|
It's Rancho Santa Fe, you can't even have a mailbox.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
The Socialist Republic of Kalifornia just ruled that Uber has to treat its drivers like employees and give them actual benefits besides the right to lose their car insurance for operating a commercial vehicle. Business Insider, predictably, posted a report about how following the rules that apply to every other business will somehow ruin their ability to operate. Won't someone think of the poor job creators?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Baby Babbeh posted:The Socialist Republic of Kalifornia just ruled that Uber has to treat its drivers like employees and give them actual benefits besides the right to lose their car insurance for operating a commercial vehicle. Business Insider, predictably, posted a report about how following the rules that apply to every other business will somehow ruin their ability to operate. Won't someone think of the poor job creators? Haha I love this part in the article: quote:So while Uber is a $50 billion company on paper and investors look like gods who will get crazy returns someday, many haven't actually gotten much cash back yet. Pretty clear what the author worships.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
nm posted:Can we get rid of the proposition system yet? An update on this: Kamala Harris is not obligated to open the proposition for signature collection, effectively killing it in the cradle. In other news, physician-assisted suicide hits a snag in the Assembly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
If you were driving in San Francisco today, you may have noticed that traffic was way worse than normal. Well, there's a reason for that. In related news, we'll soon add another referendum to next year's ballot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:If you were driving in San Francisco today, you may have noticed that traffic was way worse than normal. Well, there's a reason for that. I love how for the main speech they only had a chiropractor not any actual doctors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
New electricity rate increases aimed at punishing solar users approvedquote:Electric bills are set to rise over the next few years for most household customers served by California's major investor-owned utilities, including Southern California Edison. Every customer now has a $120/year charge regardless of use. Also people who conserve or own solar and stay in the lower tiers will see bills rise while higher energy users will see bills drop. This is a similar tactic to what was used by the utilities in AZ when they approved a $21 minimum monthly charge on each bill, slowing solar adoption in that state. FCKGW fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:New electricity rate increases aimed at punishing solar users approved Yeah I heard about this-- it's amazingly scummy especially since they get a natural monopoly on power so it's not like people can take their business elsewhere when they are dicked so royally. "Hey guys, let's punish people who save electricity so people will just stop saving and use more across the board yesssssss$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
I'm going to defend this one. Solar panels reduce the overall amount of energy generation, and reducing bills by the amount that the solar panels are putting into the system makes sense. However, generation costs are not the only costs of running the electrical system you depend on, the one you're putting energy into even if you aren't drawing it back. The ongoing costs of maintaining a state-wide electrical network (which affect everybody who hasn't completely gone off-grid), include maintaining the lines, maintaining the grid at an even and stable state so that it doesn't wreck the other grid it hooks into, and providing the correct amount of power at all places and at both day and night. Sorry to avoid using the correct terms; I have a headache and can't remember them. tl;dr: You are consuming the resources of the grid even if your monthly bill is zero. It's a shared cost, like the cost of having police and the cost of having state parks. Whether $10 a month is a fair apportioning of those costs -- given that it's PG&E, it's certainly not -- is a different matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I'm going to defend this one. Solar panels reduce the overall amount of energy generation, and reducing bills by the amount that the solar panels are putting into the system makes sense. However, generation costs are not the only costs of running the electrical system you depend on, the one you're putting energy into even if you aren't drawing it back. The ongoing costs of maintaining a state-wide electrical network (which affect everybody who hasn't completely gone off-grid), include maintaining the lines, maintaining the grid at an even and stable state so that it doesn't wreck the other grid it hooks into, and providing the correct amount of power at all places and at both day and night. Sorry to avoid using the correct terms; I have a headache and can't remember them. I actually agree, at least with the minimum charge for being hooked up and live on the grid, although solar homes should be allowed to offset the charge (and even get paid) if they feed more power to the grid then they consume. But simultaneously lowering costs for the highest users is nonsensical and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:tl;dr: You are consuming the resources of the grid even if your monthly bill is zero. It's a shared cost, like the cost of having police and the cost of having state parks. Whether $10 a month is a fair apportioning of those costs -- given that it's PG&E, it's certainly not -- is a different matter. Even less likely to be a fair apportioning when you consider that apartment units almost certainly don't cost the same amount to support as separate suburban homes, but each of them gets to pay $10 a month, too. But hey, subsidies for rural areas are far more acceptable than subsidies for low-energy users, am I right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Agreed, I'm fine paying modest grid-tie fees because I'm not a baby who doesn't understand how power grids work, but lowering tier 3 rates is pretty fucktarded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Bastard Tetris posted:Agreed, I'm fine paying modest grid-tie fees because I'm not a baby who doesn't understand how power grids work, but lowering tier 3 rates is pretty fucktarded. The claim I read when the info packets first went out to PG&E users is that apparently the enabling legislation says that any change to support grid-tie fees has to be revenue neutral, which means that they have no choice but to lower rates on energy hogs because to do otherwise would increase income.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
If you want a bill of zero then you should unplug from the wire that leads into your house. Until then it isn't unreasonable to have to pay something for the assurance that you can turn on the lights even if your solar power system breaks down. They should charge everyone a flat fee for this and rejigger the rates across the board (keeping the rate-based incentive to conserve) to keep the overall change revenue-neutral. Or find a way to put the flat-fee portion of everyone's bill directly into capital improvements or something. withak fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
withak posted:If you want a bill of zero then you should unplug from the wire that leads into your house. Until then it isn't unreasonable to have to pay something for the assurance that you can turn on the lights even if your solar power system breaks down. If utilities had their way, you couldn't even do this. They certainly managed making paying a non-zero bill mandatory in Florida recently. withak posted:They should charge everyone a flat fee for this and rejigger the rates across the board (keeping the rate-based incentive to conserve) to keep the overall change revenue-neutral. So, in other words, raise the rates of consumers who conserve (because they aren't paying enough) and lower the rates of consumers who don't (to make it revenue-neutral). Which is exactly what they did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:So, in other words, raise the rates of consumers who conserve (because they aren't paying enough) and lower the rates of consumers who don't (to make it revenue-neutral). Which is exactly what they did. Absolutely not. Impose the $10 fee while lowering the rates on everyone at the lowest energy consumption tier. E.g., if the first tier is 13 cents/kilowatt, lower it to 12. You could make a revenue-neutral change that didn't touch the higher rates at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
If the cost of keeping everyone hooked up to the grid is somehow being split out from the cost of producing the electricity then everyone's rates should go down, even if their total power bill doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
As member of a public utility (smud) I'm laughing, particularly at the suburbs that a few years ago voted down an expansion of SMUD (instead of PGE) because socialism or something. My electric bill is alkost half what my edison bill is despite using the same amount of power
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
withak posted:If the cost of keeping everyone hooked up to the grid is somehow being split out from the cost of producing the electricity then everyone's rates should go down, even if their total power bill doesn't. That's an excellent point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:The ongoing costs of maintaining a state-wide electrical network (which affect everybody who hasn't completely gone off-grid), include maintaining the lines, maintaining the grid at an even and stable state so that it doesn't wreck the other grid it hooks into, and providing the correct amount of power at all places and at both day and night. I can see why the beneficent private energy companies who are strapped for cash are creating a new mandatory fee for being alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis#Some_key_events quote:On December 15, 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) rejected California's request for a wholesale rate cap for California, instead approving a "flexible cap" plan of $150 per megawatt-hour. That day, California was paying wholesale prices of over $1400 per megawatt-hour, compared to $45 per megawatt-hour average one year earlier. quote:One of the energy wholesalers that became notorious for "gaming the market" and reaping huge speculative profits was Enron Corporation. Enron CEO Kenneth Lay mocked the efforts by the California state government to thwart the practices of the energy wholesalers, saying, "In the final analysis, it doesn't matter what you crazy people in California do, because I got smart guys who can always figure out how to make money." Its funny that you compared this to the public good of cops, since that institution is finally being outed as a corrupt money-sink populated by thugs and thieves as well. Incentives! quote:When the electricity demand in California rose, utilities had no financial incentive to expand production, as long term prices were capped. Instead, wholesalers such as Enron manipulated the market to force utility companies into daily spot markets for short term gain. For example, in a market technique known as megawatt laundering, wholesalers bought up electricity in California at below cap price to sell out of state, creating shortages. In some instances, wholesalers scheduled power transmission to create congestion and drive up prices. And the transmission system? Well... theres another game going on. The utilities LOVE the idea of rooftop solar. As long as they get to seize you rooftop. They just dont want the loving peasants to use their own roofs. http://www.utilitydive.com/news/who-should-operate-the-distribution-grid/376950/ quote:California utilities are actively attempting to move into DER ownership with plans to own electric vehicle charging stations. Some, like the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, have told Utility Dive that they are considering moving into rooftop solar ownership as well. "Hey peasants, want to stop paying fees? Give us your roofs and let us charge you a second rent on your rent!" Sure the electric companies should be paying for the space, but why bother? History has taught them they can just invent fees and fake outages and get whatever they want. I mean you wouldnt want a  ROLLING BLACKOUT would you?How do the utilities view themselves? As enlightened Lords ready to tell everyone their place. quote:The enthusiasm for breaking up the current utility arrangement on the distribution grid isn’t shared by everyone. In particular, many utilities see themselves as the entity best prepared to make the necessary investments on the distribution system and value them correctly. As usual I am flinging sarcasm all over, but the point stands that if you are trusting a for-profit industry with their "professional market opinion" on a need you are a loving fool. http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2014/nov/19/citylights1-california-electricity-rates-top/ quote:California residential electricity rates are the highest in the nation — by far. A major reason is that the California Public Utilities Commission, the so-called regulator, schmoozes Wall Street, promising to keep the profits of the state’s publicly held utilities — Sempra Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison — higher than utility profits elsewhere. Those profits come out of ratepayers’ pockets. The game even lets them charge the public "bonus money" for their egregious failures. Viva la market! quote:A classic case is the commission’s maneuvering to make ratepayers cough up $3.3 billion over the shuttering of the San Onofre nuclear plant. Steam generators built to last 40 years failed after 2 years. The commission hired an expert, Dr. Robert Budnitz, to look into the failure. In an early report, he wrote just what the commission didn’t want to read — that his study would address critical questions: “What error(s) led to the tube failure(s)? Who made those errors?” The commission, which didn’t want to think about errors, tucked his initial study away and refused to provide it to the press until pressured to do so. Crying for the "costs" of private energy providers in CA is ridiculous at this time. "Gut feelings" that "Welp it must cost something so I guess I better rent out my rear end for those poor companies!" is very lazy. Those companies are swimming in money they just want to pocket it all as their Lordly Entitlements and take more from the citizens. Energy production and transmission should be seized by the State and the criminals milking the public should be jailed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Absolutely not. You still have to raise rates on the lowest of the lowest consumers in the end though. Even if you dropped the first tier from 13¢ to 12¢ to compensate, everyone who is using less than 1,000 kWh a month will pay more, because their savings on that tier will be less than the $10 fee. EDIT: And it doesn't matter how you rejigger the rates. There will necessarily be some level of usage below which the discounted rate does not offset the fixed connect fee (i.e. [usage < fee ÷ change-in-rates] is true with some amount of positive usage so long as the fee is non-zero) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:*Angry words* So, do you think CPUC is entirely captured by the utilities or what? Because, this clearly stinks of a compromise to me. If a consumer hasn't paid an electricity bill all summer between the AB32 return and a solar install, they're costing more to service than they are paying. I would not be surprised if there were statutory mandates to correct that imbalance. Does the $120 a month effect ROI on solar? Sure it does, but it would effect very few consumers. For as horribly mismanaged and greedy the investor owned utilities are, remember that CPUC rate cases place specific limits on profit margins and mandates spending on maintenance etc. The problem is, some of those utilities didn't invest in maintenance and equipment for decades and gave the money to investors. Now, they really are in a bind because they have more infrastructure costs than they can get approved in rate cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:For as horribly mismanaged and greedy the investor owned utilities are, remember that CPUC rate cases place specific limits on profit margins and mandates spending on maintenance etc. The problem is, some of those utilities didn't invest in maintenance and equipment for decades and gave the money to investors. Now, they really are in a bind because they have more infrastructure costs than they can get approved in rate cases. I am arguing at a philosophical 180 to the "Well what will the poor companies do if they cant fabricate a legal mandate to take money? They might lose a few dollars!" idea. The utilities are a public service. The private companies are allowed to exist because (supposedly) they do a better job than a public agency would "be able to". When the public make good decisions that have good effects but just happen to lower the unnecessary profitability of the private energy companies then those private companies should eat the "lost profit". When the profits are no longer fun enough, then the State should take over the entire production/grid. Many of the arguments being made really do smack of "Landed Nobility and Divine Rights" of the private companies. They exist because God said they must and everyone must pay what they demand "because". I am saying that these private very profitable companies do not need to take more money to cover basic infrastructure needs. Lets reverse the "Divine Right" mentality and make it: "You are a citizen of CA, therefore you get a grid connection provided to you as a part of the deal with the profiteering merchants that are currently permitted to run the energy system". There is too much of a scramble to defend the "needs" of wealthy profitable companies to become more rich and more profitable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:That is their problem. Seizures and sentences should help "correct he market". You're mistaking my point. Sure, socializing energy might be a good thing, but it is such an unrealistic possibility. I'm just pointing out that even if we forced these companies into short term unprofitability, we still wouldn't have enough money to fix and improve everything we need. You can't squeeze money to pay for decades worth of malfeasance out of a single rate case. So yes, short of socialized energy we're going to end up paying these companies extra for the service of fixing the mistakes those same companies made decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So, do you think CPUC is entirely captured by the utilities or what? This is a matter of record; there are mails to prove it. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jan/10/regulators-hobnobbing-with-utilities-questioned/
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:This is a matter of record; there are mails to prove it. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/jan/10/regulators-hobnobbing-with-utilities-questioned/ So 1 member who's term ended in December? Not that bad to be honest and still far from regulatory capture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
The fact that the energy utilities are disgustingly corrupt and should be nationalized doesn't make a flat grid hookup rate an intrinsically bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So 1 member who's term ended in December? Not that bad to be honest and still far from regulatory capture. I take it you missed this sentence? "After those emails were disclosed, PG&E fired three executives. " This is by no means the only case in the last year, it's just the one I can find quickest. There is also evidence about other officials right after the San Bruno explosion. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27436909/san-bruno-disaster-pg-e-wields-pervasive-influence On at least one occasion, the emails show, PG&E executives tipped off PUC officials about an important regulatory filing that the public company was planning to make with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing was about the company's general rate case proposal for raising monthly gas and electric bills for residential and business customers. "Timothy -- FYI. I will be sending you our (SEC filing) in advance of our formal filing," Cherry said in a November 2012 email to Timothy Simon, a PUC commissioner at that time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I take it you missed this sentence? "After those emails were disclosed, PG&E fired three executives. " This is by no means the only case in the last year, it's just the one I can find quickest. There is also evidence about other officials right after the San Bruno explosion. I never once argued PG&E wasn't corrupt, that doesn't mean the CPUC is corrupt even if one member might have been. If the CPUC was as corrupt as PG&E wanted, I think they would have gotten a better rate case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:for governor I have a vague hope that you won't get my rear filled with holes by some angry Vietnamese rice farmed armed with the finest in soviet surplus in Grey hunter's lets play.  Any of you California goons got a book on how the tech industry is horrible? I've been nursing a vague curiosity about that lately.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're mistaking my point. Sure, socializing energy might be a good thing, but it is such an unrealistic possibility. I'm just pointing out that even if we forced these companies into short term unprofitability, we still wouldn't have enough money to fix and improve everything we need. You can't squeeze money to pay for decades worth of malfeasance out of a single rate case. Why? California has a relatively large number of public utilities, which are all notably cheaper than the privates.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:I have a vague hope that you won't get my rear filled with holes by some angry Vietnamese rice farmed armed with the finest in soviet surplus in Grey hunter's lets play. "The Difference Between God and Larry Ellison" is very good, if a bit dated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:Any of you California goons got a book on how the tech industry is horrible? I've been nursing a vague curiosity about that lately. I don't know about a BOOK but the "tech bubel" thread in YOSPOS makes for amazing reading at times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
nm posted:Why? California has a relatively large number of public utilities, which are all notably cheaper than the privates. Do you have a source that they are all cheaper than the IOUs? Also, I think you'd find the IOUs cover a vast amount of California (including less profitable rural areas) and provide a lot of the more expensive to operate backbone services.  But the real obstacle to socializing electricity would be political not pricing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
As someone not from California, $120/mo. minimum seems . . . absolutely insane. That's significantly higher than the average residential electric bill in most states -- or at least it was in 2012. Not to mention denser states on average have lower costs since apartments/condos use significantly less energy than single family homes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Chuu posted:As someone not from California, $120/mo. minimum seems . . . absolutely insane. That's significantly higher than the average residential electric bill in most states -- or at least it was in 2012. Not to mention denser states on average have lower costs since apartments/condos use significantly less energy than single family homes. $120/year minimum. $10/mo. For reference, my electric costs about $40 a month (being in an apartment helps keep that low). That would probably go up to $50 a month at the new rates. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jul 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Klaus88 posted:I have a vague hope that you won't get my rear filled with holes by some angry Vietnamese rice farmed armed with the finest in soviet surplus in Grey hunter's lets play. The documentary television series "Silicon Valley."
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Do you have a source that they are all cheaper than the IOUs? There was an article on it recently (either in the LA times or Sacbee) which broke it down, but I'm having trouble finding it. Here's a source, but it isn't as good as from a newspaper (and doesn't cite sources), but it does reflect the article I read. My summer rate here in SMUD territory is significantly less than SoCal Edison, which I was using before i moved. https://www.smud.org/en/residential/customer-service/rate-information/rate-comparison.htm It is true that they're going to have to have more infastructure to support, but that doesn't support Davis having a significantly higher electric rate than Sacramento 20mi down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
This is almost a week old by now, but vaccine "personal belief exemptions" are no longer a thing 
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
GrumpyDoctor posted:This is almost a week old by now, but vaccine "personal belief exemptions" are no longer a thing Or at least won't be a thing until 360k Marin-ites manage to delay its implementation another year. EDIT: And survives a ridiculous court challenge from rich Marin-ites, which has been threatened as an option. EDITx2: In addition to the planned referendum, they're also trying to recall one of the co-sponsors for having the gall to be a pediatrician who knows better than his dumb constituents. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Jul 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 03:26
|
|