Page 13 of 79 FirstFirst ... 3910111213141516172363 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 325 of 1952
  1. #301
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,431
    May explain how it only took a little over an hour for ERCOT to go from a level 1 warning to level 3 on Monday morning.


  2. #302
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    I don't understand how this isn't price gouging in a disaster/emergency. Not only is this actionable, I think it's illegal.


    Vy65...Price gouging doesn't seem to be the case here. Griddy doesn't set the pricing. They only sell access to wholesale spot market pricing. The model works okay until es happen. Then customers take a breathing without the rate smoothing of contracted pricing.
    Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 02-17-2021 at 04:43 PM.

  3. #303
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Post Count
    51,854
    Next time I'll prepare better
    The idiot is standing in line outside of HEB on a freezing ing day 3 days after the storm hit because he has no food in the winter time. I don't think you have to do the math on that one.
    You gots ing each other to keep each other warm?

  4. #304
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    The problem is that emergency food is made with electricity. And/or stored in refrigerators that were out long enough to be made worthless. I got 7 days worth of packaged meat and canned goods thanks to covid but about $150 worth of trash in my refrigerator that i won't dare touch because getting sick with food poisoning right now would be a disaster. We expected to be snowed in we didnt expect to be Liberia
    He's scouring the city for dry pasta and canned goods. That's just bad planning.

  5. #305
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    Well, we have water. I just spent the morning in the freezing attic of one of my rentals replacing a burst hot water supply line. Got a wall leak in another one. Bleh.

  6. #306
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,162
    The idiot is standing in line outside of HEB on a freezing ing day 3 days after the storm hit because he has no food in the winter time. I don't think you have to do the math on that one.
    Why, you think it's any warmer inside their houses?

  7. #307
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    My garage refrigerator running very efficiently

  8. #308
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Post Count
    51,854
    tbh i can't believe my light hasn't gone out. My 70 year old aunt has been without power or water going on almost 3 days now.

  9. #309
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    I gave up and went to the dollar general down the street. Got in relatively quick there. No milk, eggs or anything cold since they lost power and they don't have backup generators like heb does. I did get a few bags of pasta, canned goods and soda. We're good through the weekend but I feel really bad for a whole lot of people just after talking to a few in line at heb that had next to nothing.
    DG was a godsend during shutdown times. In and out for basics+ beats anything else IMO.

    I've been stocked with all kinds of since last year's hoarding so I'm just staying in and monitoring the house and staying in touch with neighbors until probably Friday.

  10. #310
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,598
    You gots ing each other to keep each other warm?

  11. #311
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,162
    The problem is that emergency food is made with electricity. And/or stored in refrigerators that were out long enough to be made worthless. I got 7 days worth of packaged meat and canned goods thanks to covid but about $150 worth of trash in my refrigerator that i won't dare touch because getting sick with food poisoning right now would be a disaster. We expected to be snowed in we didnt expect to be Liberia
    I dunno though, Liberia should have been the expectation after seeing how the GOP handled COVID.

  12. #312
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,162
    tbh i can't believe my light hasn't gone out. My 70 year old aunt has been without power or water going on almost 3 days now.
    Bend over, I'll turn your light out.

  13. #313
    Veteran RD2191's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Post Count
    51,854
    Bend over, I'll turn your light out.

  14. #314
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    I don't understand how this isn't price gouging in a disaster/emergency. Not only is this actionable, I think it's illegal.


    Vy65...Price gouging doesn't seem to be the case here. Griddy doesn't set the pricing. They only sell access to wholesale spot market pricing. The model works okay until es happen. Then customers take a breathing without the rate smoothing of contracted pricing.
    Regardless of who sets the price (I readily admit to not knowing the interplay between electric companies, the Texas PUC, and ERCOT), the point here is that a 10,000% e in price when there is a surge in demand is, functionally, price gouging. We have a series of laws to prevent a seller--which is what ERCOT, the PUC, and electric companies together are--from ing prices due to es in demand. I don't see, in what you've said, a distinction in this situation.

  15. #315
    faggy opinion + certainty Mark Celibate's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    4,364
    Damn, never lost power/water for a second this whole time. Yet others in my zip code have been without both for days...I guess living next to a private airport bailed me out. Gotta keep the lights on so that Soros can fly in and out to Bohemian Grove at a moment's notice tbh

  16. #316
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    Regardless of who sets the price (I readily admit to not knowing the interplay between electric companies, the Texas PUC, and ERCOT), the point here is that a 10,000% e in price when there is a surge in demand is, functionally, price gouging. We have a series of laws to prevent a seller--which is what ERCOT, the PUC, and electric companies together are--from ing prices due to es in demand. I don't see, in what you've said, a distinction in this situation.
    I guess the differencial to me is a supply/market reaction vs a deliberate, targeted price increase specifically preying upon a mishap/disaster. That being said, Im not exactly up to speed on wholesale pricing schemes.

  17. #317
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    Just boil for 1 minute to kill bacteria. Then let cool. I also have filters for my water afterwards.
    Or put Clorox in it

  18. #318
    adolis is altuve’s father monosylab1k's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    15,817
    I'm out of half & half for my coffee and have to use vanilla ice cream now. Somebody needs to pay for this disaster.
    One day ComfortablySmug will notice you, I promise.

  19. #319
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,431
    Is this a violation of the interstate commerce clause, or no?


  20. #320
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    One day ComfortablySmug will notice you, I promise.
    I'll have a few days worth of food & water on hand when it does.

  21. #321
    Veteran vy65's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Post Count
    8,002
    Is this a violation of the interstate commerce clause, or no?

    Seems like a likely dormant commerce clause/possible federal preemption issue (see below). There may be an interesting interplay with state police power in an emergency. And as a practical matter, it's hard to see anyone doing anything about this while we're all freezing our collective balls off.

    The Dormant Commerce Clause involves not federal power to act but the restrictions on state power that are inherent in the Commerce Clause. There is no actual “Dormant Commerce Clause” found in the Cons ution. Rather, the restrictions on state action have been inferred by the Supreme Court from the Commerce Clause.

    You will recall that in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824), the issue involved a state-granted monopoly that conflicted with a federal licensing law for the operation of steamboats. Ogden’s New York monopoly, according to the Court would render the federal law impotent in New York, and therefore the Supremacy Clause required the Court to enforce the federal law.

    EXAMPLE: In order to encourage a free market, federal law requires all trucking companies to charge a single per-pound weight for all non-hazardous freight, regardless of the nature of the freight carried. The state of Verhampshire, in an effort to bolster its dairy economy, establishes a lower state-enforced price for the transport of locally produced dairy products. The Verhampshire law is preempted by the federal legislation, and will likely be struck down.

    When enacting legislation, Congress has the ability to expressly preempt any competing state laws. Even absent such a statement of exclusivity, if a state law conflicts with federal law or impedes the achievement of a federal objective, such as in the trucking example above, or if Congress evidences a clear intent to preempt state law, the theory of implied preemption applies and the federal law will rule rather than the state law.

    There is also the concept of field preemption. Field preemption stands for the proposition that Congress has so heavily regulated an area of law such that it is implicit that Congress has chosen to preempt state law on the subject matter.

    Preemption applies, however, only when there is a federal law that is on point. When there is no existing federal law, the Dormant Commerce Clause applies to tell us what states may or may not do.

    The “Dormant” Commerce Clause ultimately means that because Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce nor can they unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation regulating the activity.

    Any state law which affects interstate commerce:

    Must not discriminate against out-of-state actors or out-of-state compe ion, or have the effect of favoring in-state economic actors.

    If the law is discriminatory, then the state must show it has no other (reasonable) means of advancing a legitimate local (important, non-economic state interest, such as health of safety) purpose.
    Must not be unduly burdensome.

    If the law only incidentally burdens interstate commerce, or if the law is nondiscriminatory, the court will balance whether the benefits of the state’s interest are outweighed by the burden on state commerce, by looking to the following: Are there less restrictive alternatives? Are there any conflicts with other states’ regulations?

    In determining whether the burden is outweighed by the benefits, a court must examine whether the state objective could be achieved by a means less restrictive on interstate commerce. Furthermore, it is important to note that promoting the economic interest of its own citizens at the expense of out-of-state citizens is not a legitimate state objective.

    EXAMPLE: The Oregon state highway system is falling into disrepair despite constant road maintenance efforts. An exhaustive study of road usage determines that the excessive road wear is largely due to large trucks which pass through the state from an origination point in one state to a destination in another state. The state considered establishing a toll system, but could not find a way to do so without also tolling its own citizens. The state legislature therefore decides to pass a law banning any commercial vehicles from passing through the state by using state highways unless cargo is to be delivered or picked up within the state.

    What effect would the Commerce Clause have on the proposed Oregon statute? (The Commerce Clause applies, and not preemption, because there is no federal law here.) First we must ask whether the maintenance of state roads is a legitimate state end, which we can surely answer in the affirmative. Then we ask whether the law prohibiting through-traffic is rationally related to that end, and the “exhaustive study” reassures us there. This satisfies the first portion of the two-part test. More problematic is part 2: Is the burden on interstate commerce outweighed by the state’s interest? The burden seems quite heavy here, so the benefits would have to be extraordinary in order to win out. Part of this balancing involves asking whether there is no less restrictive means to achieve the goal. (Perhaps by placing weight limits on trucks or restricting them to certain lanes?) Finally, is this merely a way of hiding a form of discrimination against out-of-staters, as most in-state truckers will have either pick-ups or deliveries inside the state? If it is discriminatory against interstate commerce, simply passing the two-part test will not be enough to save the law (this is discussed in more detail below).

    In Lopez, Kennedy pointed out that

    “One element of our dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence has been the principle that the States may not impose regulations that place an undue burden on interstate commerce, even where those regulations do not discriminate between in-state and out-of-state businesses” -Lopez at 579.
    In the hypothetical Oregon example above, there may be hidden discrimination, but even absent such discrimination the statute may be unduly burdensome on interstate commerce. Consider another example:

    The Colorado state legislature in an effort to appease the increasingly environmentally-concerned citizens of its state passes a law requiring that all commercial trucks traveling on public roads in Colorado run on electricity rather than diesel fuel or gasoline. An Arizona trucking company violates the statute and is fined $10,000. The company could bring the case to federal court claiming the Colorado statute violates the Dormant Commerce Clause because the activity regulated by the state of Colorado has some commercial connection with another state (Arizona), and the burden on interstate commerce is severe.

    The Colorado statute certainly does not discriminate against out-of-state truckers, but the Commerce Clause still prohibits the state interference with interstate commerce. The state’s environmental goal is certainly a valid state concern, and the regulation is obviously related to that end. The difficult part of the analysis involves balancing the benefits to the state as compared to the burden on interstate commerce. There may be no less restrictive means of meeting the state’s environmental goals, as even restricting the number of miles driven by diesel-fueled vehicles would not have the same environmentally friendly result as eliminating all such vehicles. Still, checking for less-restrictive means of accomplishing the state goal is only part of the burden-balancing analysis. The Supreme Court has held that “Where the statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc, 397 U.S. 137, 143 (1970), citing Huron Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U.S. 440, 443 (1960).


    EXAMPLE: Bubba-Gump Shrimp is in the shrimp business. The company catches shrimp in Louisiana and ships what they catch to a canning facility in Biloxi, Mississippi, home to about 25% of the U.S. shrimp canning industry. Louisiana state law prohibits exporting shrimp from the state unless the heads and s s have been removed. Louisiana law also prohibits shipping such uns ed shrimp to any point in Louisiana. The unstated, but apparent, purpose of the law “is to favor the canning of the meat and the manufacture of [shrimp products] in Louisiana.” Foster-Fountain Packing Co. v. Haydel, 278 U.S. 1, 13 (1928). Although the local interest here is entirely legitimate, the Court will not uphold a state law which forces a company to conduct certain business operations within the state when those operations can be more efficiently carried out elsewhere.

    So state laws that burden interstate commerce are permissible if they pass the two-part test. There are three exceptions which, when applicable, will permit a court to find a state law is cons utional despite being discriminatory against interstate commerce.

    First, if the state law is necessary to achieve an important state goal, the law might not run afoul of the negative implications of the Commerce Clause. In order to be necessary, there must be no other means of achieving the goal. So while a non-discriminatory law only needs to be rationally related to a legitimate state goal, a law which discriminates against interstate commerce must be necessary to achieve an important state goal in order to be upheld.

    Second, if Congress authorized the states to pass legislation in a certain area despite the effect on interstate commerce, so long as the law does not violate other cons utional provisions, it will be upheld.

    Finally, the “Market Participant” exception allows states to discriminate against out-of-staters insofar as the state itself is acting as a market participant. For example, when a state is engaging in the buying or selling of goods it may choose to buy from local companies at a higher price than it would pay outside the state, or sell to local companies at a lower price than it would otherwise receive. But in the absence of one of these three exceptions, laws discriminating against out-of-staters will be struck down as violating the Commerce Clause.

    EXAMPLE (1): Massahampshire refuses to give Sticky Syrup Co, a company based in a neighboring state, a license to open a new maple syrup farm in Massahampshire. Sticky Syrup already operates 7 such farms in the state. Massahampshire’s refusal to issue the license is based on the fear that Sticky Syrup will divert even more of sweet local commodity out-of-state and take away business from small, local farmers. The refusal to issue the license would likely be ruled a Commerce Clause violation, because Massahampshire’s only interest is an economic one, which is insufficient to warrant discrimination against other states. See H.P. Hood & Sons v. DuMond, 336 U.S. 525 (1949).

    EXAMPLE (2): There’s a new Mayor in town and his name is Reggie Hammond. He aims to clean up New York, starting with the many thousands of abandoned home appliances filling empty lots and cluttering curbs. In order to achieve this goal, the city offers to purchase used appliances for a certain price-per-pound. The price offered is substantially above the average market price paid per-pound. The only catch is that the offer is available only to New York residents and New York companies for 48 hours. Because New York would be acting as a market participant, there is no Commerce Clause violation here. See Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp, 426 U.S. 794 (1976).

  22. #322
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319
    Is this a violation of the interstate commerce clause, or no?

    I think it's only thru next monday.

  23. #323
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Just one more day of this crap.

  24. #324
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,431
    I think it's only thru next monday.
    Probably not enough time to get it in front of a judge.

  25. #325
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,431
    Seems like a likely dormant commerce clause/possible federal preemption issue (see below). There may be an interesting interplay with state police power in an emergency. And as a practical matter, it's hard to see anyone doing anything about this while we're all freezing our collective balls off.
    Thanks for your detailed reply.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •