I don't know when we will realize that big money and an imposing federal government both are evil. Money and power should ideally be distributed, not vastly concentrated. The Gini index and similar indexes come to mind. The purpose of a federal government should be to grant rights, not restrictions.
If the federal government is about granting rights, does that imply the default state is “no rights”? That seems objectively worse.
In the US, at least, that's exactly backwards.
The purpose of the Constitution was to specifically limit the rights the people gave to it's government and those who govern.
The 9th and 10th amendments were added to make that abundantly clear.
Unfortunately, the articles gave plenty of ambiguity to exploit.
Quote: "That analysis, commissioned by Puget Sound Energy, Tacoma Power, Avista, Seattle City Light, and others, argues that Washington could get hit with an electricity crisis."
The above is if they have an extended downtime. So, the only argument can be that as the power companies shut down, it might create an emergency in Washington, or a crisis if power is needed and it's not there.
Edit, added: It seems the above power companies are in Washington and concluded themselves that it might be dangerous and create an energy crisis?
jmclnx•1mo ago
The Supreme Court ruled the federal gov. cannot override states taxes, so adding the very large tax will force the owners to do something.
vincekerrazzi•1mo ago
jasinjames•1mo ago
[0]https://mru.org/courses/principles-economics-microeconomics/...
toomuchtodo•1mo ago
Be prepared to switch gears and approach an adversary at their level. Legality when the law matters, direct action when the law doesn’t matter.
brianwawok•1mo ago
toomuchtodo•1mo ago
These generators are not needed as described by their owners and the grid operators of the grids they operate on, and are costing rate payers hundreds of millions of dollars to keep running collectively. Who is the victim by forcing them offline?