🚀 go-pugleaf

> The rules changed because it made sense to change them.  If you want to
take
> competition out of the equation then socialize the entire utility
> marketplace. If we agree that competition is good then we have
deregulation.
> What you are proposing here is socialism for the rich, tax or ratepayer
> bailouts of nuclear stockholders.  They made bad investments, they  get
> burned.  If I put up a windplant and underestimate the costs by a factor
of
> ten it will be me that pays the piper not the public.

I understand the concept behind deregulation, and whether it makes sense is
debatable.  I'm not convinced that the individual homeowner is going to make
out, but they may.  I agree that the wholesale customers are going to get
very good deals on energy, and that MAY "trickle down" to the consumer.  (Oh
I LOVE the Reagan legacy).........

> Takingh Maine Yankee as an example, it was not just the pressures of
> deregulated utility markets that forced an early shutdown and the
resulting
> decommissionig fund shortfalls.  There was a history of mismanagement that
> led to calls for it's shutdown.  The ratepayers endded up with higher
> utility bills for a power plant that no longer operates.
>
> Blaming stranded costs on deregulation is like blaming a cancer on the
> doctor who finds it.

In cases of bad management I can agree with you. Zion plant in Illinois is
another case in point. They chose to shut that plant down to bail out of a
bad labor situation.  HOWEVER.  Building a nuclear power plant was not
necessarily "a bad decision" that the stockholders should be held
accountable for just because the politicians find it convenient to change
their minds.  I happen to believe that once you make a decision, you should
shoulder the responsibility for that decision, whether you be an individual,
a corporation, a stockholder, OR the government.  Or the democratic public.

Dewey
Never argue with an idiot.  They bring you down to their level, then they
beat you with experience.    Anon.