The Reticulator

First time I heard about the yellow pages test was in this post over at SCSU scholars. (And btw, the existence of that SCSU web site is making me prouder that I got a degree from that University, even though it had nothing to do with the departments that these guys come from. I even found myself looking for an excuse to mention SCSU the other day — as the place where I got my first computer job when I was in grad school.)

The yellow pages test reminds me of Coldwater, Michigan.

This photo was taken on my last bike ride to Coldwater, two years ago. I really shouldn’t have let two years elapse, because it’s a favorite riding destination. There is a shop on main street where I can get a decent sandwich while keeping an eye on my bike, and there are lots of good Black Hawk era history places in and around the town. Main street (shown here) was part of Black Hawk’s route back in the 1820s before it became the Chicago Road.

One thing I haven’t understood, though, is why the city fathers decided to go into the ISP business. Why did they want to provide residential wireless service as a city utility?

You’d think they’d have wanted to put their energy into making Coldwater a good place for private ISPs to provide wireless, cable, whatever. Private ISPs would have property, employees, and revenue that could then be TAXED and provide revenue for the city! Given the way Michigan governments like taxes, you’d think this would have been all the incentive they would have needed. But no, they had to go and cut into their own tax base by providing internet as a public utility.

Maybe it’s something in the (cold)water that made them act that way. I will continue to enjoy the sandwiches, but maybe I will bring my own water next times I ride there.

Remember those people who kept criticizing Bush for his unilateralism, for going it alone when the rest of the world was going Kyoto, for going to war alone without making sure everyone loved us, first?   You can google “Bush unilateralism” to get your fill of examples.

Now we have a case where Bush didn’t go it alone, where he tried to cooperate with other countries:  (WSJ, Sep 13, “Mexican Roadblock”)  Clinton was the unilateralist on this one.

Under the 1993 Nafta accord, Mexican trucking companies should have been delivering their loads to U.S. destinations for more than a decade by now. But since the Clinton Administration banned Mexican trucks in 1995, they have had to offload their cargo at the border and transfer it to Teamster trucks, raising costs for U.S. consumers.

In 2001 a Nafta arbitration panel ruled the U.S. ban on Mexican trucks violated the treaty and granted Mexico the right to retaliate. The Bush Administration crafted the pilot program to open the market and at the same time address safety concerns. The program would allow limited cross-border trucking in both directions, with inspections required. The Teamsters sued, but even the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied their request for a stay. So the Teamsters turned to Congress, which is now obliging under the whip of North Dakota protectionist Byron Dorgan.

Now it’s the Bush-haters in Congress who want the U.S. to go unilateralist.

And next time the question is asked, “Why do they hate us?” we know where to look for an answer.

A WSJ article about the utility industry, one of a set of article in the Monday February 12 issue:
The Bottom Line

In the power business, the more electricity you sell, the more money you make.

Now state officials and electric utilities — backed by environmental groups — have begun to change that equation. Faced with growing demand for electricity and the environmental consequences of generating it, states and utilities are considering new regulatory regimes that remove the incentive for selling more power — and give utilities a financial stake in saving energy.

The ultimate goal is to eliminate the need for new power plants.

And just how would this be done? Count on the governing class to do anything, just anything, to avoid the use of market pricing mechanisms.

States are considering two major regulatory remedies. The first is “decoupling,” in which utilities receive a predetermined profit each year — thereby separating their earnings from the volume of electricity they deliver.

Here’s how it works. A utility and state regulators hammer out how much profit the company will be allowed to earn. At the end of the year, if the utility’s actual profit is lower than that amount, the company charges customers to make up the difference. If the actual profit is higher, customers get a rebate.

I like that phrase, “utility and state regulators hammer out.” In other words, they get together for some corrupt dealing and influence peddling. Well, that sort of corruption is the fuel that powers the modern state.

But under current rules in most states, utilities can’t earn a return on their efficiency spending — they can only recover the cost. A proposal being considered in California, Texas and several other states would change that.

Under such a system, “the people running the energy-efficiency departments in these utilities will become on a par with those running the transmission and distribution departments,” predicts Mr. Gallagher. “There will be more of a corporate focus on energy efficiency.”

In other words, there will be more emphasis on utilities figuring out how to make regulators happy than on energy production, or profit, or even energy efficiency.