On 3/14/2012 11:37 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 3/14/2012 10:09 AM, Edge wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:44 am, wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:56 am, wrote:

I agree with your assessment as far as your bill goes. However,
if you use ONE additional kwh, what is the additional cost ? I bet
it works out to .069 cents.


The distribution cost on my bill is also based on the number of kWh
used. It goes up with usage. It is not a fixed cost.

Anyway, the reason I brought this topic up was an article that I read
comparing cost/mile driven in an electric car versus a gasoline
powered car. The advocates of electric cars used the nominal cost of a
kWh to make it appear that electric cars are much cheaper to operate.
(In my case, .069 vs .149). Also when I fill up my car at the gas
station, I know that a large portion of a gallon of gas goes to taxes
and a road repair fund. Are owners of electric cars getting a free
ride on this also?


Oh, just wait till the politicians start howling for road use taxes for
electric vehicles. I know that some states require all interstate trucks
to have receipts showing that fuel was purchased in that state when the
truck goes through a weigh station.

TDD

They have moved way beyond that. Interestingly enough it is actually fair.

There is an organization called IFTA. If you operate commercial vehicles
interstate you file an electronic return with them and they divy the
taxes up. You report all of the fuel you bought and where you bought in
and the miles your vehicles were driven and where. So say you fill your
truck up in Ohio and drive through PA to NJ. PA gets the same taxes as
if you bought the fuel there and Ohios only gets the taxes on the fuel
used there.

Our former governor was a big proponent of turning all major roads over
to the turnpike. The turnpike is a big, giant huge inefficient
bureaucracy filled with political appointees. The former governors major
justification was that "most trucks driving on I-80 don't pay road use
tax to PA" which is very incorrect.

On 3/14/2012 12:32 PM, wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:44 am, Mark wrote:
On 03/14/2012 08:56 AM, Edge wrote:

In northern Illinois where I live, electricity is provided by ComEd.
However ComEd is really two companies. One delivers electricity and
the other generates electricity. In my last bill, that portion that
was billed for "Electricity Supply Services" accounted for only 55
percent of the total bill. As the guy who writes the checks, the
simple formula I use is Total Cost / kWh. This comes out to $0.149 per
kWh. On the bill the stated cost of a kWh is only $0.06968.

That's the way I figure it (amount of bill / amount used). I skip all
the fake costs (before the add the many fees and taxes). Like your
example, there can be a big difference between what they say the rate is
and what it actually is.

--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.us

"I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed
because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do." [D.
Dale Gulledge]

I don't know who the "they" is that you're referring to. But as
someone pointed out earlier, since they reduced some regulation
and invited more competition in many places, it's not unusual
for the electric to be billed in two parts, one for generation and
the other for delivery. You can even choose to buy your electric
generation from multiple sources here in NJ. And the
bill is perfectly clear and easy to understand.

We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

The federal, state, and local governments are always looking for ways
to get more of your money. Deregulation of the electric utilities was
justified to promote competition and thereby lower your electric
bills. This resulted in separate supply and delivery charges. The
delivery charge is relatively fixed even if you use no kWh, like a
vacation home.

My village supplies water to my house and recently decided to raise
the water rates. Deregulation didn't require them to, but I guess they
liked the idea of having a fixed fee as a steady source of revenue. So
they changed the billing method to include a fixed charge - even if
you use no water. To make it better, they shorten the billing cycle
from three months to two months. I guess this allows them to collect
more of these fixed charges in a year.

I look forward to others adopting this idea. Maybe the next time I go
to the gas station, they will not only charge me for the gas, but a
parking fee for using their land while I fill up.

On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Edge wrote:
The federal, state, and local governments are always looking for ways
to get more of your money. Deregulation of the electric utilities was
justified to promote competition and thereby lower your electric
bills. This resulted in separate supply and delivery charges. The
delivery charge is relatively fixed even if you use no kWh, like a
vacation home.

My village supplies water to my house and recently decided to raise
the water rates. Deregulation didn't require them to, but I guess they
liked the idea of having a fixed fee as a steady source of revenue. So
they changed the billing method to include a fixed charge - even if
you use no water. To make it better, they shorten the billing cycle
from three months to two months. I guess this allows them to collect
more of these fixed charges in a year.

I look forward to others adopting this idea. Maybe the next time I go
to the gas station, they will not only charge me for the gas, but a
parking fee for using their land while I fill up.

I have no problem with a fee for paying for infrastructure and having
the service available even when the service is not used. Someone has to
be paid for hooking up the service and maintaining it. Paying a fee to
have your home hooked to the grid makes sense. ^_^

TDD

On 3/15/2012 8:56 AM, Edge wrote:
The federal, state, and local governments are always looking for ways
to get more of your money. Deregulation of the electric utilities was
justified to promote competition and thereby lower your electric
bills. This resulted in separate supply and delivery charges. The
delivery charge is relatively fixed even if you use no kWh, like a
vacation home.


Nothing changed on our electric and NG bills regarding a base charge.
Both bills always had a base use it or not charge. The only difference
is previously the consumption was a single rate. After deregulation the
consumption became separate line items.



My village supplies water to my house and recently decided to raise
the water rates. Deregulation didn't require them to, but I guess they
liked the idea of having a fixed fee as a steady source of revenue. So
they changed the billing method to include a fixed charge - even if
you use no water. To make it better, they shorten the billing cycle
from three months to two months. I guess this allows them to collect
more of these fixed charges in a year.

I look forward to others adopting this idea. Maybe the next time I go
to the gas station, they will not only charge me for the gas, but a
parking fee for using their land while I fill up.

On 3/15/2012 9:38 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Edge wrote:
The federal, state, and local governments are always looking for ways
to get more of your money. Deregulation of the electric utilities was
justified to promote competition and thereby lower your electric
bills. This resulted in separate supply and delivery charges. The
delivery charge is relatively fixed even if you use no kWh, like a
vacation home.

My village supplies water to my house and recently decided to raise
the water rates. Deregulation didn't require them to, but I guess they
liked the idea of having a fixed fee as a steady source of revenue. So
they changed the billing method to include a fixed charge - even if
you use no water. To make it better, they shorten the billing cycle
from three months to two months. I guess this allows them to collect
more of these fixed charges in a year.

I look forward to others adopting this idea. Maybe the next time I go
to the gas station, they will not only charge me for the gas, but a
parking fee for using their land while I fill up.

I have no problem with a fee for paying for infrastructure and having
the service available even when the service is not used. Someone has to
be paid for hooking up the service and maintaining it. Paying a fee to
have your home hooked to the grid makes sense. ^_^

TDD

For sure, and I also think it wouldn't be unreasonable to pay more if it
costs more to provide service. So if you decide to live in a sparsely
populated area where there are only a few customers per mile it clearly
costs more to install/maintain that infrastructure than it does in a
location where say homes are much closer together.

George wrote:

That line item has been on the PA tax return as long as
I can remember. On occasion they have been known to obtain audit
information from other states and send out letters.

Correct. Be aware that state sales tax workers have a background
communication channel between themselves. If, during an audit of an Oklahoma
business, the auditor discovers the business made significant sales to
Company A in Ohio, the auditor makes a note to himself.

Later, the Oklahoma auditor snitches out Company A to his cohort in Ohio.
The sales tax entity in Ohio then swoops down on Company A.

Take away: If audited, don't open your records to the auditor. Show him only
those invoice copies pertaining to your state. Don't be a rat. (Besides, if
your customers ever find out that you were the one who gave them up, your
butt's busted.)

On Mar 15, 8:56*am, Edge wrote:
The federal, state, and local governments are always looking for ways
to get more of your money. Deregulation of the electric utilities was
justified to promote competition and thereby lower your electric
bills. This resulted in separate supply and delivery charges. The
delivery charge is relatively fixed even if you use no kWh, like a
vacation home.

The delivery charge sure isn't fixed here in NJ. It's billed per
Kwh just like the charge for the energy itself. Don't have a bill
in front of me, but the total rate per Kwh is around 18 cents.
About half of that is delivery and half is generation. There is
also a monthly base charge of a couple bucks.

I also don't think you can attribute today's electric rates here
as being higher due to deregulation. Deregulation has allowed
us to choose alternate suppliers for generation that are a little
lower than the utility. Govt here has tacked on charges that
are being used to fund the socialist solar agenda. A few years
ago it turned out the state had $100mil that had accumulated
in that fund sitting in a bank account, with no clear authority of
who was authorized to release it, for what purpose, etc.
And they are forcing the utilities to buy an increasing share of
energy from renewable sources. Both of those have
contributed to raising prices, but those have nothing to do
with deregulation and competition.

On 3/15/2012 9:30 AM, George wrote:
On 3/15/2012 9:38 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 3/15/2012 7:56 AM, Edge wrote:
The federal, state, and local governments are always looking for ways
to get more of your money. Deregulation of the electric utilities was
justified to promote competition and thereby lower your electric
bills. This resulted in separate supply and delivery charges. The
delivery charge is relatively fixed even if you use no kWh, like a
vacation home.

My village supplies water to my house and recently decided to raise
the water rates. Deregulation didn't require them to, but I guess they
liked the idea of having a fixed fee as a steady source of revenue. So
they changed the billing method to include a fixed charge - even if
you use no water. To make it better, they shorten the billing cycle
from three months to two months. I guess this allows them to collect
more of these fixed charges in a year.

I look forward to others adopting this idea. Maybe the next time I go
to the gas station, they will not only charge me for the gas, but a
parking fee for using their land while I fill up.

I have no problem with a fee for paying for infrastructure and having
the service available even when the service is not used. Someone has to
be paid for hooking up the service and maintaining it. Paying a fee to
have your home hooked to the grid makes sense. ^_^

TDD

For sure, and I also think it wouldn't be unreasonable to pay more if it
costs more to provide service. So if you decide to live in a sparsely
populated area where there are only a few customers per mile it clearly
costs more to install/maintain that infrastructure than it does in a
location where say homes are much closer together.

I suppose the costs can be spread out to make it possible for rural
areas to be electrified. I think that was the mission of the TVA.

TDD

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:43:13 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:56:45 -0700 (PDT), Edge
wrote:

In northern Illinois where I live, electricity is provided by ComEd.
However ComEd is really two companies. One delivers electricity and
the other generates electricity. In my last bill, that portion that
was billed for "Electricity Supply Services" accounted for only 55
percent of the total bill. As the guy who writes the checks, the
simple formula I use is Total Cost / kWh. This comes out to $0.149 per
kWh. On the bill the stated cost of a kWh is only $0.06968.


.1597 total here in CT. That is actually down a bit from last year.
My generation rate right now is .0798. A couple of year ago, the
power company rate was much higher and I was almost 20¢ total.

Does K-Y come with that?

On 03/14/2012 11:32 AM, wrote:

[snip]

I don't know who the "they" is that you're referring to.

You seemed to have answered that question yourself. So did the OP.
Stated rates are always dishonest AFAIK. I don't seen to have ever
received an electric bill that didn't have additional stuff added to it.

But as
someone pointed out earlier, since they reduced some regulation
and invited more competition in many places, it's not unusual
for the electric to be billed in two parts, one for generation and
the other for delivery. You can even choose to buy your electric
generation from multiple sources here in NJ. And the
bill is perfectly clear and easy to understand.

I live in one of the few areas where you can't choose, and the rates are
lower. This has no effect on what I said earlier (real rates are higher
than what they SAY they are).

BTW, I haven't yet figured out who's messing with my sig (removing the
newline after my name). It's a file, which has the same line ending
there as after all the other lines.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at
all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice." [Robert
Green Ingersoll]

On Mar 15, 1:45*pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 03/14/2012 11:32 AM, wrote:

[snip]

I don't know who the "they" is that you're referring to.

You seemed to have answered that question yourself. So did the OP.
Stated rates are always dishonest AFAIK. I don't seen to have ever
received an electric bill that didn't have additional stuff added to it.

But as
someone pointed out earlier, since they reduced some regulation
and invited more competition in many places, it's not unusual
for the electric to be billed in two parts, one for generation and
the other for delivery. *You can even choose to buy your electric
generation from multiple sources here in NJ. And the
bill is perfectly clear and easy to understand.

I live in one of the few areas where you can't choose, and the rates are
lower. This has no effect on what I said earlier (real rates are higher
than what they SAY they are).

BTW, I haven't yet figured out who's messing with my sig (removing the
newline after my name). It's a file, which has the same line ending
there as after all the other lines.

--
Mark Lloydhttp://notstupid.us

"Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at
all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice." [Robert
Green Ingersoll]

"I don't seen to have ever received an electric bill that didn't
have additional stuff added to it."

Take a look at your cell phone bill.

When you have an all-inclusive plan, there's typically one line for
the cost of the plan and 47 lines of taxes, fees, kickbacks, tolls and
duties.

On 3/14/2012 11:44 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 03/14/2012 08:56 AM, Edge wrote:
In northern Illinois where I live, electricity is provided by ComEd.
However ComEd is really two companies. One delivers electricity and
the other generates electricity. In my last bill, that portion that
was billed for "Electricity Supply Services" accounted for only 55
percent of the total bill. As the guy who writes the checks, the
simple formula I use is Total Cost / kWh. This comes out to $0.149 per
kWh. On the bill the stated cost of a kWh is only $0.06968.

That's the way I figure it (amount of bill / amount used). I skip all the
fake costs (before the add the many fees and taxes). Like your example,
there can be a big difference between what they say the rate is and what it
actually is.



I guess mine is too easy to be true. For electric service there is an $11
'basic service' charge and a $114.46 'electric kWh' charge. The bill I'm
looking at shows 1376 kWh used giving a per-kW cost of $0.0832 (or about
$0.0912 if you look at it the other way. Pretty cheap compared to most of
what I've seen here. Total utility bill for electric, gas, water, and waste
was $210.05 on the last one received covering February and the beginning of
March for a 2400sf 3BR brick home.

On Mar 15, 1:45*pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 03/14/2012 11:32 AM, wrote:

[snip]

I don't know who the "they" is that you're referring to.

You seemed to have answered that question yourself. So did the OP.
Stated rates are always dishonest AFAIK. I don't seen to have ever
received an electric bill that didn't have additional stuff added to it.


I guess it may be different with your utiltiy. Here in NJ it's
seperated
into a charge by the Kwh for the energy generation and a charge
by the Kwh for the delivery. There is an additonal customer charge
of $2.20 per month. None of that seems complicated, hard to
understand or dishonest to me.

As for the OP, I believe he is comparing the charge for just the
electric generation to the total bill. I'm sure on the bill it's
similar
to what a lot of us have reported here, the bill today often contains
two charges which form the core of the usage. One for the
energy generation, one for the delivery to your home. Here it's
about 60% for generation and 40% for delivery. And of course
if you ignore one of them, then the total bill isn't going to look
right.

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:29:09 -0400, "Tomsic" wrote:


"Edge" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 9:44 am, Bob123 wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:56 am, Edge wrote:

I agree with your assessment as far as your bill goes. However,
if you use ONE additional kwh, what is the additional cost ? I bet
it works out to .069 cents.


The distribution cost on my bill is also based on the number of kWh
used. It goes up with usage. It is not a fixed cost.

Anyway, the reason I brought this topic up was an article that I read
comparing cost/mile driven in an electric car versus a gasoline
powered car. The advocates of electric cars used the nominal cost of a
kWh to make it appear that electric cars are much cheaper to operate.
(In my case, .069 vs .149). Also when I fill up my car at the gas
station, I know that a large portion of a gallon of gas goes to taxes
and a road repair fund. Are owners of electric cars getting a free
ride on this also?

snip..

Percentage wise..

Electricity usage in my corner of South florida has a total tax burden
of 15.5%(of the final total).

Meanwhile gasoline @ 4$ a gallon is taxed @federal(18,4 cents per
gallon), plus state+local, which normally totals less than 15%..
(62cents)

http://www.floridastategasprices.com/tax_info.aspx

Thus an EV is paying more tax for it's fuel percentage wise than you
are filling up an SUV. The key difference is than 70-80% of the EV's
electricity is converted into useful work, while the SUV is less than
10% efficient converting gasoline into useful work.

In article ,
Edge wrote:

On Mar 14, 12:07*pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Mar 14, 9:56*am, Edge wrote:

In northern Illinois where I live, electricity is provided by ComEd.
However ComEd is really two companies. One delivers electricity and
the other generates electricity. In my last bill, that portion that
was billed for "Electricity Supply Services" accounted for only 55
percent of the total bill. As the guy who writes the checks, the
simple formula I use is Total Cost / kWh. This comes out to $0.149 per
kWh. On the bill the stated cost of a kWh is only $0.06968.

2 different items were purchased:

Electricity at $0.06968 / kWh
Delivery Services at $0.07932 / kWh

There's nothing wrong or even misleading on your bill. The cost of a
kWh of electricity is $0.06968.

When you buy something on eBay, did you pay $50 for the item and $6.95
for shipping or did you pay $56.95 for the item?

I submit that you paid $50 *for the item* even though your total cost
was $56.95.

It may be nothing more than numerical semantics, but since different
parts of the purchase may be budgeted for and/or taxed differently,
they really do need to be separated out.

I have bought many items off Ebay. Sometimes I see an item I am
interested for say - $20 with free shipping. Another seller may list
exactly the same item for $.01 but charge $19.99 for shipping. If you
bought the item for $.01, do you actually believe you didn't pay $20.
What comes out of your pocket is what comes out your pocket. Don't
psych yourself or pretend it is only numerical semantics.

the second one is a better deal if you happen to live in a state that will
charge sales tax on internet items

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400, George
wrote:




We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

I have bought many items off Ebay. Sometimes I see an item I am
interested for say - $20 with free shipping. Another seller may list
exactly the same item for $.01 but charge $19.99 for shipping. If you
bought the item for $.01, do you actually believe you didn't pay $20.
What comes out of your pocket is what comes out your pocket. Don't
psych yourself or pretend it is only numerical semantics.

the second one is a better deal if you happen to live in a state that
will charge sales tax on internet items

Good point. Except the sales tax people tax shipping, too.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400, George
wrote:




We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?

On Mar 15, 10:17*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400, George
wrote:



We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Then how is it that these alternate suppliers can provide power at
10% less than the regular power company here in NJ? Why is it that
competition
that results in everything from fast food to autos at market efficient
prices, is a bad thing when it comes to energy?

On 3/15/2012 11:10 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
Ed wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400,
wrote:




We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?

At least in my state our former democrat governor was a big proponent of
and the one that trumpeted deregulation when it happened.

Moral of the story? There is no difference between politicians and the
red vs blue stuff is what they do to keep everyone occupied.

On Mar 15, 11:10*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
*Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400, George
wrote:

We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, because it's proven to work, as anyone who has taken even a basic
course in economics knows. Even the libs who have studied economics
know it. But they pretend, because they have ulterior motives.

"George" wrote in message
...
On 3/15/2012 11:10 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
Ed wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400,
wrote:




We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short
term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost
of
living, aren't they?

At least in my state our former democrat governor was a big proponent of
and the one that trumpeted deregulation when it happened.

Moral of the story? There is no difference between politicians and the red
vs blue stuff is what they do to keep everyone occupied.

Yes. What we got out of utility deregulation in Ohio was the mandate to
still pay high utility bills even when we conserve and reduce the use of
electricity or gas. That's all thanks to the "service" and other charges
added to the bill that are not based upon use. And, of course, there's the
confusion of trying to figure out the best deal (a betting scam?) every few
months.

Tomsic

On 3/16/2012 9:21 AM, wrote:
On Mar 15, 10:17 pm, Ed wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400,
wrote:



We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Then how is it that these alternate suppliers can provide power at
10% less than the regular power company here in NJ? Why is it that
competition
that results in everything from fast food to autos at market efficient
prices, is a bad thing when it comes to energy?


Actually things were working quite well pre-deregulation. Our electric
utility was well run, making a buck, their stock was paying a good
dividend and they provided power at a fair price.

There were numerous players touting "10% savings" in my state but that
was marketing vs reality. If you closely analyzed the savings none
actually provided it over the long term.

I believe there is only one reseller "alternate supplier" left for us to
choose at this point.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:22:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Mar 15, 11:10*pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" atlas-
wrote:
In article ,
*Ed Pawlowski wrote:





On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:43:14 -0400, George
wrote:

We have competition here in PA but it didn't amount to anything since
all of the "competitors" didn't produce electricity and were simply
buying it from our electric utility who has huge excess capacity.

Basically a half dozen resellers popped up and annoyed the crap out of
everyone with constant phone calls with pitches of very minor short term
savings. Just yesterday we got a form letter from the local electric
utility. It is still disingenuous because it is opt out but the letter
stated "we are now required to give you written opportunity to ask us
not to release your contact information to other suppliers"

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, because it's proven to work, as anyone who has taken even a basic
course in economics knows. Even the libs who have studied economics
know it. But they pretend, because they have ulterior motives.

The lefties throw in *more* regulations. When it falls over, they complain
about the "deregulation".

George wrote:

Actually things were working quite well pre-deregulation. Our electric
utility was well run, making a buck, their stock was paying a good
dividend and they provided power at a fair price.

There were numerous players touting "10% savings" in my state but that
was marketing vs reality. If you closely analyzed the savings none
actually provided it over the long term.

I believe there is only one reseller "alternate supplier" left for us
to choose at this point.

"Competition" is about more than just price. We have about twenty
electricity suppliers in my area. They compete on price, sure, but others
offer competitive challenges:

* Pay in advance, no credit check
* "Green" energy
* Raidoactive-free electricity
* 10% Renewable Energy (i.e., whale oil)
* 5% derived from Unicorns on Treadmills
* Every month a 10% off coupon for something you probably don't need (Hair
braiding, VW Bug tune-ups, Kittens, Grease Trap Cleaning, etc.).

Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?- Hide quoted text -


30 years ago, the local electric company had a highly skilled staff of
maintenance people that worked year round trimming trees back from power
lines and maintaining the lines as well. Power outages were maybe once
every 5 years, if that, and short in duration when they did happen.

With deregulation, the power company had to trim back their workforce
to a skeleton crew. There has been so much cost cutting locally that
line maintenance is almost nonexistant. Power outages caused by storms
are frequent and typically last 48 hours or so.

The bottom line is that any money I might have saved on my electric
bill, I've had to spend triple that running a generator.

**** deregulation! Put it back the way it was.

On 03/15/2012 01:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip]


Take a look at your cell phone bill.

When you have an all-inclusive plan, there's typically one line for
the cost of the plan and 47 lines of taxes, fees, kickbacks, tolls and
duties.

True. They could be the worst offenders.

BTW, I remember a $39.95 phone plan that was supposed to include
everything. They don't tell you the bill comes to about $60.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe
and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image to be servants
of heir human interests." [George Santayana 1863-1952]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:46:44 -0400, Joe wrote:



Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?- Hide quoted text -


30 years ago, the local electric company had a highly skilled staff of
maintenance people that worked year round trimming trees back from power
lines and maintaining the lines as well. Power outages were maybe once
every 5 years, if that, and short in duration when they did happen.

You're dreaming.

With deregulation, the power company had to trim back their workforce
to a skeleton crew. There has been so much cost cutting locally that
line maintenance is almost nonexistant. Power outages caused by storms
are frequent and typically last 48 hours or so.

Had nothing to do with "deregulation", which was no such thing.

The bottom line is that any money I might have saved on my electric
bill, I've had to spend triple that running a generator.

**** deregulation! Put it back the way it was.

"Deregulation" was no such thing.

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:03:08 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:

On 03/15/2012 01:27 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

[snip]


Take a look at your cell phone bill.

When you have an all-inclusive plan, there's typically one line for
the cost of the plan and 47 lines of taxes, fees, kickbacks, tolls and
duties.

True. They could be the worst offenders.

BTW, I remember a $39.95 phone plan that was supposed to include
everything. They don't tell you the bill comes to about $60.

If you don't like all those charges, get a prepaid plan.

In article , George
wrote:


At least in my state our former democrat governor was a big proponent of
and the one that trumpeted deregulation when it happened.

Moral of the story? There is no difference between politicians and the
red vs blue stuff is what they do to keep everyone occupied.
But there is usually a difference in the why. The Dem probably saw it
as a way to punish a group that had gotten too big by smashing it into
little bitty pieces. The GOP would have done the same thing with a more
business-centric outlook.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Mar 16, 11:46*am, Joe wrote:
Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?- Hide quoted text -

30 years ago, the local electric company had a highly skilled staff of
maintenance people that worked year round trimming trees back from power
lines and maintaining the lines as well. Power outages were maybe once
every 5 years, if that, and short in duration when they did happen.

With deregulation, the power company had to trim back their workforce
to a skeleton crew. There has been so much cost cutting locally that
line maintenance is almost nonexistant. Power outages caused by storms
are frequent and typically last 48 hours or so.

The bottom line is that any money I might have saved on my electric
bill, I've had to spend triple that running a generator.

**** deregulation! Put it back the way it was.

It would be rare indeed for the delivery portion of
an electric utility to be deregulated. I'll bet that the
company you're complaining about is still a regulated
utility.

On Mar 16, 11:46*am, Joe wrote:
Deregulation spawned a lot of suppliers that are buying in bulk from
the same people that used to supply us, re-sell the same power we used
to buy and skim off millions of dollars that should be savings in our
pockets.

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?- Hide quoted text -

30 years ago, the local electric company had a highly skilled staff of
maintenance people that worked year round trimming trees back from power
lines and maintaining the lines as well. Power outages were maybe once
every 5 years, if that, and short in duration when they did happen.

With deregulation, the power company had to trim back their workforce
to a skeleton crew. There has been so much cost cutting locally that
line maintenance is almost nonexistant. Power outages caused by storms
are frequent and typically last 48 hours or so.

The bottom line is that any money I might have saved on my electric
bill, I've had to spend triple that running a generator.

**** deregulation! Put it back the way it was.

"With deregulation, the power company had to trim back their
workforce to a skeleton crew. There has been so much cost cutting
locally that
line maintenance is almost nonexistant. "

Tell that to the crew that is replacing a half dozen or so poles in my
neighborhood.

I've got 2 ploes in front of my house right now...new and old. Next
week they'll be transferring the wires.

It actually works out great for me since I park right next to the old
pole, which prevented me from opening the passenger side door if I
backed in. They've positioned the new pole far enough away that I
won't have that problem any more.

The only downside is that they cut a huge "U" into a very old pine
tree at the end of the street to open it up for the wires. Someone,
many years ago, had strapped 2 x 4's to the wires where they ran
through the tree so that the wood rested on the branches, not the
wires. Those supports will no longer be needed since the tree crew
removed all of the branches on the inside the tree so that wires hang
free.

Can you say butt-ugly?

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

I have bought many items off Ebay. Sometimes I see an item I am
interested for say - $20 with free shipping. Another seller may list
exactly the same item for $.01 but charge $19.99 for shipping. If you
bought the item for $.01, do you actually believe you didn't pay $20.
What comes out of your pocket is what comes out your pocket. Don't
psych yourself or pretend it is only numerical semantics.

the second one is a better deal if you happen to live in a state that
will charge sales tax on internet items

Good point. Except the sales tax people tax shipping, too.

in my state labor generally isn't taxed. shipping is labor, so I doubt that it
is taxed

In article ,
" wrote:

These so called power companies are just a desk, phone, and computer
and a big bank account with our money.

Aw, those republicans are always out to let market forces reduce our cost of
living, aren't they?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, because it's proven to work, as anyone who has taken even a basic
course in economics knows. Even the libs who have studied economics
know it. But they pretend, because they have ulterior motives.

Yes, Enron was just one of those shining examples of how well market forces work

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

I have bought many items off Ebay. Sometimes I see an item I am
interested for say - $20 with free shipping. Another seller may
list exactly the same item for $.01 but charge $19.99 for
shipping. If you bought the item for $.01, do you actually believe
you didn't pay $20. What comes out of your pocket is what comes
out your pocket. Don't psych yourself or pretend it is only
numerical semantics.

the second one is a better deal if you happen to live in a state
that will charge sales tax on internet items

Good point. Except the sales tax people tax shipping, too.

in my state labor generally isn't taxed. shipping is labor, so I
doubt that it is taxed

Perhaps it varies. From the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue:

"If the item(s) being shipped is taxable, the shipping and handling charges
are also subject to tax. If the item(s) being shipped is not subject to
Sales Tax, neither are the shipping and handling charges. In the case where
items being shipped are of a mixed (both taxable and nontaxable) nature,
then the shipping and handling charges for the entire shipment are subject
to tax."

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

Yes, Enron was just one of those shining examples of how well market forces
work

Enron was more a shining example of how little government entities
actually understand how market forces work and illustrates what happens
when they try to legislate to their desires instead of how the real
world works.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:34:49 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:


Tell that to the crew that is replacing a half dozen or so poles in my
neighborhood.

I've got 2 ploes in front of my house right now...new and old. Next
week they'll be transferring the wires.

I hop you don't have the same crew that did the pole in front of my
house. They came out and measure, marked and had all sort of painted
line and arrows. Then they proceeded to drill right into my sewer
line. Planted the pole and left. It was only a portion of the line
so I had some flow and it took weeks for the backup to happen.

Did they repair it? No, I had to have it done and put in a claim for
the $3500 job.



The only downside is that they cut a huge "U" into a very old pine
tree at the end of the street to open it up for the wires. Someone,
many years ago, had strapped 2 x 4's to the wires where they ran
through the tree so that the wood rested on the branches, not the
wires. Those supports will no longer be needed since the tree crew
removed all of the branches on the inside the tree so that wires hang
free.

Can you say butt-ugly?


Sure, but the tree probably should have just been taken down. One of
the problems we have in CT is the tree huggers don't want radical
trimming. They'd rather complain that the power is out and no one came
to fix it yet.

In article ,
Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" wrote:

Yes, Enron was just one of those shining examples of how well market forces
work

Enron was more a shining example of how little government entities
actually understand how market forces work and illustrates what happens
when they try to legislate to their desires instead of how the real
world works.

Knew it would take long to blame the liberals for making Enron out to be thieves

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

I have bought many items off Ebay. Sometimes I see an item I am
interested for say - $20 with free shipping. Another seller may
list exactly the same item for $.01 but charge $19.99 for
shipping. If you bought the item for $.01, do you actually believe
you didn't pay $20. What comes out of your pocket is what comes
out your pocket. Don't psych yourself or pretend it is only
numerical semantics.

the second one is a better deal if you happen to live in a state
that will charge sales tax on internet items

Good point. Except the sales tax people tax shipping, too.

in my state labor generally isn't taxed. shipping is labor, so I
doubt that it is taxed

Perhaps it varies. From the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue:

"If the item(s) being shipped is taxable, the shipping and handling charges
are also subject to tax. If the item(s) being shipped is not subject to
Sales Tax, neither are the shipping and handling charges. In the case where
items being shipped are of a mixed (both taxable and nontaxable) nature,
then the shipping and handling charges for the entire shipment are subject
to tax."

I should have written Services instead of Labor and this is from
http://accounting.ucdavis.edu/ta/salesanduse.cfm which may or be generally
applicable, but I'll project that it is. So I was right and wrong. Shipping is
tax free, handling isn't

Shipping and Handling
Common carrier transportation charges from a vendor to a purchaser are not
taxable if the charges are separately stated. Common carriers include UPS,
FedEx, US Mail, freight lines, etc. Sometimes common carriers add a hazard
charge, insurance charge, or something similar, none of which are taxable.

Delivery charges are taxable when a vendor uses their own vehicle to deliver the
item purchased. For example, if Sears delivers a refrigerator.

Handling charges are taxable. Shipping and handling charges when billed as a
lump sum are treated as taxable, even though the actual shipping charges are not
technically taxable.

--

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cras lobortis volutpat
commodo. Morbi lobortis, massa fringilla adipiscing suscipit, velit urna
pharetra neque, non luctus arcu diam vitae justo. Vivamus lacinia scelerisque
ultricies. Nunc lobortis elit ligula. Aliquam sollicitudin nunc sed est gravida
ac viverra tellus ullamcorper. Vivamus non nisi suscipit nisi egestas venenatis.
Donec vitae arcu id urna euismod feugiat. Vivamus porta lobortis ultricies.
Nulla adipiscing tellus a neque vehicula porta. Maecenas volutpat aliquet
sagittis. Proin nisi magna, molestie id volutpat in, tincidunt sed dolor. Nullam
nisi erat, aliquet scelerisque sagittis vitae, pretium accumsan odio. Sed ut mi
iaculis eros rutrum tristique ut nec mi. Aliquam nec augue dui, in mattis urna.
In pretium metus eu diam blandit accumsan. Ut eu lorem sed odio porttitor
blandit.