If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   ALEC's latest plan for America: Make the freeloaders who installed solar panels pay utility companies for generating their own power   (salon.com) divider line 102
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3611 clicks; posted to Business » on 05 Dec 2013 at 2:55 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



102 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-05 03:01:23 PM
Screw these guys.  I'd be okay with just installing some system that prevents extra power generated by the homeowners from getting back into the grid, but they certainly aren't freeloaders.
 
2013-12-05 03:01:41 PM
Robbing the system?  I thought they were helping contribute to the system?  If the energy company pays you, it means you provided and generated more electricity than used.... and the energy company had to make less.

wtf
 
2013-12-05 03:01:51 PM
metrouk2.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-12-05 03:01:54 PM
If the Republican Party stops standing for the empowerment of the individual, what does it stand for?

If?

This is the party that wants to tell me what I can and can't do in my bedroom, right? The one that's routinely in support of the idea of forcing people to engage in Christian rites at public gatherings? The one that supports allowing gas companies to effectively seize the property of anybody who doesn't sign on to "communal" drilling agreements and drill anyway?

If?
 
2013-12-05 03:01:55 PM
"As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.

Wait... wut?
 
2013-12-05 03:02:53 PM
As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system.

They're not getting a free ride, they're generating power for the system. They're not takers, they're givers.


They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using.

I wonder if ALEC gets pissed off by people who don't own cars walking on the sidewalks and streets. Freeloaders not paying for the service they're using!
 
2013-12-05 03:05:41 PM
Free Market Party of Personal Responsibility my ass.

If I can afford to set up some sort of power generation, then I should reap the benefits.
 
2013-12-05 03:06:12 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... wut?


They're still using the lines and distribution facilities, but they're not paying for them at the same rate as people without panels and whatnot.

They're not really wrong here. The fundamental problem is that if you have panels but you're still using the grid (like the vast majority of people with panels) then you still need exactly the same amount of infrastructure as your neighbor who doesn't have any panels, but you're not paying for as much of it. The trouble is that the system has to be there all the time, not just when the solar people are using it, because you never know when the solar people will need it. So they need the same wires and transformers and whatnot as anybody else, but since they're not paying as much, they're not really paying their share of the upkeep.

I want to shoot myself for saying it, because it came from ALEC, but it's a valid point.
 
2013-12-05 03:08:57 PM
They're just hastening the day when most people leave the grid entirely.  Electricity storage is improving by leaps and bounds, microgrids are the future.
 
2013-12-05 03:09:28 PM

skozlaw: They're not really wrong here. The fundamental problem is that if you have panels but you're still using the grid (like the vast majority of people with panels) then you still need exactly the same amount of infrastructure as your neighbor who doesn't have any panels, but you're not paying for as much of it.


Then maybe these jackasses should separate electricity bills into a "amount of power used" and "grid usage fee."
 
2013-12-05 03:10:17 PM

Mike Chewbacca: I wonder if ALEC gets pissed off by people who don't own cars walking on the sidewalks and streets. Freeloaders not paying for the service they're using!


That would be "off the grid". Their plan doesn't seem like it would apply to anybody in that situation, but very few people with solar power are actually "off the grid". They're just supplementing their electricity consumption, but they still rely on the regular power grid so it's only fair they still pay to support it.

It's a similar problem to gas taxes supporting roads and people who drive electric cars. They're still using the infrastructure, but they're not paying for it anymore purely through an accounting quirk.
 
2013-12-05 03:11:30 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: "As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.

Wait... wut?


The power company has to pay maintenance on the line going to your house and they are legally required to run the line to your house regardless of if you need it.  If you aren't using the line 90% of the time then you are way way under paying maintenance fee compared to everyone else

Either let them completely kick you off the grid (that's very bad) or let them charge you a connection maintenance fee
 
2013-12-05 03:11:43 PM
www.facepalm.su


Wait 'till these folks find out about Walmart's solar farms.  Their heads will asplode.
 
2013-12-05 03:12:02 PM

skozlaw: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... wut?

They're still using the lines and distribution facilities, but they're not paying for them at the same rate as people without panels and whatnot.

They're not really wrong here. The fundamental problem is that if you have panels but you're still using the grid (like the vast majority of people with panels) then you still need exactly the same amount of infrastructure as your neighbor who doesn't have any panels, but you're not paying for as much of it. The trouble is that the system has to be there all the time, not just when the solar people are using it, because you never know when the solar people will need it. So they need the same wires and transformers and whatnot as anybody else, but since they're not paying as much, they're not really paying their share of the upkeep.

I want to shoot myself for saying it, because it came from ALEC, but it's a valid point.


I can help you out here. The power companies also don't really "pay" for the grid. They do kick in some money but that is directly spelled out in the rates that are defined for them so it is a pass-through cost and not factored against their profit.
 
2013-12-05 03:12:54 PM

anwserman: Robbing the system? I thought they were helping contribute to the system? If the energy company pays you, it means you provided and generated more electricity than used.... and the energy company had to make less.

wtf


The way it's calculated, however, is retarded. The utility company has overhead for maintaining infrastructure and billings. There should be a basic cost for tying to the grid. The Utility company shouldn't be forced to buy your surplus power at retail rates. They have no incentive to do so. They should be paying about 70% of the current rate. And solar panels shouldn't be subsidized. Really, I'm not sure what all the poutrage is about.
 
2013-12-05 03:13:28 PM
Still waiting for those neighborhood nuke plants from Toshiba.
 
2013-12-05 03:13:32 PM

gnosis301: Then maybe these jackasses should separate electricity bills into a "amount of power used" and "grid usage fee."


The article doesn't give a hard explanation of their proposal, and it's just a salon piece (strike one) summarized from The Guardian (strike two) based on what appear to be nothing more than meeting minutes (strike three). Although I can't get the link from The Guardian to the supposed documents to actually open.

Please stop making me defend ALEC....
 
2013-12-05 03:13:38 PM

skozlaw: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... wut?

They're still using the lines and distribution facilities, but they're not paying for them at the same rate as people without panels and whatnot.

They're not really wrong here. The fundamental problem is that if you have panels but you're still using the grid (like the vast majority of people with panels) then you still need exactly the same amount of infrastructure as your neighbor who doesn't have any panels, but you're not paying for as much of it. The trouble is that the system has to be there all the time, not just when the solar people are using it, because you never know when the solar people will need it. So they need the same wires and transformers and whatnot as anybody else, but since they're not paying as much, they're not really paying their share of the upkeep.

I want to shoot myself for saying it, because it came from ALEC, but it's a valid point.


Which would be a valid point if any of the money utilities collect for maintenance of the grid actually went to, you know, maintenance and upkeep of the grid. Public Utilities aren't forced to show how they spend their revenues until something goes wrong, and even then, records conveniently go missing. The SOP for maintenance on utilities is 'keep the money for ourselves, spend to repair only when something breaks, and pray nothing disastrous goes wrong.'
 
2013-12-05 03:15:27 PM

skozlaw: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... wut?

They're still using the lines and distribution facilities, but they're not paying for them at the same rate as people without panels and whatnot.

They're not really wrong here. The fundamental problem is that if you have panels but you're still using the grid (like the vast majority of people with panels) then you still need exactly the same amount of infrastructure as your neighbor who doesn't have any panels, but you're not paying for as much of it. The trouble is that the system has to be there all the time, not just when the solar people are using it, because you never know when the solar people will need it. So they need the same wires and transformers and whatnot as anybody else, but since they're not paying as much, they're not really paying their share of the upkeep.

I want to shoot myself for saying it, because it came from ALEC, but it's a valid point.


They're providing their excess power - generated during the heaviest use time - to their local grid, lowering the peak load on the power plant, lowering the transmission power losses in the system, and now ALEC wants them to pay for the privilege of improving the local infrastructure.
 
2013-12-05 03:16:16 PM

skozlaw: They're still using the lines and distribution facilities, but they're not paying for them at the same rate as people without panels and whatnot.


Yeah, I get that, but even if you're using a watt of power from the utility company, you still need the infrastructure in place. Sure, there's a marginal cost for every kw/hr consumed, but, you know, that's economics.

Moreover, the utility companies actually BENEFIT on high demand days from power not being drawn from the grid. Less demand = fewer outages & brownouts.

/I guess if you didn't have to be plugged into the solar panels AND the grid, this wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-12-05 03:16:41 PM

skozlaw: Please stop making me defend ALEC....


You're the one responding to comments.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-05 03:17:03 PM

NewWorldDan: The way it's calculated, however, is retarded. The utility company has overhead for maintaining infrastructure and billings. There should be a basic cost for tying to the grid. The Utility company shouldn't be forced to buy your surplus power at retail rates. They have no incentive to do so. They should be paying about 70% of the current rate. And solar panels shouldn't be subsidized. Really, I'm not sure what all the poutrage is about.


Sure they should.  They are a publicly regulated monopoly and the point of subsidies is to help a new industry get off of the ground.

Once solar becomes established there can be a fee for that.  Besides, we subsidize oil, both directly and by spending lots in the middle east.
 
2013-12-05 03:17:20 PM

monoski: I can help you out here. The power companies also don't really "pay" for the grid. They do kick in some money but that is directly spelled out in the rates that are defined for them so it is a pass-through cost and not factored against their profit.


That's the fundamental problem... the solar people aren't paying those included fees when they're getting paid to send power back to a distribution system. They're using the grid, but not paying to support it.

I don't see how this is controversial. At least not without knowing the specific plan. They're still using the grid, why shouldn't they have to pay to support it like everyone else?

RoyFokker'sGhost: Which would be a valid point if any of the money utilities collect for maintenance of the grid actually went to, you know, maintenance and upkeep of the grid. Public Utilities aren't forced to show how they spend their revenues until something goes wrong, and even then, records conveniently go missing. The SOP for maintenance on utilities is 'keep the money for ourselves, spend to repair only when something breaks, and pray nothing disastrous goes wrong.'


That may be so, but, even if true, it's a different problem requiring a separate solution.
 
2013-12-05 03:18:22 PM

ShadowKamui: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: "As it stands now, those direct generation customers are essentially freeriders on the system. They are not paying for the infrastructure they are using. In effect, all the other non direct generation customers are being penalised," he said.

Wait... wut?

The power company has to pay maintenance on the line going to your house and they are legally required to run the line to your house regardless of if you need it.  If you aren't using the line 90% of the time then you are way way under paying maintenance fee compared to everyone else

Either let them completely kick you off the grid (that's very bad) or let them charge you a connection maintenance fee


Except customers with solar power are "selling" the their excess power to the utility at a rate lower than the utility sells it other customers. Every KWH a solar connected home generates in excess is putting money directly in the pockets of the utility.
 
2013-12-05 03:20:03 PM

gnosis301: Then maybe these jackasses should separate electricity bills into a "amount of power used" and "grid usage fee."


Which is exactly how my electric (and gas and water) bills have worked for the last 20 years.  The solar guy who nets out to consuming 1 kWh (paying .10c) would still be on the hook for the $15/month base fee.  Which, if they aren't paying for the basic provision infrastructure, what the hell are they doing?
 
2013-12-05 03:22:58 PM
And how DARE airplanes flout road taxes!  Make the freeloaders pay!
 
2013-12-05 03:27:11 PM
skozlaw: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... wut?
 
They're still using the lines and distribution facilities, but they're not paying for them at the same rate as people without panels and whatnot.

They're not really wrong here. The fundamental problem is that if you have panels but you're still using the grid (like the vast majority of people with panels) then you still need exactly the same amount of infrastructure as your neighbor who doesn't have any panels, but you're not paying for as much of it. The trouble is that the system has to be there all the time, not just when the solar people are using it, because you never know when the solar people will need it. So they need the same wires and transformers and whatnot as anybody else, but since they're not paying as much, they're not really paying their share of the upkeep.

I want to shoot myself for saying it, because it came from ALEC, but it's a valid point.



Base service charge ...................................................................... ...................... 9.26
Summer Residential Energy    590.00 KWH x $0.0466 per KWH27.49
Summer Residential Energy   135.00 KWH x $0.1071 per KWH                        14.46


Whether or not I'm paying for any electricity, I pay Seattle City Light base service charge. I expect that covers maintenance and the per KWH costs are to pay for electricity generation/acquisition.
 
2013-12-05 03:28:03 PM

skozlaw: monoski: I can help you out here. The power companies also don't really "pay" for the grid. They do kick in some money but that is directly spelled out in the rates that are defined for them so it is a pass-through cost and not factored against their profit.

That's the fundamental problem... the solar people aren't paying those included fees when they're getting paid to send power back to a distribution system. They're using the grid, but not paying to support it.

I don't see how this is controversial. At least not without knowing the specific plan. They're still using the grid, why shouldn't they have to pay to support it like everyone else?

RoyFokker'sGhost: Which would be a valid point if any of the money utilities collect for maintenance of the grid actually went to, you know, maintenance and upkeep of the grid. Public Utilities aren't forced to show how they spend their revenues until something goes wrong, and even then, records conveniently go missing. The SOP for maintenance on utilities is 'keep the money for ourselves, spend to repair only when something breaks, and pray nothing disastrous goes wrong.'

That may be so, but, even if true, it's a different problem requiring a separate solution.


I can see the rationale for charging people for the use of the grid. There are several ways to do it, but I don't know enough about this to know if any of them are actually in place.

If the company pays for power at a lower rate than they sell it, then that difference could be considered the "grid fee." Or they could estimate how much of your power bill is "overhead" and subtract that from the retail price of surplus power.

Forcing power companies to buy surplus power is a separate issue. I see it as a public good and if they are protected from competition, then they should have to buy the power for that privilege. If they take ANY money from taxpayers, again they should have to buy surplus power. Failing this, I suppose surplus producers could join together as a COOP to sell that power directly to consumers.
 
2013-12-05 03:28:22 PM

Lawnchair: gnosis301: Then maybe these jackasses should separate electricity bills into a "amount of power used" and "grid usage fee."

Which is exactly how my electric (and gas and water) bills have worked for the last 20 years.  The solar guy who nets out to consuming 1 kWh (paying .10c) would still be on the hook for the $15/month base fee.  Which, if they aren't paying for the basic provision infrastructure, what the hell are they doing?


It's not always broken down like that, that's solution
 
2013-12-05 03:29:38 PM

tricycleracer: And how DARE airplanes flout road taxes!  Make the freeloaders pay!


It would be more like bicyclists or (to a lesser extent) bus riders having to pay gas taxes to maintain the roads.
 
2013-12-05 03:31:01 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: local infrastructure


Infrastructure they're using. The key is that they are actually using it just like everyone else. Not only to send excess power back, but at any time where their draw is greater than the panels can provide.

It's not like they only need the lines 55% of the time so they should only pay for 55% of the upkeep and we'll only make those lines available 55% of the time for them. The nature of electricity distribution and consumption simply doesn't work like that. You string the lines and you put the equipment and it's there. It doesn't matter how often you're using it because you can't just cover it up and put it away when you aren't. The lines and equipment are there 24/7 and they have to be, so they're at constant risk for wear and damage no matter how many people are using panels.

Short of subsidies aimed at promoting panel adoption, they should have to pay upkeep fees at the same rate as everyone else if they aren't already.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Moreover, the utility companies actually BENEFIT on high demand days from power not being drawn from the grid. Less demand = fewer outages & brownouts.


Maybe, but can you put that in solid figures? Because if not, it's going to be sort of hard to sell to anyone.

Like I said above, they don't seem to have any specific plan to propose yet. Once they do, maybe it will be their typically outrageous horseshiat. But until then, I don't see how the notion itself is controversial. To the contrary, the notion that people should have to pay one way or another to support the infrastructure they use seems perfectly sensible.
 
2013-12-05 03:31:31 PM

skozlaw: .. the solar people aren't paying those included fees when they're getting paid to send power back to a distribution system. They're using the grid, but not paying to support it.



Your argument is that someone selling a product to the energy company should help pay for the delivery system? Why?
I'm pretty sure that the farmers that have gas and oil wells on their property aren't paying to support it either. Yes, they may have power bills of their own that they pay, but if they don't, they certainly aren't going to pay a fee  to the gas company to have them drill on their land.
 
2013-12-05 03:32:08 PM
And, not that I want to take the utilities side so much, but while it's fine when it's a 1% rounding error in your load factor, if consumer-generated-&-delivered power were more like 5-10% of the grid, it'd make load management (firing up peaking plants, etc) a royal biatch.
 
2013-12-05 03:32:31 PM
In a perfect world, ALEC would be in a place where the sun don't shine
 
2013-12-05 03:35:32 PM

Dinki: skozlaw: .. the solar people aren't paying those included fees when they're getting paid to send power back to a distribution system. They're using the grid, but not paying to support it.


Your argument is that someone selling a product to the energy company should help pay for the delivery system? Why?
I'm pretty sure that the farmers that have gas and oil wells on their property aren't paying to support it either. Yes, they may have power bills of their own that they pay, but if they don't, they certainly aren't going to pay a fee  to the gas company to have them drill on their land.


Because the energy company's built the power lines.  Either you chip in or they get to legally tell you to pound sand and laugh at you when you freeze to death on a cloudy day
 
2013-12-05 03:36:35 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: In a perfect world, ALEC would be in a place where the sun don't shine


Due to the ALEC pushed rollback in Sunshine Laws, that would actually be in the State Houses.
 
2013-12-05 03:43:46 PM

Dinki: I'm pretty sure that the farmers that have gas and oil wells on their property aren't paying to support it either


Not true at all. In fact, in Pennsylvania, a lot of people who signed leases are getting farked over by royalty deductions right now.

VarmintCong: Whether or not I'm paying for any electricity, I pay Seattle City Light base service charge. I expect that covers maintenance and the per KWH costs are to pay for electricity generation/acquisition.


Mine has something similar which seems to imply it covers the same sorts of things. Aside from that, though, I have no idea how they're collected so, without knowing any specifics, I have to continue to fall back to "nothing to see here.... yet".

People are getting their panties in a wad over something that hasn't actually been proposed yet. Which is understandable considering the source.... but still kind of pointless.
 
2013-12-05 03:45:52 PM
We should charge the homeless too. Why should they get the electricity they're not getting for free?
 
2013-12-05 03:46:27 PM
Do you have any idea how many Americans failed to buy buggy whips in the last year alone?

DO YOU?!?!?
 
2013-12-05 04:04:32 PM

ShadowKamui: Dinki: skozlaw: .. the solar people aren't paying those included fees when they're getting paid to send power back to a distribution system. They're using the grid, but not paying to support it.


Your argument is that someone selling a product to the energy company should help pay for the delivery system? Why?
I'm pretty sure that the farmers that have gas and oil wells on their property aren't paying to support it either. Yes, they may have power bills of their own that they pay, but if they don't, they certainly aren't going to pay a fee  to the gas company to have them drill on their land.

Because the energy company's built the power lines.  Either you chip in or they get to legally tell you to pound sand and laugh at you when you freeze to death on a cloudy day


Solar customers already chip in.  The decentralization of power generation means that there is less wear and tear on the lines and less cost of production for the power company.  Besides that, when they do use power from the grid, presumably the cost of maintenance is baked into the per kW/h cost.  Lastly, it's basically a bullshiat argument anyway.  The majority of maintenance is to long distance transmission lines, not to the last 10 feet from the transmission line to the individual customer's home.  In the end, though, this isn't about cost of maintenance (which is comparatively trivial) this is about a shrinking profit margin.

One of the power companies here in AZ was a test case for ALEC.  They tried to get the Corporation Commission to agree to a charge of $40+ per month to solar customers.  They put a ton of money into commercials that suggested solar users were taking advantage of standard customers.  There was a 2 month period where I couldn't watch a Youtube video without seeing an ad about how those dastardly solar customers were taking money out of my pocket.

In the end, the Corporation Commission agreed to a 7 cent per kWh charge which will work out to a few bucks per month, but now the camel's nose is in the tent.
 
2013-12-05 04:08:24 PM

anwserman: Robbing the system?  I thought they were helping contribute to the system?  If the energy company pays you, it means you provided and generated more electricity than used.... and the energy company had to make less.

wtf


I think the GOP decided that sunlight is socialist or something.
 
2013-12-05 04:14:56 PM
The GOP has never favored the free market, they favor monopolies, duopolies or triopolies, where all the players agree to carve up the consumer evenly.
 
2013-12-05 04:17:33 PM

skozlaw: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... wut?

They're still using the lines and distribution facilities, but they're not paying for them at the same rate as people without panels and whatnot.

They're not really wrong here. The fundamental problem is that if you have panels but you're still using the grid (like the vast majority of people with panels) then you still need exactly the same amount of infrastructure as your neighbor who doesn't have any panels, but you're not paying for as much of it. The trouble is that the system has to be there all the time, not just when the solar people are using it, because you never know when the solar people will need it. So they need the same wires and transformers and whatnot as anybody else, but since they're not paying as much, they're not really paying their share of the upkeep.

I want to shoot myself for saying it, because it came from ALEC, but it's a valid point.


But it's a stupid argument. You might as well get mad at the customer who always turns off all unused lights in the house and keeps his thermostat at 80 in the summer, because he's not using as much as his neighbor who runs a 10-node Bitcoin mining cluster 24/7.

Besides, I'm guessing most electric companies have some kind of minimum service charge, correct?
 
2013-12-05 04:18:18 PM
This proves the game is rigged. Saving money is only for the rich. The poor have to give up all their money
 
2013-12-05 04:21:38 PM

Stile4aly: ShadowKamui: Dinki: skozlaw: .. the solar people aren't paying those included fees when they're getting paid to send power back to a distribution system. They're using the grid, but not paying to support it.


Your argument is that someone selling a product to the energy company should help pay for the delivery system? Why?
I'm pretty sure that the farmers that have gas and oil wells on their property aren't paying to support it either. Yes, they may have power bills of their own that they pay, but if they don't, they certainly aren't going to pay a fee  to the gas company to have them drill on their land.

Because the energy company's built the power lines.  Either you chip in or they get to legally tell you to pound sand and laugh at you when you freeze to death on a cloudy day

Solar customers already chip in.  The decentralization of power generation means that there is less wear and tear on the lines and less cost of production for the power company.  Besides that, when they do use power from the grid, presumably the cost of maintenance is baked into the per kW/h cost.  Lastly, it's basically a bullshiat argument anyway.  The majority of maintenance is to long distance transmission lines, not to the last 10 feet from the transmission line to the individual customer's home.  In the end, though, this isn't about cost of maintenance (which is comparatively trivial) this is about a shrinking profit margin.

One of the power companies here in AZ was a test case for ALEC.  They tried to get the Corporation Commission to agree to a charge of $40+ per month to solar customers.  They put a ton of money into commercials that suggested solar users were taking advantage of standard customers.  There was a 2 month period where I couldn't watch a Youtube video without seeing an ad about how those dastardly solar customers were taking money out of my pocket.

In the end, the Corporation Commission agreed to a 7 cent per kWh charge which will work out to a few bucks per month, ...


No they don't, their maintenance fee is subsidized by everyone else if its not explicitly separated in the bill

It cost money for tree trimmers, replacing old transformers and fixing downed power-lines due wind, ice, etc...

You either split the bill into 2 parts for everyone w/ usage and connection or the power company can now legally come out and disconnect your house if they don't like you.  The law you're complaining about was simply option 2 (which is the dumb one), they would still "like" you if you paid them $40 bucks a month.
 
2013-12-05 04:22:48 PM

Weaver95: anwserman: Robbing the system?  I thought they were helping contribute to the system?  If the energy company pays you, it means you provided and generated more electricity than used.... and the energy company had to make less.

wtf

I think the GOP decided that sunlight is socialist or something.


They'll change their tune once some multinational corporation takes ownership of the Sun.
 
2013-12-05 04:25:06 PM

jayhawk88: Besides, I'm guessing most electric companies have some kind of minimum service charge, correct?


I don't know, that's what we were discussing farther up. If that's not uniformly true, it seems like it would be a sensible solution, though.
 
2013-12-05 04:25:51 PM

Warlordtrooper: Saving money is only for the rich. The poor have to give up all their money


"their" money?

You aren't wrong, at all, but your phrasing would hint that you still don't get the driving point.

In their world; if you're not a billionaire, none of that money is ever yours to begin with.
 
2013-12-05 04:27:28 PM
OMFG are these guys on something or do they suffer from naturally occurring  fatal stupidity.
 
2013-12-05 04:37:19 PM

gnosis301: skozlaw: Please stop making me defend ALEC....

You're the one responding to comments.


and apparently also claiming that reporting something in the Guardian somehow makes it less credible.
 
Displayed 50 of 102 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report