'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
Politico - 4 days ago
-- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760

On 2021-02-23 1:16 a.m., bruce bowser wrote:
> 'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
> Politico - 4 days ago
> -- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760
>
But he was the first Hispanic to flee to Mexico because of ICE!

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-5, suzeeq wrote in rec.arts.tv:
> On 2/23/2021 12:28 AM, RichA wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 03:07:03 UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> >> 'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
> >> Politico - 4 days ago
> >> -- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760
> >
> > The only people who don't give a damn about the people of Texas are the greenkooks who forced useless wind power on them.
> >
> Nobody forced it on them, and they only get 20% of their power from wind
> mills anyway. They still have gas and coal plants which also froze up.

That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap again and got caught.

On 2/23/2021 8:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-5, suzeeq wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>> On 2/23/2021 12:28 AM, RichA wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 03:07:03 UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>> 'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
>>>> Politico - 4 days ago
>>>> -- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760
>>>
>>> The only people who don't give a damn about the people of Texas are the greenkooks who forced useless wind power on them.
>>>
>> Nobody forced it on them, and they only get 20% of their power from wind
>> mills anyway. They still have gas and coal plants which also froze up.
>
> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap again and got caught.
>


Electric power to the gas production sites was shut off willy nilly, so
gas production plummeted. Gas facilities which used to use gas to power
certain systems changed those items over to electric to appease the
greenies.

A coal plant was decommissioned to appease the greenies, even though
that steady base line power would have been quite helpful.

Nevertheless, gas power production increased and saved the day compared
to what might have otherwise occurred.

Green power is great, but it was the most under performing power source
during this event.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/23/2021 8:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-5, suzeeq wrote in rec.arts.tv:
> >> On 2/23/2021 12:28 AM, RichA wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 03:07:03 UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>>> 'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
> >>>> Politico - 4 days ago
> >>>> -- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760
> >>>
> >>> The only people who don't give a damn about the people of Texas are the greenkooks who forced useless wind power on them.
> >>>
> >> Nobody forced it on them, and they only get 20% of their power from wind
> >> mills anyway. They still have gas and coal plants which also froze up.
> >
> > That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap again and got caught.
> >
> Electric power to the gas production sites was shut off willy nilly, so
> gas production plummeted. Gas facilities which used to use gas to power
> certain systems changed those items over to electric to appease the
> greenies.
>
> A coal plant was decommissioned to appease the greenies, even though
> that steady base line power would have been quite helpful.
>
> Nevertheless, gas power production increased and saved the day compared
> to what might have otherwise occurred.
>
> Green power is great, but it was the most under performing power source
> during this event.

Like I said. Only Texas Republicans have had this freezing-up problem. Alaska and Russia haven't.

Make all the excuses you want.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:50:36 AM UTC-5, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-5, suzeeq wrote in rec.arts.tv:
> > On 2/23/2021 12:28 AM, RichA wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 03:07:03 UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> > >> 'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
> > >> Politico - 4 days ago
> > >> -- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760
> > >
> > > The only people who don't give a damn about the people of Texas are the greenkooks who forced useless wind power on them.
> > >
> > Nobody forced it on them, and they only get 20% of their power from wind
> > mills anyway. They still have gas and coal plants which also froze up.
>
> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap again and got caught.

They planned for the average year, not the 100-year cold event.

Not even 100 years; something similar happened in 2011.
<https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/tag/2011-blackouts/>

Cindy Hamilton

On 2/23/2021 9:21 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 11:58:22 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 2/23/2021 8:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 10:22:13 AM UTC-5, suzeeq wrote in rec.arts.tv:
>>>> On 2/23/2021 12:28 AM, RichA wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 23 February 2021 at 03:07:03 UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>>>> 'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
>>>>>> Politico - 4 days ago
>>>>>> -- https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760
>>>>>
>>>>> The only people who don't give a damn about the people of Texas are the greenkooks who forced useless wind power on them.
>>>>>
>>>> Nobody forced it on them, and they only get 20% of their power from wind
>>>> mills anyway. They still have gas and coal plants which also froze up.
>>>
>>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap again and got caught.
>>>
>> Electric power to the gas production sites was shut off willy nilly, so
>> gas production plummeted. Gas facilities which used to use gas to power
>> certain systems changed those items over to electric to appease the
>> greenies.
>>
>> A coal plant was decommissioned to appease the greenies, even though
>> that steady base line power would have been quite helpful.
>>
>> Nevertheless, gas power production increased and saved the day compared
>> to what might have otherwise occurred.
>>
>> Green power is great, but it was the most under performing power source
>> during this event.
>
> Like I said. Only Texas Republicans have had this freezing-up problem. Alaska and Russia haven't.
>
> Make all the excuses you want.
>

Alaska and Russia prepare for annual events. Texas didn't prepare for a
non-annual event.

On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:

>>> The only people who don't give a damn about the people of Texas are the greenkooks who forced useless wind power on them.
>>>
>> Nobody forced it on them, and they only get 20% of their power from wind
>> mills anyway. They still have gas and coal plants which also froze up.
>
> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap again and got caught.
>

That is exactly it. To winterize it would have cost millions over the
years so they neglected to do it. Hey, it does not get that cold here.

Some of the wind power did go down but that was just a tiny part of the
problem that would not be felt at all if the rest of the system was in
good shape.

One of the other problems goes back 80 or 90 years. There are three
grid systems in the US. Western, Eastern, and ECROT. Many years ago
Texas declined to be a part of the other two grids so they could avoid
federal regulations. They formed ECROT so they could take care of
themselves. Then one day they could not.

Simplified, if Pennsylvania needs more power due to a partial outage,
they get power from Ohio. If Ohio give PA a lot they can get some from
Indiana.

When Texas needed help, there is no extension cord going to another grid
to plug in and get power. Ooopsie, Texas goes dark.

On 2021-02-23 2:00 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:

>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze
>> up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap
>> again and got caught.
>>
>
> That is exactly it.Â* To winterize it would have cost millions over the
> years so they neglected to do it.Â* Hey, it does not get that cold here.

I thought that in matters of civil engineering they had to plan for the
worst possible situation.

>
> Some of the wind power did go down but that was just a tiny part of the
> problem that would not be felt at all if the rest of the system was in
> good shape.
>
> One of the other problems goes back 80 or 90 years.Â* There are three
> grid systems in the US.Â* Western, Eastern, and ECROT.Â* Many years ago
> Texas declined to be a part of the other two grids so they could avoid
> federal regulations. They formed ECROT so they could take care of
> themselves.Â* Then one day they could not.
>
> Simplified, if Pennsylvania needs more power due to a partial outage,
> they get power from Ohio.Â* If Ohio give PA a lot they can get some from
> Indiana.

We are part of that same grid. We buy a lot of power from NY and they
buy a lot from us. Newfoundland and Labrador has a pretty good business
selling power from its massive hydroelectric system.




>
> When Texas needed help, there is no extension cord going to another grid
> to plug in and get power.Â* Ooopsie, Texas goes dark.

On 2/23/2021 11:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>>>> The only people who don't give a damn about the people of Texas are the greenkooks who forced useless wind power on them.
>>>>
>>> Nobody forced it on them, and they only get 20% of their power from wind
>>> mills anyway. They still have gas and coal plants which also froze up.
>>
>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap again and got caught.
>>
>
> That is exactly it. To winterize it would have cost millions over the
> years so they neglected to do it. Hey, it does not get that cold here.
>
> Some of the wind power did go down but that was just a tiny part of the
> problem that would not be felt at all if the rest of the system was in
> good shape.
>
> One of the other problems goes back 80 or 90 years. There are three
> grid systems in the US. Western, Eastern, and ECROT. Many years ago
> Texas declined to be a part of the other two grids so they could avoid
> federal regulations. They formed ECROT so they could take care of
> themselves. Then one day they could not.
>
> Simplified, if Pennsylvania needs more power due to a partial outage,
> they get power from Ohio. If Ohio give PA a lot they can get some from
> Indiana.
>
> When Texas needed help, there is no extension cord going to another grid
> to plug in and get power. Ooopsie, Texas goes dark.
>

That is not true. Texas does have inter ties. They are small, which is
due to the fact there is not much power available to be imported during
events like this. But they did import.

On 2/23/2021 9:32 AM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-23 1:16 a.m., bruce bowser wrote:
>> 'Ted Fled': Cruz returns from Cancun amid Texas
>> Politico - 4 days ago
>> --
>> https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-crisis-469760
>>
>>
> But he was the first Hispanic to flee to Mexico because of ICE!
>
Even if no one else appreciated your joke, I did.

--
--Bryan
For your safety and protection, this sig. has been thoroughly
tested on laboratory animals.

On 2021-02-23 12:33 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-23 2:00 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>
>>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze
>>> up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap
>>> again and got caught.
>>>
>>
>> That is exactly it.Â* To winterize it would have cost millions over the
>> years so they neglected to do it.Â* Hey, it does not get that cold here.
>
> I thought that in matters of civil engineering they had to plan for the
> worst possible situation.
>
Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.

On 2/23/2021 12:12 PM, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-23 12:33 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-02-23 2:00 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze
>>>> up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap
>>>> again and got caught.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is exactly it.Â* To winterize it would have cost millions over the
>>> years so they neglected to do it.Â* Hey, it does not get that cold here.
>>
>> I thought that in matters of civil engineering they had to plan for the
>> worst possible situation.
>>
> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
>


Nobody plans for the worst possible situation. Are overpasses designed
to withstand direct meteor hits? You pick a desired level of concern,
and design for that. Sometimes the desired level of concern is not the
right one, once in a blue moon. Then you reconsider your desired level
of concern and adjust as needed.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:12:10 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> On 2021-02-23 12:33 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2021-02-23 2:00 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> >
> >>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze
> >>> up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap
> >>> again and got caught.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is exactly it. To winterize it would have cost millions over the
> >> years so they neglected to do it. Hey, it does not get that cold here.
> >
> > I thought that in matters of civil engineering they had to plan for the
> > worst possible situation.
> >
> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.

The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?

On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:12:10 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> > On 2021-02-23 12:33 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> > > On 2021-02-23 2:00 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > >> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> > >
> > >>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze
> > >>> up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap
> > >>> again and got caught.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> That is exactly it. To winterize it would have cost millions over the
> > >> years so they neglected to do it. Hey, it does not get that cold here.
> > >
> > > I thought that in matters of civil engineering they had to plan for the
> > > worst possible situation.
> > >
> > Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?

Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 4:27:39 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:12:10 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> > > On 2021-02-23 12:33 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > On 2021-02-23 2:00 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > >> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze
> > > >>> up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap
> > > >>> again and got caught.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> That is exactly it. To winterize it would have cost millions over the
> > > >> years so they neglected to do it. Hey, it does not get that cold here.
> > > >
> > > > I thought that in matters of civil engineering they had to plan for the
> > > > worst possible situation.
> > > >
> > > Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> > The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
>
> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.

Because the government in Texas (big oil republicans) did not require them to. Deregulation
was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.

(I corrected that for you)

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 6:11:15 AM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 4:27:39 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 3:12:10 PM UTC-5, Graham wrote:
> > > > On 2021-02-23 12:33 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > On 2021-02-23 2:00 p.m., Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > >> On 2/23/2021 11:50 AM, Transition Zone wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>> That's strange. Gas and coal plants in Alaska and Russia don't freeze
> > > > >>> up. Maybe Texas republicans were trying to do things on the cheap
> > > > >>> again and got caught.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> That is exactly it. To winterize it would have cost millions over the
> > > > >> years so they neglected to do it. Hey, it does not get that cold here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought that in matters of civil engineering they had to plan for the
> > > > > worst possible situation.
> > > > >
> > > > Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> > > The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
> >
> > Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> > was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
> Because the government in Texas (big oil republicans) did not require them to. Deregulation
> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
> (I corrected that for you)

Texans got what they thought they wanted. They voted for those big-oil
Republicans. They'll probably vote for them again next time.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:

>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
>
> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
>
>

Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,

Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
>
> >>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> >> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
> >
> > Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> > was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
> >
> >
> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,

Ah, the tinkle down economy.

> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.

I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?

Cindy Hamilton

On 2/24/2021 6:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
>>
>>>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
>>>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
>>>
>>> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
>>> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
>>>
>>>
>> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
>> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
>> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
>
> Ah, the tinkle down economy.
>
>> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
>
> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>


That Texan had his choice of a term contract at a fixed rate, or a
market rate contract. He rolled the dice and lost. Until the state
bails him out.

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 2/24/2021 6:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> >>>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
> >>>
> >>> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> >>> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
> >> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
> >> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
> >
> > Ah, the tinkle down economy.
> >
> >> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
> >
> > I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
> > managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> That Texan had his choice of a term contract at a fixed rate, or a
> market rate contract. He rolled the dice and lost. Until the state
> bails him out.

Yes, he did. He probably didn't understand that the wholesale price
could spike by 10,000% in a single day. Many people sign contracts
they don't understand.

That reminds me: I should send a nice letter to the commission that
regulates electricity prices in Michigan.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2/24/2021 11:10 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>> On 2/24/2021 6:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
>>>>>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
>>>>> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
>>>> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
>>>> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
>>>
>>> Ah, the tinkle down economy.
>>>
>>>> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
>>>
>>> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
>>> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>
>> That Texan had his choice of a term contract at a fixed rate, or a
>> market rate contract. He rolled the dice and lost. Until the state
>> bails him out.
>
> Yes, he did. He probably didn't understand that the wholesale price
> could spike by 10,000% in a single day. Many people sign contracts
> they don't understand.
>
> That reminds me: I should send a nice letter to the commission that
> regulates electricity prices in Michigan.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

They should have had a cap or not sign. Doubt anyone expected those
prices. Passing on legitimate fluctuation is expected but this is
gouging by the gas suppliers from what I've read.

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 8:01:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/24/2021 11:10 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> >> On 2/24/2021 6:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> >>>>>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> >>>>> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
> >>>> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
> >>>> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
> >>>
> >>> Ah, the tinkle down economy.
> >>>
> >>>> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
> >>>
> >>> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
> >>> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?
> >>>
> >>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>>
> >> That Texan had his choice of a term contract at a fixed rate, or a
> >> market rate contract. He rolled the dice and lost. Until the state
> >> bails him out.
> >
> > Yes, he did. He probably didn't understand that the wholesale price
> > could spike by 10,000% in a single day. Many people sign contracts
> > they don't understand.
> >
> > That reminds me: I should send a nice letter to the commission that
> > regulates electricity prices in Michigan.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> They should have had a cap or not sign. Doubt anyone expected those
> prices. Passing on legitimate fluctuation is expected but this is
> gouging by the gas suppliers from what I've read.

Deregulation means regulations disappear. Which means proper equipment is no longer regulated. Am I wrong? Which means barriers to price gouging disappear. Am I wrong?

On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:58:39 AM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> >
> > >>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> > >> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
> > >
> > > Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> > > was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
> > >
> > Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
> > free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
> > and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
> Ah, the tinkle down economy.
> > Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
>
> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?

How much of that $17,000 price gouging is ending up in some CEO's pocket? Or do we want to talk about that part of the debacle?

bruce bowser wrote:

> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
>> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?

> How much of that $17,000 price gouging is ending up in some CEO's pocket?

I will guess that none of it will end up in their pockets.
No Texan will be stupid enough to pay those silly bills.

On 2/25/2021 12:58 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 8:01:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/24/2021 11:10 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2021 6:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
>>>>>>>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
>>>>>>> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
>>>>>> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
>>>>>> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, the tinkle down economy.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
>>>>> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>
>>>> That Texan had his choice of a term contract at a fixed rate, or a
>>>> market rate contract. He rolled the dice and lost. Until the state
>>>> bails him out.
>>>
>>> Yes, he did. He probably didn't understand that the wholesale price
>>> could spike by 10,000% in a single day. Many people sign contracts
>>> they don't understand.
>>>
>>> That reminds me: I should send a nice letter to the commission that
>>> regulates electricity prices in Michigan.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> They should have had a cap or not sign. Doubt anyone expected those
>> prices. Passing on legitimate fluctuation is expected but this is
>> gouging by the gas suppliers from what I've read.
>
> Deregulation means regulations disappear. Which means proper equipment is no longer regulated. Am I wrong? Which means barriers to price gouging disappear. Am I wrong?
>

No, from what I've read this was legal. You can argue ethics and morals
though. Most states do have anti-gouging laws in place for disasters
but this did not seem to be covered. Things like gasoline, food, and
hotel rooms usually are.

The end consumer had a choice of power suppliers. If they chose one
with a fixed rate, they were OK. If they chose one with a variable
rate, they got screwed.

Variable rate mortgages were popular a few years back. It would
fluctuate, but most all had a cap of 15% or 20%. The utilities had no
cap so they got increases of 8000%.

On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 2/25/2021 12:58 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 8:01:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> On 2/24/2021 11:10 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> >>>> On 2/24/2021 6:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
> >>>>>>>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
> >>>>>>> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
> >>>>>> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
> >>>>>> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ah, the tinkle down economy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
> >>>>> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>>>>
> >>>> That Texan had his choice of a term contract at a fixed rate, or a
> >>>> market rate contract. He rolled the dice and lost. Until the state
> >>>> bails him out.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, he did. He probably didn't understand that the wholesale price
> >>> could spike by 10,000% in a single day. Many people sign contracts
> >>> they don't understand.
> >>>
> >>> That reminds me: I should send a nice letter to the commission that
> >>> regulates electricity prices in Michigan.
> >>>
> >>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>
> >> They should have had a cap or not sign. Doubt anyone expected those
> >> prices. Passing on legitimate fluctuation is expected but this is
> >> gouging by the gas suppliers from what I've read.
> >
> > Deregulation means regulations disappear. Which means proper equipment is no longer regulated. Am I wrong? Which means barriers to price gouging disappear. Am I wrong?
> >
> No, from what I've read this was legal. You can argue ethics and morals
> though. Most states do have anti-gouging laws in place for disasters
> but this did not seem to be covered. Things like gasoline, food, and
> hotel rooms usually are.
>
> The end consumer had a choice of power suppliers. If they chose one
> with a fixed rate, they were OK. If they chose one with a variable
> rate, they got screwed.
>
> Variable rate mortgages were popular a few years back. It would
> fluctuate, but most all had a cap of 15% or 20%. The utilities had no
> cap so they got increases of 8000%.

.... if the courts agree, that is.

On 2/25/2021 10:16 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
> On Thursday, February 25, 2021 at 10:05:11 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 2/25/2021 12:58 AM, bruce bowser wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 8:01:58 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/24/2021 11:10 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-5, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/24/2021 6:58 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 9:24:30 AM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021-02-24 4:27 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2021 at 5:16:23 PM UTC-5, bruce bowser wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not where they believe in a "just-in-time, maximise profit" philosophy.
>>>>>>>>>> The heirs and heiresses in the oil industry in all 49 US states and in Canada winterized their oil and gas operations. Why didn't those in Texas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because the government in Texas did not require them to. Deregulation
>>>>>>>>> was seen as a positive, bringing lower prices to energy consumers there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it would be better for the consumers. The competition of the
>>>>>>>> free market would be more efficient, provide more options to customers
>>>>>>>> and reduce costs. It was a great idea, just like the trickle down economy,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, the tinkle down economy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now promise me you will hold onto that football Lucy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I assume you've read about the $17,000 electricity bills for Texans who
>>>>>>> managed to use a little electricity during the debacle?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That Texan had his choice of a term contract at a fixed rate, or a
>>>>>> market rate contract. He rolled the dice and lost. Until the state
>>>>>> bails him out.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, he did. He probably didn't understand that the wholesale price
>>>>> could spike by 10,000% in a single day. Many people sign contracts
>>>>> they don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> That reminds me: I should send a nice letter to the commission that
>>>>> regulates electricity prices in Michigan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>
>>>> They should have had a cap or not sign. Doubt anyone expected those
>>>> prices. Passing on legitimate fluctuation is expected but this is
>>>> gouging by the gas suppliers from what I've read.
>>>
>>> Deregulation means regulations disappear. Which means proper equipment is no longer regulated. Am I wrong? Which means barriers to price gouging disappear. Am I wrong?
>>>
>> No, from what I've read this was legal. You can argue ethics and morals
>> though. Most states do have anti-gouging laws in place for disasters
>> but this did not seem to be covered. Things like gasoline, food, and
>> hotel rooms usually are.
>>
>> The end consumer had a choice of power suppliers. If they chose one
>> with a fixed rate, they were OK. If they chose one with a variable
>> rate, they got screwed.
>>
>> Variable rate mortgages were popular a few years back. It would
>> fluctuate, but most all had a cap of 15% or 20%. The utilities had no
>> cap so they got increases of 8000%.
>
> ... if the courts agree, that is.
>

Right, there are a couple of lawsuits in the works.

If you are hiking through the woods and you run across another hiker,
near death from dehydration. You have a bottle of water you just bought
at the convenience store for a dollar, how much do you charge him for
it? Seem like if you are a Texas gas supplier it could be $10,000.

if the courts agree, that is.
>>
>
> Right, there are a couple of lawsuits in the works.
>
> If you are hiking through the woods and you run across another hiker,
> near death from dehydration.Â* You have a bottle of water you just bought
> at the convenience store for a dollar, how much do you charge him for
> it?Â*Â* Seem like if you are a Texas gas supplier it could be $10,000.

During the Blizzard of 77 there was a hotel in Niagara Falls that used
the occasion to try to gouge people who were stranded there. Room and
food prices soared. The stranded people revolted and the owner called
the cops. A cop showed up, listened to the stories from both sides, then
told the owner they were leaving and not coming back. The owner backed
off and put the prices back down.