of food, shipping, electricity, chemicals manufacturing (medicines, plastics, electronics, etc.), phosphates for farming, etc. Oil and Gas are critically important even beyond burning for electricity and your flippant nature towards that shows your lack of practicality and obessesion with being an ideologue.

I'm well aware of the amount of products oil creates. Thanks for the insult though.

Many alternatives are being found to replace most of these uses, as we continue to develop new technologies.

You sound like the guy that is angry about the steam engine being put out of service.

Well guess what, we still use those too, just in different ways.