Re: [pf] Risks, imposed or chosen

by Vicki Madden

18 December 2000 02:01 UTC

At 4:01 PM -0800 12/17/2000, Jill Taylor Bussiere wrote:
>David,
>    I think that would be wonderful to know the soecufuc effects of the
>energy we use.  My sister is able, because of deregulation, to choose from
>whom she buys power.  There are other problems with deregulation, I know,
>but she is happy that she is able to choose.
>
>                    Jill
>
>> By this argument, then, shouldn't your power bill come with a note
>> saying, "On your behalf, based on your consumption of X kilowatt-hours
>> this month, Midwest Power produced Y pounds of greenhouse gases, Z
>> pounds of atmospheric particulates, (etc). These by-products have been
>> shown to cause respiratory problems in people living to your east that
>> will statistically cause 0.12 additional pulmonary deaths/year, and
>> contribute to an overall long-term warming of the earth, will accelerate
>> the rise in sea levels, (etc)." Should you be "given" the option of
>> buying your power from a solar-energy power producer instead? Nuclear,
>> if you so choose?
>>
>> David



I would like to know all of the above about all my purchasing choices, in
other words, to know the true cost.

But on the deregulation issue, we have just been through the process of
deregulating electricity in NYC. Money savings are extremely negligable; I
blinked and I missed them. But...the bigger issue is that there is now no
incentive to decrease energy usage. When Con Ed was the only supplier, they
had a mandate from the city to decrease usage in order to avoid brownouts
and blackouts. Now, there is no one supplier that can be told to do so, and
the whole POINT of competition between suppliers is to supply MORE rather
than LESS. Now they all want to build more power plants. It has totally
backfired on us.

Vicki