Thanks for teaching me more about the Californian situation, Seth.
>The utilities have gotten an emergency 9% rate hike for the electricity they
>sell.
But that's nothing compared to the evolution of natural gas or electricity prices.
>Plus, they will get public money to pay for the difference between
>the selling and producing price of electricity.
Are you sure? Then why are their stock down so much? Look f.ex. at
http://quote.bloomberg.com/gcenter/gcenter.cgi?iquote=PCG&PERIOD=
1Y&equote1=&equote2=&equote3=&EXCH=US&T=markets_gcenter99.ht&x=28
&y=2
(sorry for the broken link, you'll have to join the lines)
>US workers� buying power has been falling relative to
>the prices of the goods and services their labor produced.
That's not what official US data shows. Are they lying? Probably not because
higher wages means high ECI means no interest rate cuts and everyone would
hate that. The other data you mentionned (on food) is more about inequalities within
workers, isn't it?
>Electricity consumption is actually down over the past year versus the
>previous year in CA. What's changed is the "market," for reasons Mark and
>Nestor explained. In short, the producer, not the consumer, has increased
>his power over everybody else.
But overconsumption is relative to supply. And supply has been declining. What
changed *this winter* about the power of the producer?
>Here. electricity rates are 25% less that PG&E's. Public ownership of utilities
>"works" in that respect.
You can't compare rates without comparing where the energy comes from (and with
what contracts if it is bought).
Of course, public ownership is better. That said, how would the nationalisation of the
private distributors make energy cheaper in the short term?
Julien
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
