Posted by Ed
on March 6, 2008, 12:41 am, in reply to "From the State House News Service"
24.34.144.49
Answer
Here is what you missed, and how it applies to the Billerica Power
Plant Proposal, and how this applies now:
"Consumer Protection and Cost Accountability Act will ensure that
consumers "aren't left holding the bag for expensive market
experiments"
Possible Consumer cost protection?
"To enforce the bill's provisions, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission would be required to make sure that cost-benefit analyses
are made in conjunction with new programs and market rules proposed
by independent system operators like ISO-New England and regional
transmission organizations."
Question: will the Federal Energy Trade Commission provide protection
from ISO NEW ENGLAND? Read On
Northeast Public Power Association, "claims consumers have "not been
served well" by a decade of deregulation in the energy markets," (I
Agree)
Let's stop there and ask if the deregulation of the energy market
producers made them become competitive as was originally intended by
deregulation, which in turn would lower energy costs to the consumer?
Continuing on, "with retail prices climbing steadily, fueled by
higher natural gas prices, and with "significant profit-taking" in
wholesale energy markets and "guaranteed payments" to some private
generators." Let's take this in three parts:
1. "with retail prices climbing steadily," Retail prices always
rise with higher energy costs.
2. The next statement is of serious concern to the Billerica
Proposal, "fueled by higher natural gas prices," STOP RIGHT THERE!
Didn't the BWG and our Air Expert just have a battle at the EFSB with
DG POWER POLLUTERS LLC, over concerns of this plant, if permitted,
would be able to convert to more hours of operation (re permitting)
on Diesel Fuel and possibly dirtier Diesel Fuel under the
term "Financial Feasibility" contained in our laws? The Presiding
officer of the board asked that question and DG LLC's Supervising
Engineer responded arrogantly saying, "Anything is possible!"
Hmm, that would mean added pollution and increased health risks for
the Companies profitability.
3. Northeast Public Power Association's President may have an
alarming point here with "significant profit-taking" in wholesale
energy markets and "guaranteed payments" to some private generators."
Well we do pay more for significant profit taking and confirms the
statement in number 2, and the "guaranteed payments," who guarantees
them? Here is the most interesting point, "private generators," they
must mean like DG Power Polluters LLC, I am sure they do!
The piece concludes with, "ISO-New England has cautioned lawmakers
that significant new sources of energy must be tapped in the coming
years to meet rising consumer demands."
Here is the sad part in the contradictions of law:
First: If deregulation was meant to increase competition, which
should rightly lower electrical costs then why didn't that theory
work, instead of raising costs?
Second: If the retail price of natural gas rises higher than diesel
and "guaranteed payments" are made to "private generators" (like DG),
then add the term "Financial Feasibility" from our laws into the
equation, and ISO NEW ENGLAND has a say in it, how does ISO protect
the consumer if they have any say in this written law?
Answer: The lawmakers sold us a bill of goods when they claimed that
the deregulation of the electrical industry would benefit the
consumers through a competitive market seeking our consumer dollars.
So what was the first thing the private electrical generating
producer's set-up? They pooled their money and come up with
organizations similar to ISO NEW ENGLAND which controls when these
private generators fire up, to prevent excess of power generation,
and hold the profits high for the private generating companies who
support them! To add further insult to the unaware consumers, they
add pollution estimates to please the environmentalists so these
plants can sell pollution credits to other plants which are allowed
to produce more pollution if the purchase them from plants that
aren't running. There goes the environmental concerns. Who pays for
this? CORRECT, the CONSUMER.
The, "Consumer Protection and Cost Accountability Act," would have to
be written in a way the lobbyists from organizations like ISO NE are
not involved in the writing of the law and held strictly accountable
to the FERC. Do not applaud too soon, this could be worse for the
consumers, and how does this apply to the Billerica Power Plant
Proposal? Simply, there are many plants waiting to come on line to
supply energy for us. This is another Greedy Money making plant which
is completely unnecessary which will empty our consumer pockets, and
may possibly be one of the "Reliability Plants" purchasing the
pollution credits if allowed to break ground.
Think about it. If not, check into how Exxon/Mobil became
Exxon/Mobil!
This bill may sound good, but it may be adverse to real clean energy
like wind and solar while protecting the profits of the private
generating companies. If we have to pay more at least let it be a
nonpollutant form of energy!
Ed
Message Thread:
« Back to thread