Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Virginia Power Misstatement
Today I got my electric bill. Nothing too unusual, but it came with a newsletter called the "Customer Connection". The first story is entitled "Reliability". It says "we work hard to maintain and improve reliability". Then it goes on to say that its efforts have paid off, saying that a typical Dominion Virginia Power customer had power more than 99.9 percent of the time.
Let's see about that this past year. A storm marched forth with a sharp squall line on March 4 last year and cut the power for 8 hours. On May 12, on a windy day, a tree fell on a nearby power line, causing a 12-hour power outage. In mid-July, a severe storm with hail knocked power off for about an hour. On August 17, a hard-to-discern power outage occurred for 1/2 hour. And later that month, a car hit a utility pole that was well within the property, causing a 4 hour power outage. The total is 25.5 hours. The year had 8784 (not 8760 because it was a leap year) hours, so the power was on (8784-25.5)/8784 = 99.7% of the time. That is not over 99.9%. Where did you get your data from, Dominion? Did you single out my home somehow?
Further, even 99.9% is unacceptable. It should be 99.99%. Hours of down time for whatever reason is always unacceptable. I do not consider their power reliable unless they are up 99.99% of the time, with at most 52 minutes of power outage time per year. To me the main problem is all these aerial cables that are subject to tree strikes. I now fear any time the wind goes over 25 mph.
It's OK to set their standards, but Virginia Power should refrain from statements like "power was up over 99.9% of the time".
Let's see about that this past year. A storm marched forth with a sharp squall line on March 4 last year and cut the power for 8 hours. On May 12, on a windy day, a tree fell on a nearby power line, causing a 12-hour power outage. In mid-July, a severe storm with hail knocked power off for about an hour. On August 17, a hard-to-discern power outage occurred for 1/2 hour. And later that month, a car hit a utility pole that was well within the property, causing a 4 hour power outage. The total is 25.5 hours. The year had 8784 (not 8760 because it was a leap year) hours, so the power was on (8784-25.5)/8784 = 99.7% of the time. That is not over 99.9%. Where did you get your data from, Dominion? Did you single out my home somehow?
Further, even 99.9% is unacceptable. It should be 99.99%. Hours of down time for whatever reason is always unacceptable. I do not consider their power reliable unless they are up 99.99% of the time, with at most 52 minutes of power outage time per year. To me the main problem is all these aerial cables that are subject to tree strikes. I now fear any time the wind goes over 25 mph.
It's OK to set their standards, but Virginia Power should refrain from statements like "power was up over 99.9% of the time".
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Appointmentosis?
Has Barack Obama come down with a case of appointmentosis? So many of his appointments have things wrong with them, including taking payments and not paying taxes, that one wonders what's wrong with him. The answer is nothing.
Look, people. We have a CRISIS! Financial institutions are hurting because they have to write off so many bad mortgages. The stock markets plummet. Layoff after layoff occurs in the corporate world, and companies, such as Circuit City, fail. Further, there is peak oil on the horizon which threatens to make things a lot worse. And we are saying something is wrong because some of his appointments haven't turned out right. OK, there are some scoundrels out there like the guy who Madoff with our money. But are we going to get hung up on appointments because these people did not pay all their taxes? Where's the attitude of Yes We Can? We can't if we get hornswoggled around the propriety of an appointment where the appointee did not pay a mere $900 in taxes. Most of us lost far more in the markets. Besides, these taxes are hornswoggling us. The IRS calls on us to make estimated payments or else pay penalty fees. But how can we do that when we can't predict how much income we have? Depending on whether the economy improves or degrades, there could be a huge difference in income and hence taxes. Further, some of the most determining aspects of our taxes such as forms K-1 are the ones for which we get the information so late that we may have to file for an extension. I don't want any extension if I am due a refund!
We need to get over this appointmentosis and select and ratify some talented people, so we can get going with solving these Fourth Turning crises. Just do it. Appoint these people. They are paying back their taxes. We got work ahead of us. Let's get going.
Look, people. We have a CRISIS! Financial institutions are hurting because they have to write off so many bad mortgages. The stock markets plummet. Layoff after layoff occurs in the corporate world, and companies, such as Circuit City, fail. Further, there is peak oil on the horizon which threatens to make things a lot worse. And we are saying something is wrong because some of his appointments haven't turned out right. OK, there are some scoundrels out there like the guy who Madoff with our money. But are we going to get hung up on appointments because these people did not pay all their taxes? Where's the attitude of Yes We Can? We can't if we get hornswoggled around the propriety of an appointment where the appointee did not pay a mere $900 in taxes. Most of us lost far more in the markets. Besides, these taxes are hornswoggling us. The IRS calls on us to make estimated payments or else pay penalty fees. But how can we do that when we can't predict how much income we have? Depending on whether the economy improves or degrades, there could be a huge difference in income and hence taxes. Further, some of the most determining aspects of our taxes such as forms K-1 are the ones for which we get the information so late that we may have to file for an extension. I don't want any extension if I am due a refund!
We need to get over this appointmentosis and select and ratify some talented people, so we can get going with solving these Fourth Turning crises. Just do it. Appoint these people. They are paying back their taxes. We got work ahead of us. Let's get going.
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Gregg appointment
I see that Barack Obama has appointed Rep. Repr. Judd Gregg from New Hampshire to be his Commerce Secretary. This seems like an ideal appointment. It gets a Republican in his cabinet, so verifying that his appeal to the country is bipartisan. Further, by removing a Republican from the Senate in a state where the governor is a Democrat (John Lynch), it could turn a Republican seat into a Democratic one, and give the Democrats a cloture-proof Senate, at least for a little while (provided Al Franken gets to occupy the seat from Minnesota).
But Gregg himself threw a monkeywrench into this. He said that he will turn down the appointment if it favors Democrats in the Senate. If this happens, can Obama turn to someone else? Who are the Republican senators who come from states with Democratic governors? Here is the list of those states where such exist:
Wyoming 2
Kansas 2
Oklahoma 2
Iowa
Missouri
Kentucky 2
Tennessee 2
Ohio
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Maine 2
So there are 17 other possible choices. I would choose the most Democratic state (the "bluest" state) among these, and so would pick Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
But Gregg himself threw a monkeywrench into this. He said that he will turn down the appointment if it favors Democrats in the Senate. If this happens, can Obama turn to someone else? Who are the Republican senators who come from states with Democratic governors? Here is the list of those states where such exist:
Wyoming 2
Kansas 2
Oklahoma 2
Iowa
Missouri
Kentucky 2
Tennessee 2
Ohio
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Maine 2
So there are 17 other possible choices. I would choose the most Democratic state (the "bluest" state) among these, and so would pick Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
A Bad Economy is Good!
It had to happen sooner or later. Soaring gasoline prices prevent people from paying their mortgages. Many foreclosures cause huge financial institutions wrapped in mathematical portfolio cocoons to crumble. The government bails them all out. In the meantime, laid off workers don't buy, causing the worst economy in decades. There are many things I do not like about this economy. The many layoffs and the huge lines for jobs are something I don't want to see. The crisis attacks people's retirement funds, causing them to be worth considerably less. And of course I don't want to see my house decline in value, which is what Chesterfield County in their assessments says it did.
But there are a lot of things good about a bad economy. Firstly, I won't have to pay as much real estate tax. But also look at this. People don't drive as much to stores because they can't afford to buy things and they are out of work, so don't need to drive at work. That means fewer traffic jams on the highways. You can get around better. The bad economy means people have to scrap the friviolities of our current lifestyle. Superbowl parties are cancelled. Good. There is altogether too much hoopla about these trivial football pursuits. The celebrity culture takes a hit; people can't attend movies or afford expensive electronic equipment to watch things on. People for once are forced to conserve in their spending and not spend like there is no tomorrow. Maybe we will save more. And if we can't afford to buy food, maybe we will grow our own. That is good for peak oil tells us that we may need these skills some day. Scoundrels that thrive on our live-it-up no-tomorrow lifestyle such as Madoff, Thain, and all of these CEOs and financial wizards are caught and are met with what is due for them. Wild developments popping all over the place dependent on the car and destructive of farmland and the environment are stopped dead in their tracks, because who wants to build new houses if there are so many foreclosed houses out there causing prices to plummet?
Yes, I think that a lot of good is coming out of the fact that we are finding out that we can't live like this forever. We need now to stop superbowling and madoffing around and stop making an idol out of President Obama and instead listen to what President Obama is saying and take heed.
But there are a lot of things good about a bad economy. Firstly, I won't have to pay as much real estate tax. But also look at this. People don't drive as much to stores because they can't afford to buy things and they are out of work, so don't need to drive at work. That means fewer traffic jams on the highways. You can get around better. The bad economy means people have to scrap the friviolities of our current lifestyle. Superbowl parties are cancelled. Good. There is altogether too much hoopla about these trivial football pursuits. The celebrity culture takes a hit; people can't attend movies or afford expensive electronic equipment to watch things on. People for once are forced to conserve in their spending and not spend like there is no tomorrow. Maybe we will save more. And if we can't afford to buy food, maybe we will grow our own. That is good for peak oil tells us that we may need these skills some day. Scoundrels that thrive on our live-it-up no-tomorrow lifestyle such as Madoff, Thain, and all of these CEOs and financial wizards are caught and are met with what is due for them. Wild developments popping all over the place dependent on the car and destructive of farmland and the environment are stopped dead in their tracks, because who wants to build new houses if there are so many foreclosed houses out there causing prices to plummet?
Yes, I think that a lot of good is coming out of the fact that we are finding out that we can't live like this forever. We need now to stop superbowling and madoffing around and stop making an idol out of President Obama and instead listen to what President Obama is saying and take heed.
