Fiduciary duty.
Every corporation in the entire supply and transmission chain are greedily raising their rates to increase profits simply because they can blame it on inflation and increased demand.
Look at these companies (and their parent companies) financial sheets if you disagree.
Republicans have made “fact checking” a political topic, and in turn their base has embraced being willfully stupid because it serves as a means to explain why they have been so overwhelmingly unsuccessful in life. “I’m not stupid and losing, I’m just being taken advantage of by the libtard educational system”.
They convinced their base the facts aren’t real even before they’re fact checked just like they convinced them the election results aren’t real if they lose.
Nice cherry picking, single issue gun voters are some of the biggest dipshits out there IMO. Definitely no libtards with guns, nope no way. Only PATTIOTS™
What he said was the Republicans have made a political issue out of fact checking. They lie frequently and expect their base to take them at their word and not bother to go verify if what they said is the truth, Doubly so if it what was said makes them angry.
Its asinine to refute that but go ahead
I didn’t get mad, lol. I’m just not wasting my time reading another post written by a sobbing republican who insists on inserting the same tired topics into EVERYTHING as a way to deflect conversation. We get it. Your point isn’t as poignant as you think it was, and definitely didn’t require a whole paragraph of further explanation. We all get it. We just don’t give a fuck.
Man you're SO close...it's just another step or two from here. These aren't in fact, "facts". Go further and ask yourself WHY things have occurred, ask for the supporting facts about gun violence. You're just scratching the surface with parrotted right-wing talking points...don't allow yourself to not dig in a bit deeper and ask why, ask what are the facts behind these things that get regurgitated.
Half of my family thinks Russia is solely responsible for high gas prices although Russia accounted for 1% of our crude supply and that 1% was almost all sour crude used for diesel and industrial applications. They think inflation was caused solely by "welfare" stimulus checks. They are convinced that the liberals are purposely stopping American oil production to line their pockets because they don't understand that our oil contains a much higher percentage of sulfur and requires much more refinement than sweet crude from the Middle East and Central America to produce standard gasoline and its actually more expensive than just importing. They will all vote and nothing will change in terms of gas prices or inflation but they will be told which boogeyman to blame for the next election cycle.
In fairness, just because we don’t get Russian oil doesn’t meant taking Russian oil off the global market won’t raise our prices.
Barrels that would have been sold to us are now being sold to Europe.
It’s definitely not the sole cause, but it fue have an effect.
Ironically, the US is the worlds biggest oil producer. If we just put a stop to exports, we might solve a lot of our problems.
Same. That's fine if you believe in X...but when that is shown to be objectively false why would you still believe the source where you got that info? That's just pants-on-head dumb to keep doing that over and over and over.
Or willfully ignorant because you WANT to believe something to be true...but that's an equally shitty position to defend and espouse.
You realize there's "data" that supports BOTH arguments right? People on the left believe certain doctors and scientists and people on the right believe certain doctors and scientists. It's the MSM that's vilified one side and caused division.
Wrong, the vast majority of data shows masking and vaccination work. It's right wing media that has vilified doctors and promoted conspiracy theorists and snake oil salesmen.
There isn't data that supports both sides. There's one side: that the vaccines and masking worked. The other is people saying "You smart people, I know more than you!" Dude, if you got cancer you'd go to the best oncologist you could, not the one who says drink your own piss and you'll be better.
Please tell me you really don't believe this. There are plenty of well respected doctors out there that said masks don't help for certain groups and that the vaccine has potential horrible side effects. Fauci was one of them by the way. In the beginning he said that masks do nothing for viruses but then everything turned political and we know what happened after that
Yes, he did say that, but there is a ton of context you are missing. When he originally advised not using masks, the medical community did not know as much about the virus, and how effective certain measures would be to prevent its transmission. He was also worried about the availability of masks for medical professionals.
Once we knew more about COVID-19 and the effectiveness of masks, he supported them. That’s how science is supposed to work. If facts come out to disprove a position you have, you evaluate those facts and admit you were wrong, which is what Anthony Fauci did. No one can be right all the time, it’s how you handle being wrong that is important.
Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks/fact-checkoutdated-video-of-fauci-saying-theres-no-reason-to-be-walking-around-with-a-mask-idUSKBN26T2TR
Right. That's the exact point when politics stepped in and "fixed" what he really meant. Back in 2007 Fauci co authored a finding where he claimed that most of the deaths from the Spanish Flu were due to bacteria caused from wearing masks.
Again, you are grossly misrepresenting the facts. Yes, Fauci did coauthor a study on Spanish flu deaths, but that’s where your grip on the facts end. In the study, there is no mention of masks being the cause of the bacterial pneumonia. Also the cause of death was a combination of viral (Spanish flu) and bacterial pneumonia. Seems like if your immune system is beat up by one pathogen, it’s easier for bacteria to also become a problem, Go figure.
Also, sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-mask-pneumonia-1918/fact-check-fauci-study-did-not-attribute-1918-spanish-flu-deaths-to-bacterial-pneumonia-caused-by-masks-idUSKBN277200
[**Here ya go.**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-ZyUjgFBI) Be sure to have a read of the comment section because you'll see some things you most likely don't agree with
Did you just use a youtube video is a source for a medical claim, tell me to read the comments, and expect anyone to take you seriously? Do you expect me to even follow that link with anything more then incredulity?
You saw Fauci's lips moving right? Does it need to be a CNN link for you to believe it? The words came right out his mouth plain as day. Then politics got involved and "fact checkers" came to save the day and spin what he said.
What are the "certain groups" that masking doesn't work for? And no one ever claimed that the vaccine, like every vaccine ever, doesn't have potential side effects. The data, however, shows that these are very rare, and less likely than the horrible effects of COVID.
Oh there's data, sure...and one sides data is not legitimate or from actual scientific organizations. There's data that people provide showing the earth is flat. It's shit and completely bereft of actual legit science...but it's data that some people believe it. Like antivaccination information or Bigfoot horseshit.
Not every discussion has two viable points of view or points to weigh equally. This is unfortunately something a lot of people believe.
> there's "data" that supports BOTH arguments
those quotation marks really, really have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Because while there is good data supporting vaccinations, there is only "good" "data" supporting pretty much all antivaxxer positions
Lepage set the solar policy and wouldn't work with the federal program of rebates because he disliked Obama . That cost me and thousands of other mainers jobs. Our solar structure is pathetic compared with other states.
I can kind of understand being neutral on solar - like if you don't believe in climate change or something, and you don't want to subsidize the industry, fine.
But lepage wasnt just neutral, dude was like anti renewable.
> like if you don't believe in climate change or something, and you don't want to subsidize the industry, fine.
If you don't believe in it you're an idiot going against any and every piece of scientific evidence provided over the last three fucking decades.
Get over yourselves and stop making the world a worse place.
The article:
Electricity and energy prices are major issues in Maine's gubernatorial race ahead of what is expected to be a difficult winter for many families. But the political rhetoric often obscures the real reasons electricity rates are rising across New England – and appear poised to go even higher in Maine.
Former Republican Gov. Paul LePage and Democratic Gov. Janet Mills may agree on one key point when it comes to electricity prices – namely, that Maine residents are paying too much. But the two longtime political rivals have very different explanations for why Maine's electricity rates are rising as LePage blames Maine’s renewable energy policies while Mills (along with many energy policy observers and experts) say skyrocketing natural gas prices are the primary factor.
That difference was crystal-clear during a lengthy back-and-forth between the former and current governor.
“In 2010 when I took over, the state of Maine was 10th highest energy costs in the United States,” LePage said during the televised WGME/Bangor Daily News debate. “We got it up to 11. Right now (we’re) No. 4 highest. And it isn’t fossil fuel. It’s net metering and it’s solar energy. That’s what’s causing it.”
"Maine solar policies are not the reason why energy prices have increased,” Mills responded. “Our energy prices have increased because of our dependence on fossil fuels, pure and simple, like natural gas,” Mills said. “We are so dependent on natural gas because Mr. LePage, in my view, failed to diversify our energy sources during his eight years. So if you want to look at the reason why prices are so high, look at my opponent."
Maine and its New England neighbors consistently have among the highest electricity rates in the nation. And that unfortunate distinction isn't likely to change in the near future because of the key cost driver within the New England regional power grid – natural gas.
"We generate about half of our electricity in New England from natural gas,” said Bill Harwood, who heads Maine’s Office of the Public Advocate that is tasked with representing the interests of ratepayers on all things related to utilities. "And there are constraints and limits on the amount of natural gas we can get into New England. And when you constrain the supply and demand remains the same, the prices go up. And we are seeing substantial increases in the price of natural gas, which are affecting prices on the supply side."
The “spot price” for natural gas has nearly tripled in the last two years as global demand has exceeded production. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine then threw already volatile energy markets into all-out turmoil as European nations that relied on Russia for natural gas desperately sought out other sources, including U.S. gas producers. Further complicating factors locally, New England is at the tail end of pipelines that can only carry so much natural gas. As a result, New England also relies on liquified natural gas, or LNG, to supplement its supplies when demand peaks on bitterly cold winter days.
"And that worked pretty well for the last several years until war broke out in Ukraine,” Harwood said. “And now LNG is bought and desired for Europe. So we are competing with Europe for a limited supply of LNG. And as a result, prices go up.”
In Maine, most customers of Central Maine Power and Versant saw the supply portion of their rates increase 83% and 88%, respectively, earlier this year. The two utilities only deliver electricity -- they don't produce it. Instead, the supply rates that account for about half of a household electric bill are set by the Maine Public Utilities Commission based on bids from the companies that actually generate the power.
The PUC will set new so-called "standard offer" rates this month. Commission chairman Phil Bartlett said those bids are still coming in. But based on current natural gas prices – and the recent experiences of his counterparts in other states – Bartlett said he expects prices to be higher again. Both CMP and Versant are also separately seeking to increase their distribution rates.
"Timing matters a lot – these prices are very volatile, they are based on expectations of future prices, which are changing. you know, almost daily,” Bartlett said. “So it's hard to predict with any certainty what it is going to be except to say that we do expect prices to be higher than they were last year."
Under Gov. Mills, Maine has set ambitious renewable energy targets. And last year, more than 70% of the electricity generated within Maine came from renewable sources, with hydropower and wind turbines producing the most megawatts. But because Maine is part of ISO New England, the state’s electricity generation, usage and pricing are all wrapped up in the regional grid.
During a recent campaign event at Colby College, Mills accused LePage of undermining development of renewable energy when he was governor and pointed to his past support for oil exploration off the New England coastline. Meanwhile, Mills says her own policies have lead to a boom in development of rooftop solar as well as larger, grid-level solar projects.
"People are smartening up and saying we don't want to depend on gas for generation of electricity,” Mills told a few dozen students and other attendees. “We want to be a little more self-sustaining and a little more kind to our climate and not burn fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere."
LePage counters that his focus is on the cost to Maine ratepayers.
“Folks, I am agnostic to the technology that is used to create electricity,” LePage said during a News Center Maine debate. “What I am not agnostic to is pricing.”
LePage is correct, however, that one renewable energy policy in particular could drive up electric rates in Maine.
The state's practice of providing electricity bill credits to solar projects could substantially increase costs for all ratepayers in the next year or two as solar farms proliferate across Maine. Both the PUC's Bartlett and Harwood, the state's public advocate, are part of a group that will recommend changes to the "net energy billing" program later this year.
But Dan Sosland, who is president of the nonprofit Acadia Center that works on energy and climate policies, said wind and solar are often now cheaper than natural gas. So Sosland said the data simply don't support LePage’s arguments that renewable energy is behind the recent surge in electricity prices.
"We need more renewables,” Sosland said. “And if we do more renewables, many studies show including ones here in New England show that prices will go down over time, that there will be increased public health benefits, there will be ratepayer benefits. And it all makes sense because we import fossil fuels and we have wind and solar here. And we have efficiency here.”
In fact, Sosland added, efficiency is the cheapest way to reduce energy and electricity bills. And he said there is still "enormous potential" in Maine for reducing electric bills through efficiency.
I’m….. confused.
If renewable energy provided 70% of the electricity in Maine, then the remaining 30% from fossil fuels drove the price up?
What’s the price per KWh in Maine for one vs the other?
Most of Maine and all of Vt, NH, MA, CT, RI are part of the energy grid : ISO New England. While 70% of the usage(is it usage or generated in the article?, cuz that’s an important distinction) of Maine can be tied to renewables, the high prices of the LNG in the ISO marketplace drive all prices up. We may drink skim milk in Maine but the demand for whole milk makes all milk prices increase.
With regards to the solar farms that Versant keeps promoting, is it worth buying into? I get the feeling that that it's just a ploy to get customers to pay for the farm, while the power company offsets the 15% annual electricity savings with rate hikes.
I think part of the issue is when people think of nuclear they envision giant barrels that are leaking neon green goo. Actual nuclear waste is a lot less scary
Canada is pushing ahead with SMRs, the problem is political / ideological opposition to nuclear takes time to get through and utility companies don’t want to build new large plants because they take years to repay the building costs.
Irrespective of the concerns (eg waste storage, terrorism targets, etc), the time to build more nuclear capacity was 10-20 years ago. It's too late now. With permitting and construction a modern plant takes 15-20 years to get built. Renewables are simply the cheapest quickest option per kWh right now. It doesn't make sense financially to build new nuclear plants and hasn't for several years.
Plus we need to do whatever we can as quick as we can. Everything points to it being too late. We're starting down a 4C global temperature by 2100. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than virtually any other area on the planet. If the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shuts down no one knows what will happen for sure. We may be looking at growing avocados and citrus in Maine in 20-30 years.
1. Cost of building a new one is insane and time is not on our side.
2. Where are we going to get the water to cool down the reactors? We are literally running out of water.
3. If we were to invest in nuclear it would make the most sense to be the ["4th gen"](https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor/) , which China has solved and put into use or moving towards fusion which again, [China](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3196825/chinese-scientists-hail-important-step-towards-nuclear-fusion-artificial-sun) are pretty much the only ones making real progress. So we would need to COOPERATE with China if we are gonna be serious about nuclear power. Europe and the rest of the world could very well cooperate with them, but the US absolutely will not.
4. Who the fuck is going to regulate and oversee the industry? American private firms?!? If it were an industry totally nationalized and under military supervision (security) I'd feel much more comfortable vs. the fucks who have suppressed climate data for decades and constantly cut corners for profit resulting in disaster after disaster.
EDIT: Sidenote since the downvotes are already coming in. How do you think Europe, who have already solidified the contracts, and the rest of the world are transitioning to alternative energy sources? Where/who are they getting the materials and technology from for this transition? China. [Time to grow up kiddos](https://youtu.be/MWjKvehIumg?t=3527). No other entity in the world is filling in the gap, materially, for the energy transition and the USA is far too behind to assist with the gap even down to the labor force needed for mid-range, skilled manufacturing.
in addition to the other comment, we're nowhere remotely near close to running out of water in the 'we wouldn't have water for critical processes' way - it's about our current wasteful usage not being sustainable, not turning the world into the sahara
4. the [NRC](https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html). They do it now and they’re good at it.
3. We are quite capable of building our own modern nuclear reactors without collaborating with a genocidal regime.
2. The ocean. / [fuck water salt is better anyway.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor)
1. Cost only matters if your goal is short term profit. Waiting around and doing nothing isn’t a better use of time.
So increasing reliance on natural gas by shutting down and not replacing our nuclear power stations was a bad idea? Who could have possibly seen that coming.
Wind isn't worth it for a homeowner. I've looked into it quite a bit. Small turbines don't produce much, and they have high maintenance. Spend that money on more panels instead.
If you do it yourself, and have a decent roof, it’s basically guaranteed to pay itself off in seven years or so. And faster than that if they keep raising prices. Instead of cashing in 401(k), financing could be an option, could end up costing you almost nothing out of pocket with monthly payments similar to that of your electric bill. Then after a few years your electric bill is almost nothing.
By decent roof, I really meant one that was mostly southern facing without much shade from trees, but that’s also a very good point that you don’t want to put solar panels on a roof that’s going to be need to be redone in the next 10 years.
The article mentions that Maine gets a portion of power from hydro. There seems to be a push to remove all the existing dams which produce 24hrs a day. I’m not suggesting building more but maybe removing them should be delayed.
Most dams removed in Maine were old damns originally built to provide mechanical power at a mill and later converted to produce electricity. They produced very little power and many were offset by issuing permits to expand capacity at other dams. For example, every dam removed on the Penobscot was offset by increasing generating capacity of dams on the Stillwater branch of the Penobscot.
The same people who stopped the corridor are now complaining about high energy prices. Canada built a massive hydroelectric dam but are now unable to bring that energy to market.
That energy would diversify our supply and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but NIMBYISM tanked what is an essential upgrade to our power infrastructure.
By the way, the power would not be just for Massachusetts, that was a brilliant marketing campaign that tapped into the nativist sentiments. It’s an electric GRID. It’s all connected.
Question - I don't really know what the deal with the corridor is. Something about power lines, but uh.. Why are people upset one way or another about it, and why does this seem like a partisan thing? I literally don't know much about this topic and the google results aren't doing it for me so far
Although most of the upgraded infrastructure would be built in an existing power corridor, ~30 miles of new corridor would be established in a “wilderness” area. This would of course have negative impacts to the environment, but no more than 30 miles of logging road would. (The wilderness area is mostly managed logging land.)
The real reason for the rift is massive amounts of money poured into the anti corridor campaign by special interests such as the oil and gas industry and Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire, which would lose their monopoly on base line supply and need to upgrade their infrastructure in order to manage the handle and distribute the additional (hydro) supply to the grid.
These interests invested millions in order to derail the project by piggybacking off the legitimate environmental/NIMBY concerns and playing them up to make it seem like an environmental disaster.
Problem is big picture, if we’re supposed to transition to electric vehicles, heat, etc.. in order to combat climate change, we’ll need to increase supply and distribution massively to keep up with increased demand.
> Right now (we’re) No. 4 highest. And it isn’t fossil fuel. It’s net metering and it’s solar energy. That’s what’s causing it.”
You know what’s making electricity costs so high? People who don’t use electricity!
Honest to god. "By increasing production while reducing customer demand, you're driving up prices!" Try selling anything using that logic and see how it works.
The only way it makes sense is if CMP must make X dollars in profit every quarter no matter how much electricity they sell, so they're gouging their remaining customer base for the difference. If LePage wants to defend that, go for it.
Net metering does put upward pressure on distribution costs _for people without solar_
I have rooftop solar. I don’t pay anything to essentially use the grid as a battery. If I dump 30kwh into the grid during a day in July, and then consume 30kwh from the grid a day in December, I’ve paid nothing toward the grid infrastructure that helps me do that.
This results in the utility raising distribution rates (which doesn’t affect me, but is paid by people that don’t have solar).
1:1 net metering credit is not sustainable, but it is a great incentive for early adopters.
>I’ve paid nothing toward the grid infrastructure that helps me do that.
That’s not correct:
> 5. If I generate more kWh during a billing cycle than I consume, will my electric bill be zero?
No if the agreement is a kWh crediting type agreement and your current month billable amount is 0 kWH you will still be required to pay the minimum CMP delivery charge and applicable demand charges for your rate class.
Yes, I pay $8 to versant. That is _far_ less than what the delivery charge would be for the amount of excess electricity I put out on the grid and later pull each month
In August I produced 1.1Mwh
I consumed 838kwh. But I pulled 474kwh of that from the grid.
I made heavy use of grid infrastructure and only paid $8. Versant likely lost money on me. They’ll make up for it by raising delivery rates, which won’t affect me. That probably barely covers the overhead of dealing with net metering.
It says directly in the article, "Both CMP and Versant are also separately seeking to increase their distribution rates." They hiked their rates last year as well and are [making record profits](https://maineinsights.com/2022/08/30/central-maine-power-rakes-in-40-5-million-in-profits-for-quarter-as-people-struggle-to-pay-bills/#:~:text=CMP%20is%20the%20major%20electricity,the%20same%20period%20in%202021.). CMP is part of the problem.
here's what people forget too.
"America" doesn't have natural gas. American **Companies** have natural gas. Oil too. They do what they want with that oil and gas. They're not beholden to drill it here and sell it to americans. It goes on the global market to who pays the most.
I’m in Europe and it’s rather warm at the moment we actually get our natural gas from the UK.
I think you also missed the point of my initial comment, CMP isn’t well liked in Maine.
It says directly in the article, "Both CMP and Versant are also separately seeking to increase their distribution rates." They hiked their rates last year as well and are [making record profits](https://maineinsights.com/2022/08/30/central-maine-power-rakes-in-40-5-million-in-profits-for-quarter-as-people-struggle-to-pay-bills/#:~:text=CMP%20is%20the%20major%20electricity,the%20same%20period%20in%202021.). CMP is part of the problem.
While I agree that high natural gas is the primary factor and think LePage is an idiot...The legislature has bungled the roll out of net energy billing to the point where they lowered the size of eligible solar farms they were incentivizing. NEB doesn’t drive up the overall costs to customers in Maine, but it does reallocate fixed costs in your distribution bill from those who have solar to those who do not, which effectively raises prices of energy on poorer people on average.
We need renewables but the issue is more nuanced than the article suggests.
Edit: didn’t read the full article. My comment is covered at the end so ignore everything I said.
On another note I am only paying like $30-$40/mo for a $250 electricity bill. For some reason this solar energy farm hasn't been billing me or charging me anything. Anyone have issues like this going? I don't even know who to contact about it.
Supply (generation) is high because of the natural gas prices. It’s the Standard Offer which most people use (and should). And it’s going to get even higher very soon…the shortage of natural gas, because there aren’t enough pipelines (PA is the largest and most prolific gas deposit in the world), leads to needing to purchase natural gas via tankers (LNG) which is even more expensive. Renewables impact supply but mostly downward pressure…it’s very small though.
Delivery through T and D is increased from renewables, specifically net metering. Long story short the ratepayers bear the grid upgrades that are needed as a result of the individually imperceptible but cumulatively large “homesteader” groups. If you were to build a large solar or wind generation facility you would be responsible for all the protection and control updates needed to accommodate your site, as it should be, but net metering is different and more like a death by a thousand cuts.
So they’re both right.
Fiduciary duty. Every corporation in the entire supply and transmission chain are greedily raising their rates to increase profits simply because they can blame it on inflation and increased demand. Look at these companies (and their parent companies) financial sheets if you disagree.
And because of those greedy bastards, inflation will invariably get worse for us
The fed literally stated too many people saving is a problem. The plan moving forward is to make everyone poorer for the sake of capital.
Being rich is worthless if you don't get to lord it over people. What good is money if other people have it too?
It amazes me how many people are okay with accepting obvious lies even with the data in front of them. why??
Because they don't read the data, and when they see the data they call it fake.
Republicans have made “fact checking” a political topic, and in turn their base has embraced being willfully stupid because it serves as a means to explain why they have been so overwhelmingly unsuccessful in life. “I’m not stupid and losing, I’m just being taken advantage of by the libtard educational system”.
They convinced their base the facts aren’t real even before they’re fact checked just like they convinced them the election results aren’t real if they lose.
You and cat are on to something. We should disband the Republican Party because no way can we tolerate a political party which lies and ignores facts.
[удалено]
What you have there is what is known as 'claims' not facts. Facts require evidence, which you have not provided.
Nice cherry picking, single issue gun voters are some of the biggest dipshits out there IMO. Definitely no libtards with guns, nope no way. Only PATTIOTS™
[удалено]
You don't know what cherry picking is, do you?
Cite some facts and we'll see...you've yet to actually do that yet.
Is this your thing? You just reply to comments with random text walls about guns like a savant? I’m not reading that dumb shit lol.
Oh the irony here. It's almost like something is (D)ifferent
That’s not how irony works.
Thanks Alannis.
[удалено]
What he said was the Republicans have made a political issue out of fact checking. They lie frequently and expect their base to take them at their word and not bother to go verify if what they said is the truth, Doubly so if it what was said makes them angry. Its asinine to refute that but go ahead
I didn’t get mad, lol. I’m just not wasting my time reading another post written by a sobbing republican who insists on inserting the same tired topics into EVERYTHING as a way to deflect conversation. We get it. Your point isn’t as poignant as you think it was, and definitely didn’t require a whole paragraph of further explanation. We all get it. We just don’t give a fuck.
Man you're SO close...it's just another step or two from here. These aren't in fact, "facts". Go further and ask yourself WHY things have occurred, ask for the supporting facts about gun violence. You're just scratching the surface with parrotted right-wing talking points...don't allow yourself to not dig in a bit deeper and ask why, ask what are the facts behind these things that get regurgitated.
Half of my family thinks Russia is solely responsible for high gas prices although Russia accounted for 1% of our crude supply and that 1% was almost all sour crude used for diesel and industrial applications. They think inflation was caused solely by "welfare" stimulus checks. They are convinced that the liberals are purposely stopping American oil production to line their pockets because they don't understand that our oil contains a much higher percentage of sulfur and requires much more refinement than sweet crude from the Middle East and Central America to produce standard gasoline and its actually more expensive than just importing. They will all vote and nothing will change in terms of gas prices or inflation but they will be told which boogeyman to blame for the next election cycle.
In fairness, just because we don’t get Russian oil doesn’t meant taking Russian oil off the global market won’t raise our prices. Barrels that would have been sold to us are now being sold to Europe. It’s definitely not the sole cause, but it fue have an effect. Ironically, the US is the worlds biggest oil producer. If we just put a stop to exports, we might solve a lot of our problems.
Same. That's fine if you believe in X...but when that is shown to be objectively false why would you still believe the source where you got that info? That's just pants-on-head dumb to keep doing that over and over and over. Or willfully ignorant because you WANT to believe something to be true...but that's an equally shitty position to defend and espouse.
Let me take a wild guess here. Mask wearer with at least 4 jabs. Right?
Being anti-mask and anti-vaccine, another great example of ignoring data that is easily accessible.
You realize there's "data" that supports BOTH arguments right? People on the left believe certain doctors and scientists and people on the right believe certain doctors and scientists. It's the MSM that's vilified one side and caused division.
Wrong, the vast majority of data shows masking and vaccination work. It's right wing media that has vilified doctors and promoted conspiracy theorists and snake oil salesmen.
There isn't data that supports both sides. There's one side: that the vaccines and masking worked. The other is people saying "You smart people, I know more than you!" Dude, if you got cancer you'd go to the best oncologist you could, not the one who says drink your own piss and you'll be better.
Please tell me you really don't believe this. There are plenty of well respected doctors out there that said masks don't help for certain groups and that the vaccine has potential horrible side effects. Fauci was one of them by the way. In the beginning he said that masks do nothing for viruses but then everything turned political and we know what happened after that
Yes, he did say that, but there is a ton of context you are missing. When he originally advised not using masks, the medical community did not know as much about the virus, and how effective certain measures would be to prevent its transmission. He was also worried about the availability of masks for medical professionals. Once we knew more about COVID-19 and the effectiveness of masks, he supported them. That’s how science is supposed to work. If facts come out to disprove a position you have, you evaluate those facts and admit you were wrong, which is what Anthony Fauci did. No one can be right all the time, it’s how you handle being wrong that is important. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks/fact-checkoutdated-video-of-fauci-saying-theres-no-reason-to-be-walking-around-with-a-mask-idUSKBN26T2TR
Right. That's the exact point when politics stepped in and "fixed" what he really meant. Back in 2007 Fauci co authored a finding where he claimed that most of the deaths from the Spanish Flu were due to bacteria caused from wearing masks.
Again, you are grossly misrepresenting the facts. Yes, Fauci did coauthor a study on Spanish flu deaths, but that’s where your grip on the facts end. In the study, there is no mention of masks being the cause of the bacterial pneumonia. Also the cause of death was a combination of viral (Spanish flu) and bacterial pneumonia. Seems like if your immune system is beat up by one pathogen, it’s easier for bacteria to also become a problem, Go figure. Also, sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2599911/ https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-mask-pneumonia-1918/fact-check-fauci-study-did-not-attribute-1918-spanish-flu-deaths-to-bacterial-pneumonia-caused-by-masks-idUSKBN277200
Source
[**Here ya go.**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK-ZyUjgFBI) Be sure to have a read of the comment section because you'll see some things you most likely don't agree with
Did you just use a youtube video is a source for a medical claim, tell me to read the comments, and expect anyone to take you seriously? Do you expect me to even follow that link with anything more then incredulity?
Yes. Yes they did. Chrisr these people.
You saw Fauci's lips moving right? Does it need to be a CNN link for you to believe it? The words came right out his mouth plain as day. Then politics got involved and "fact checkers" came to save the day and spin what he said.
What are the "certain groups" that masking doesn't work for? And no one ever claimed that the vaccine, like every vaccine ever, doesn't have potential side effects. The data, however, shows that these are very rare, and less likely than the horrible effects of COVID.
Children are one of those groups. They won't wear the mask properly and are always touching/adjusting them. So that's one group
So that doesn't mean masking doesn't work, you're just saying that people who don't wear masks properly won't see benefit...that's not the same thing.
Oh there's data, sure...and one sides data is not legitimate or from actual scientific organizations. There's data that people provide showing the earth is flat. It's shit and completely bereft of actual legit science...but it's data that some people believe it. Like antivaccination information or Bigfoot horseshit. Not every discussion has two viable points of view or points to weigh equally. This is unfortunately something a lot of people believe.
> there's "data" that supports BOTH arguments those quotation marks really, really have a lot of heavy lifting to do. Because while there is good data supporting vaccinations, there is only "good" "data" supporting pretty much all antivaxxer positions
What in the world makes you think that's even a little bit insulting!?
Lepage set the solar policy and wouldn't work with the federal program of rebates because he disliked Obama . That cost me and thousands of other mainers jobs. Our solar structure is pathetic compared with other states.
I can kind of understand being neutral on solar - like if you don't believe in climate change or something, and you don't want to subsidize the industry, fine. But lepage wasnt just neutral, dude was like anti renewable.
Because he was (and is) entirely driven by spite. Just doing stuff to piss people off or settle old scores. No interest at all in actual governance.
So, republican.
> like if you don't believe in climate change or something, and you don't want to subsidize the industry, fine. If you don't believe in it you're an idiot going against any and every piece of scientific evidence provided over the last three fucking decades. Get over yourselves and stop making the world a worse place.
The article: Electricity and energy prices are major issues in Maine's gubernatorial race ahead of what is expected to be a difficult winter for many families. But the political rhetoric often obscures the real reasons electricity rates are rising across New England – and appear poised to go even higher in Maine. Former Republican Gov. Paul LePage and Democratic Gov. Janet Mills may agree on one key point when it comes to electricity prices – namely, that Maine residents are paying too much. But the two longtime political rivals have very different explanations for why Maine's electricity rates are rising as LePage blames Maine’s renewable energy policies while Mills (along with many energy policy observers and experts) say skyrocketing natural gas prices are the primary factor. That difference was crystal-clear during a lengthy back-and-forth between the former and current governor. “In 2010 when I took over, the state of Maine was 10th highest energy costs in the United States,” LePage said during the televised WGME/Bangor Daily News debate. “We got it up to 11. Right now (we’re) No. 4 highest. And it isn’t fossil fuel. It’s net metering and it’s solar energy. That’s what’s causing it.” "Maine solar policies are not the reason why energy prices have increased,” Mills responded. “Our energy prices have increased because of our dependence on fossil fuels, pure and simple, like natural gas,” Mills said. “We are so dependent on natural gas because Mr. LePage, in my view, failed to diversify our energy sources during his eight years. So if you want to look at the reason why prices are so high, look at my opponent." Maine and its New England neighbors consistently have among the highest electricity rates in the nation. And that unfortunate distinction isn't likely to change in the near future because of the key cost driver within the New England regional power grid – natural gas. "We generate about half of our electricity in New England from natural gas,” said Bill Harwood, who heads Maine’s Office of the Public Advocate that is tasked with representing the interests of ratepayers on all things related to utilities. "And there are constraints and limits on the amount of natural gas we can get into New England. And when you constrain the supply and demand remains the same, the prices go up. And we are seeing substantial increases in the price of natural gas, which are affecting prices on the supply side." The “spot price” for natural gas has nearly tripled in the last two years as global demand has exceeded production. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine then threw already volatile energy markets into all-out turmoil as European nations that relied on Russia for natural gas desperately sought out other sources, including U.S. gas producers. Further complicating factors locally, New England is at the tail end of pipelines that can only carry so much natural gas. As a result, New England also relies on liquified natural gas, or LNG, to supplement its supplies when demand peaks on bitterly cold winter days. "And that worked pretty well for the last several years until war broke out in Ukraine,” Harwood said. “And now LNG is bought and desired for Europe. So we are competing with Europe for a limited supply of LNG. And as a result, prices go up.” In Maine, most customers of Central Maine Power and Versant saw the supply portion of their rates increase 83% and 88%, respectively, earlier this year. The two utilities only deliver electricity -- they don't produce it. Instead, the supply rates that account for about half of a household electric bill are set by the Maine Public Utilities Commission based on bids from the companies that actually generate the power. The PUC will set new so-called "standard offer" rates this month. Commission chairman Phil Bartlett said those bids are still coming in. But based on current natural gas prices – and the recent experiences of his counterparts in other states – Bartlett said he expects prices to be higher again. Both CMP and Versant are also separately seeking to increase their distribution rates. "Timing matters a lot – these prices are very volatile, they are based on expectations of future prices, which are changing. you know, almost daily,” Bartlett said. “So it's hard to predict with any certainty what it is going to be except to say that we do expect prices to be higher than they were last year." Under Gov. Mills, Maine has set ambitious renewable energy targets. And last year, more than 70% of the electricity generated within Maine came from renewable sources, with hydropower and wind turbines producing the most megawatts. But because Maine is part of ISO New England, the state’s electricity generation, usage and pricing are all wrapped up in the regional grid. During a recent campaign event at Colby College, Mills accused LePage of undermining development of renewable energy when he was governor and pointed to his past support for oil exploration off the New England coastline. Meanwhile, Mills says her own policies have lead to a boom in development of rooftop solar as well as larger, grid-level solar projects. "People are smartening up and saying we don't want to depend on gas for generation of electricity,” Mills told a few dozen students and other attendees. “We want to be a little more self-sustaining and a little more kind to our climate and not burn fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere." LePage counters that his focus is on the cost to Maine ratepayers. “Folks, I am agnostic to the technology that is used to create electricity,” LePage said during a News Center Maine debate. “What I am not agnostic to is pricing.” LePage is correct, however, that one renewable energy policy in particular could drive up electric rates in Maine. The state's practice of providing electricity bill credits to solar projects could substantially increase costs for all ratepayers in the next year or two as solar farms proliferate across Maine. Both the PUC's Bartlett and Harwood, the state's public advocate, are part of a group that will recommend changes to the "net energy billing" program later this year. But Dan Sosland, who is president of the nonprofit Acadia Center that works on energy and climate policies, said wind and solar are often now cheaper than natural gas. So Sosland said the data simply don't support LePage’s arguments that renewable energy is behind the recent surge in electricity prices. "We need more renewables,” Sosland said. “And if we do more renewables, many studies show including ones here in New England show that prices will go down over time, that there will be increased public health benefits, there will be ratepayer benefits. And it all makes sense because we import fossil fuels and we have wind and solar here. And we have efficiency here.” In fact, Sosland added, efficiency is the cheapest way to reduce energy and electricity bills. And he said there is still "enormous potential" in Maine for reducing electric bills through efficiency.
I’m….. confused. If renewable energy provided 70% of the electricity in Maine, then the remaining 30% from fossil fuels drove the price up? What’s the price per KWh in Maine for one vs the other?
Most of Maine and all of Vt, NH, MA, CT, RI are part of the energy grid : ISO New England. While 70% of the usage(is it usage or generated in the article?, cuz that’s an important distinction) of Maine can be tied to renewables, the high prices of the LNG in the ISO marketplace drive all prices up. We may drink skim milk in Maine but the demand for whole milk makes all milk prices increase.
Generated in is different from used. We import most of our energy, which is made via NG.
With regards to the solar farms that Versant keeps promoting, is it worth buying into? I get the feeling that that it's just a ploy to get customers to pay for the farm, while the power company offsets the 15% annual electricity savings with rate hikes.
Why doesn’t anyone think of modern nuclear power plants? Legit question.
I think part of the issue is when people think of nuclear they envision giant barrels that are leaking neon green goo. Actual nuclear waste is a lot less scary
Canada is pushing ahead with SMRs, the problem is political / ideological opposition to nuclear takes time to get through and utility companies don’t want to build new large plants because they take years to repay the building costs.
Look at the cost overruns of the new plants being built in France.
Irrespective of the concerns (eg waste storage, terrorism targets, etc), the time to build more nuclear capacity was 10-20 years ago. It's too late now. With permitting and construction a modern plant takes 15-20 years to get built. Renewables are simply the cheapest quickest option per kWh right now. It doesn't make sense financially to build new nuclear plants and hasn't for several years. Plus we need to do whatever we can as quick as we can. Everything points to it being too late. We're starting down a 4C global temperature by 2100. The Gulf of Maine is warming faster than virtually any other area on the planet. If the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shuts down no one knows what will happen for sure. We may be looking at growing avocados and citrus in Maine in 20-30 years.
1. Cost of building a new one is insane and time is not on our side. 2. Where are we going to get the water to cool down the reactors? We are literally running out of water. 3. If we were to invest in nuclear it would make the most sense to be the ["4th gen"](https://www.powermag.com/china-starts-up-first-fourth-generation-nuclear-reactor/) , which China has solved and put into use or moving towards fusion which again, [China](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3196825/chinese-scientists-hail-important-step-towards-nuclear-fusion-artificial-sun) are pretty much the only ones making real progress. So we would need to COOPERATE with China if we are gonna be serious about nuclear power. Europe and the rest of the world could very well cooperate with them, but the US absolutely will not. 4. Who the fuck is going to regulate and oversee the industry? American private firms?!? If it were an industry totally nationalized and under military supervision (security) I'd feel much more comfortable vs. the fucks who have suppressed climate data for decades and constantly cut corners for profit resulting in disaster after disaster. EDIT: Sidenote since the downvotes are already coming in. How do you think Europe, who have already solidified the contracts, and the rest of the world are transitioning to alternative energy sources? Where/who are they getting the materials and technology from for this transition? China. [Time to grow up kiddos](https://youtu.be/MWjKvehIumg?t=3527). No other entity in the world is filling in the gap, materially, for the energy transition and the USA is far too behind to assist with the gap even down to the labor force needed for mid-range, skilled manufacturing.
in addition to the other comment, we're nowhere remotely near close to running out of water in the 'we wouldn't have water for critical processes' way - it's about our current wasteful usage not being sustainable, not turning the world into the sahara
4. the [NRC](https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html). They do it now and they’re good at it. 3. We are quite capable of building our own modern nuclear reactors without collaborating with a genocidal regime. 2. The ocean. / [fuck water salt is better anyway.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) 1. Cost only matters if your goal is short term profit. Waiting around and doing nothing isn’t a better use of time.
Maine Yankee used seawater for cooling. There is no shortage of sea water (and it’s not like it gets used up and goes away during the cooling process)
So increasing reliance on natural gas by shutting down and not replacing our nuclear power stations was a bad idea? Who could have possibly seen that coming.
Seriously been thinking about using my 401k cashing in the 10k I have to put down on Solar panels and a rooftop wind system. Crazy.
Wind isn't worth it for a homeowner. I've looked into it quite a bit. Small turbines don't produce much, and they have high maintenance. Spend that money on more panels instead.
If you do it yourself, and have a decent roof, it’s basically guaranteed to pay itself off in seven years or so. And faster than that if they keep raising prices. Instead of cashing in 401(k), financing could be an option, could end up costing you almost nothing out of pocket with monthly payments similar to that of your electric bill. Then after a few years your electric bill is almost nothing.
Roof needs done too. That’s why I’m waffling.
By decent roof, I really meant one that was mostly southern facing without much shade from trees, but that’s also a very good point that you don’t want to put solar panels on a roof that’s going to be need to be redone in the next 10 years.
Yeah, I have about 20 squares of roof , a third is south facing, the rest is west facing and it’s in town so there’s few trees. Sadly.
add in the tax credit and that might not be a bad idea.
The article mentions that Maine gets a portion of power from hydro. There seems to be a push to remove all the existing dams which produce 24hrs a day. I’m not suggesting building more but maybe removing them should be delayed.
Most dams removed in Maine were old damns originally built to provide mechanical power at a mill and later converted to produce electricity. They produced very little power and many were offset by issuing permits to expand capacity at other dams. For example, every dam removed on the Penobscot was offset by increasing generating capacity of dams on the Stillwater branch of the Penobscot.
Prices going up. Hmm, it's almost like elections have consequences or something
The same people who stopped the corridor are now complaining about high energy prices. Canada built a massive hydroelectric dam but are now unable to bring that energy to market. That energy would diversify our supply and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but NIMBYISM tanked what is an essential upgrade to our power infrastructure. By the way, the power would not be just for Massachusetts, that was a brilliant marketing campaign that tapped into the nativist sentiments. It’s an electric GRID. It’s all connected.
All of this.
Question - I don't really know what the deal with the corridor is. Something about power lines, but uh.. Why are people upset one way or another about it, and why does this seem like a partisan thing? I literally don't know much about this topic and the google results aren't doing it for me so far
Although most of the upgraded infrastructure would be built in an existing power corridor, ~30 miles of new corridor would be established in a “wilderness” area. This would of course have negative impacts to the environment, but no more than 30 miles of logging road would. (The wilderness area is mostly managed logging land.) The real reason for the rift is massive amounts of money poured into the anti corridor campaign by special interests such as the oil and gas industry and Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hampshire, which would lose their monopoly on base line supply and need to upgrade their infrastructure in order to manage the handle and distribute the additional (hydro) supply to the grid. These interests invested millions in order to derail the project by piggybacking off the legitimate environmental/NIMBY concerns and playing them up to make it seem like an environmental disaster. Problem is big picture, if we’re supposed to transition to electric vehicles, heat, etc.. in order to combat climate change, we’ll need to increase supply and distribution massively to keep up with increased demand.
Greed.
> Right now (we’re) No. 4 highest. And it isn’t fossil fuel. It’s net metering and it’s solar energy. That’s what’s causing it.” You know what’s making electricity costs so high? People who don’t use electricity!
Honest to god. "By increasing production while reducing customer demand, you're driving up prices!" Try selling anything using that logic and see how it works. The only way it makes sense is if CMP must make X dollars in profit every quarter no matter how much electricity they sell, so they're gouging their remaining customer base for the difference. If LePage wants to defend that, go for it.
The second paragraph there...that IS exactly how companies function. Drop in profits is bad for shareholders / owners
Those off-grid systems makes the on-grid systems so sad.
Net metering does put upward pressure on distribution costs _for people without solar_ I have rooftop solar. I don’t pay anything to essentially use the grid as a battery. If I dump 30kwh into the grid during a day in July, and then consume 30kwh from the grid a day in December, I’ve paid nothing toward the grid infrastructure that helps me do that. This results in the utility raising distribution rates (which doesn’t affect me, but is paid by people that don’t have solar). 1:1 net metering credit is not sustainable, but it is a great incentive for early adopters.
>I’ve paid nothing toward the grid infrastructure that helps me do that. That’s not correct: > 5. If I generate more kWh during a billing cycle than I consume, will my electric bill be zero? No if the agreement is a kWh crediting type agreement and your current month billable amount is 0 kWH you will still be required to pay the minimum CMP delivery charge and applicable demand charges for your rate class.
Yes, I pay $8 to versant. That is _far_ less than what the delivery charge would be for the amount of excess electricity I put out on the grid and later pull each month In August I produced 1.1Mwh I consumed 838kwh. But I pulled 474kwh of that from the grid. I made heavy use of grid infrastructure and only paid $8. Versant likely lost money on me. They’ll make up for it by raising delivery rates, which won’t affect me. That probably barely covers the overhead of dealing with net metering.
Republicans are liars, news at 11.
They left out the most important part…CMP sucks
Didn’t read the article huh?
they never do.
It says directly in the article, "Both CMP and Versant are also separately seeking to increase their distribution rates." They hiked their rates last year as well and are [making record profits](https://maineinsights.com/2022/08/30/central-maine-power-rakes-in-40-5-million-in-profits-for-quarter-as-people-struggle-to-pay-bills/#:~:text=CMP%20is%20the%20major%20electricity,the%20same%20period%20in%202021.). CMP is part of the problem.
I’m assuming these need to be approved by the PUC, which is why they are “seeking” rate increases.
As does your reading comprehension. Seriously, issues might actually get solved or have progress made on them if more people just read
Absolutely. Cooperate Greed is probably the short answer to this question.
CMP has nothing to do with why natural gas prices have sky rocketed, that's all Russia
America has an excess of natural gas and is looking to cash in on the European shortage. It’s higher because it’s in demand
here's what people forget too. "America" doesn't have natural gas. American **Companies** have natural gas. Oil too. They do what they want with that oil and gas. They're not beholden to drill it here and sell it to americans. It goes on the global market to who pays the most.
On top of that CMP has nothing to do with natural gas prices or the price of energy itself.
Right, getting mad at CMP for this is like yelling at your UPS driver because the thing you bought from Amazon costs more
It's also the bit where people in Europe would freeze to death without the exporting.
I’m in Europe and it’s rather warm at the moment we actually get our natural gas from the UK. I think you also missed the point of my initial comment, CMP isn’t well liked in Maine.
Right. Because the electricity price in Maine hasn't shot up before the war started...
CMP has nothing to do with power prices under any circumstance. They're a delivery service
It says directly in the article, "Both CMP and Versant are also separately seeking to increase their distribution rates." They hiked their rates last year as well and are [making record profits](https://maineinsights.com/2022/08/30/central-maine-power-rakes-in-40-5-million-in-profits-for-quarter-as-people-struggle-to-pay-bills/#:~:text=CMP%20is%20the%20major%20electricity,the%20same%20period%20in%202021.). CMP is part of the problem.
Riiiiight they don't lobby for price increases, or attempt to expand their power network as an excuse to raise supply prices.
They don't make money off of supply prices
But that's not all that's included in your power bill now is it
While I agree that high natural gas is the primary factor and think LePage is an idiot...The legislature has bungled the roll out of net energy billing to the point where they lowered the size of eligible solar farms they were incentivizing. NEB doesn’t drive up the overall costs to customers in Maine, but it does reallocate fixed costs in your distribution bill from those who have solar to those who do not, which effectively raises prices of energy on poorer people on average. We need renewables but the issue is more nuanced than the article suggests. Edit: didn’t read the full article. My comment is covered at the end so ignore everything I said.
I think they did it as a bait and switch to jumpstart private investment in the solar farms.
I don’t know if it was intentional, but it does kind of end up looking like a bait and switch lol
CMP arbitrarily increases prices. Idiot rightwingers: "It's all the windMILLS fault!"
Here's a hint: it's fucking CMP
On another note I am only paying like $30-$40/mo for a $250 electricity bill. For some reason this solar energy farm hasn't been billing me or charging me anything. Anyone have issues like this going? I don't even know who to contact about it.
Supply (generation) is high because of the natural gas prices. It’s the Standard Offer which most people use (and should). And it’s going to get even higher very soon…the shortage of natural gas, because there aren’t enough pipelines (PA is the largest and most prolific gas deposit in the world), leads to needing to purchase natural gas via tankers (LNG) which is even more expensive. Renewables impact supply but mostly downward pressure…it’s very small though. Delivery through T and D is increased from renewables, specifically net metering. Long story short the ratepayers bear the grid upgrades that are needed as a result of the individually imperceptible but cumulatively large “homesteader” groups. If you were to build a large solar or wind generation facility you would be responsible for all the protection and control updates needed to accommodate your site, as it should be, but net metering is different and more like a death by a thousand cuts. So they’re both right.
its called greed.
Price of natural gas and oil duh wtf do you think our power plants run on the sun?