2009.07.02
Raising rates
Some area lawmakers spoke out against Applachian Power's request for a rate increase saying it could devastate the elderly and jobless. Unfortunately, the rate increase is just a matter of the math as the electric generators is permitted to be reimbursed for the price it pays for coal to run the plants.
In an editorial, scheduled to run Monday, we will suggest lawmakers do more to help their constituents than make impassioned pleas. They could do more to encourage renewable energy generation, and they could add money to a fund to help lower-income residents pay the heating bill.
RSS feed 
Or, they could not ad more burden to those poor folks and not add more taxes, fees or any of the silly cap and trade...
Comment by Danny — July 2, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Amen Danny,
Just wait if the cap and trade passes the Senate and the low income
or elderly try to sell thier house and they can not because of all
the enviromental extras that must be put in before selling.
They wont be able to sell.
Big Govt at its best.
Thank the Democrates for this.
I on the other hand can do this if needed.
Comment by HERB KREBS — July 2, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
I just wonder how many eye-sore type homes are going to be out there if that passes. If my parents passed away (and let's hope they don't), what would I be able to do with their 100+ year old home? There's no way I could afford to do the work so that it could be sold. So, it'd just sit there rotting...
Comment by Danny — July 2, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Before we get too upset about this horrendously unfair and impractical requirement, has anyone but C or Herb seen this provision or any reporting on it? Because I haven't.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 2, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Dan, neither have I. I tried digging through the largess of the 1400 page bill, and could not find it (even with reading most of the residential building portion and doing about a dozen different keyword searches). The only place I found any mention was on Fox Nation (take that for what it's worth), and they didn't cite where it came from.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Dig a little deeper, Dan. I've asked for a little nudge in the right direction on here before and was told to do my own research... Good luck with that!
Comment by Danny — July 2, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
Congress, who voted yes to cap and trade, hasn't seen it either...since no one read the bill before it was voted on!
Comment by Patrick — July 2, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454eh.txt.pdf
Page 617: "...shall establish a commission to develop and recommend model mortgage products and underwriting guidelines that provide market based incentives to prospective home buyers, lenders and sellers to incorporate energy efficient upgrades and location efficiencies in new mortgage loan transactions."
That is all I could find that mentions selling a home.
There are 61 uses of "retrofit" which talks about how to get money for doing it and how it is to be valued and measured for efficiency so maybe that is where the confusion lies.
the pdf is at least searchable... happy hunting!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 2, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Here you go Dan,
Qustion answered
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090629202937AAkAoYt
Comment by HERB KREBS — July 2, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
"Congress, who voted yes to cap and trade, hasn't seen it either...since no one read the bill before it was voted on!"
Comment by Patrick — July 2, 2009 @ 3:48 pm
yep, par for the obama course
Comment by pammala — July 2, 2009 @ 4:00 pm
@ Dan #4
"Before we get too upset about this horrendously unfair and impractical requirement, has anyone but C or Herb seen this provision or any reporting on it? Because I haven't."
Let's hope (but not bet) that at least 435 people have seen it.
Comment by Mike W. — July 2, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
Sorry, Herb, but to me that looks like more uninformed ranting with no citation of what language in the bill actually contains that provision. Keep trying.
If you are going to make such an assertion, Danny, the burden of proof is on you.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — July 2, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
I checked that link Herb...not sure that's actually an answer. More like a rant.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Type in home selling under cap and trade
in yahoo and you will find about 1.1 million answers
all leading to the same conclusion.
YOU wont sell your home unless you have massive upgrades.
Comment by HERB KREBS — July 2, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Here is a more honest version and even the original conservative article was not that hysterically wrong!
http://mediamatters.org/research/200907010022
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 2, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Sorry ment Google.
Comment by HERB KREBS — July 2, 2009 @ 4:09 pm
Lets just hope this isnt in the bill.
If it is, then all you poor and low income are screwed
as for me I will be fine.
I guess you get what you vote for.
Comment by HERB KREBS — July 2, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
So, thus far, this entire "issue" is made up.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
We just built our house with energy efficient everything, so we'd be fine if this is the case...but I hope it's not.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
Guess I can't sell my house. I voted for it, so I can't whine.
There is a whole post and I never mentioned it even once.
Comment by allen bunch — July 2, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
Somehow, I think if such a policy as you guys claim were as disastrous as you are making it, there would have immediately been MASSIVE non-partisan protests, particularly funded by the real estate lobby.
So far, I have only heard about this Cap & Trade complaints from the Limbaughists out there, leading me to believe this is just right wing rhetoric, and propaganda against those that do not politically agree with the Limbaughists (Limbaughites?)
Try again.
Comment by scott — July 3, 2009 @ 4:40 am
Looks to me like states/localities can set their own standards but must at least MEET a national standard...looking at pages 220-222 when localities are OUT of compliance, the feds can conduct inspections, collect fees and penalize builders/sellers of out of compliance homes.
It could be the real estate lobby is raising this issue so the senate can clear it up with thie version.
Comment by BUD — July 3, 2009 @ 8:30 am
Here you go Dan. Now I know it will be tempting for the Obama fans to dismiss this interview outright because it was a Fox interview, but bear in mind, Bill Burton is the Deputy White House Press Secretary and has served as Obama's hired gun on many occasion's. We see Bill Burton whenever Obama wants to attack, be it against Fox, McCain's lack of computer use during the campaign, or to defend BO's anti-gun voting history. Clearly Burton is who they send out to defend initiatives when they are expecting a fight.
Now it would seem reasonable to think the White House Deputy Press Secretary would be informed on the issue. If you will note, at the 6:25 mark of the interview, Williams asked Burton specifically about the provision requiring home retrofit prior to sale. If this was simply "uninformed ranting" as you so blindly assert, why did Burton not inform everyone that this was not true. Instead he defended the President's reasons for promoting the requirement.
Why isn't anyone else reporting on it? Do you really have to ask?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58fCsW4D3Uc
Comment by C Ramsey — July 4, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
BUD, please provide a link to the Bill, because pages 220-222 are about light bulbs and lighting standards in my version.
C. Ramsey, I know a spokesperson and an interviewer is an irrefutable source, but some of us would still like to see the language IN THE BILL that is feeding this frenzy and I have yet to find it. Please provide an actual link or source for the complaint.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 4, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
I'm sorry Sandi. Dan asked to see someone reporting on the issue. I provided a link. If you want more, you will have to do your own research.
I do find your sarcasm interesting though. Are you saying we shouldn't trust the White House Press Secretary and his Deputies? I thought they were the voice of the administration tasked with delivering the President's message. Are you implying they are unreliable, or just incompetent?
Comment by C Ramsey — July 4, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
ha ha loaded question there c ramsey, my guess is both..especially, incompetentcy running amok
Comment by pammala — July 5, 2009 @ 9:51 am