JrzyTmata wrote: 
I never shop at those stores, so it doesn't matter.

 hippiechick wrote: 
our regular stores do. Even CVS has a program when using a reusable bag.
I would guess most do, you might have to ask.

 JrzyTmata wrote: 
Whole Foods does. Trader Joes gives you a raffle ticket. The regular stores do not give you anything.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Every supermarket I ever shopped gives you a 5¢ discount per bag when you bring your own.

If people want to use plastic grocery bags they should get .10 off for each one they bring back to the store for credit (with limits of course)
and the store get credit from the cart manufacturer that melts them down to make new wheels, which won't go bonka bonka bonka...

 oldslabsides wrote: 
If people want to used grocery bags, they should have to pay 10c for each one. That would help curtail the use. We always take our own bags to the store.

 kurtster wrote: 

"Los Angeles just enacted a ban on plastic grocery bags. That put three or four manufacturers out of business,'' Stone, a pharmacist from Temecula, said.

wow.  there's some priorities for ya.  hey, Stone, let's bring back the manufacture of DDT, I'm sure that'll provide lots of jobs for your new state.  idiot.

 hippiechick wrote: 

A new twist on a very old idea.  As a native born and raised there, this has been an ongoing debate ever since I can remember and that's back to the 50's.

Back in the 60's and before, California was a very conservative state, Western style, and saw Southern California draining the resources of the the North including water, timber and energy and mostly tax revenue.  It was the North that wanted to ditch the South.  The South was busy trying to irrigate an unihabitable desert and build highways that the tax base down there could not provide for. 

Southern California is more dependent on foreign water than anything else.  As a kid in the 60's, it was breaking news when the Colorado River actually made it all the way to the Gulf of California.  It usually was diverted so much that it never made it to the Gulf.  To understand the west, one must look at the history of water and water rights.

Now the San Joaquin Valley has been dried up by Easterners because of a stupid little fish and put thousands out of work and driven up the price of food in the process unnecessarily.

Freaking Yankees screw up everything, everywhere.  Carpetbaggers. 

'South California' proposed as 51st state by Republican supervisor

 hippiechick wrote: 

 donna_birichina wrote: 
debt

And then there's this:

California license plates could soon carry advertising

A new proposed bill in California would put digital advertisements on vehicle license plates to help pull the cash-strapped state out of dept.

 kurtster wrote: 
That is ironic.  I was not aware of that taking place in California - so I stand (or sit, actually) corrected.  I believe the main reason for the Charlotte increases was based on drought conditions - which did reduce consumption, but the (often mandatory) conservation was spurred by reduced supply - which will increase prices.  Anyhow, thanks for pointing out those examples.

 Proclivities wrote: 
How ironic you made that statement in this thread.  In California, gas prices did in fact rise several years ago directly because overall consumption went down because of economizing.  The state had to raise the taxes on gas because of falling tax revenue due to falling consumption.  Therefore, the base price of gas went up.  We still have fluctuations, but the minimum price did go up.

Another example lies in Charlotte, North Carolina, where the municipal water district had to raise prices because of conservation, again because usuge went down so much, they could no longer cover fixed expenses without a price increase.

 miamizsun wrote: 
I agree with some of your points (especially the "data-collecting" question), but the argument that "if we use less they'll charge more" is unsubstantiated and frequently used as an alarmist ploy.  That was a major talking point of supply-side types who, over 30 years ago, opposed regulations for higher automobile fuel-efficiency.  Gasoline prices did not rise when (or because) more people started driving fuel-efficient, compact cars.  For one thing, that theory contradicts the sacred Capitalist principle of supply-and-demand.
Though assuming energy providers are "principled" may be a stretch.

 dmax wrote: 
One of the "unintended consequences" will be fluctuating (variable) rates, which will allow them to increase the price during peak usage.

I think as we use less, or become more efficient, they may charge us more, which would cancel out any savings to the end user, but potentially boost profits for providers.

These meters will allow very specific two way monitoring, which would allow them to charge for specific appliances/activities if they choose.

I understand the angle of well connected corporations using their government "buddies" to gouge us, nothing new there.

What bothers me is where do they think they get the right to do any of this?

Politicians and bureaucrats collecting data (spying) to what end?

Government intervention in markets always causes problems.

Regards

 kurtster wrote: 
Heh. Never heard that!

 dmax wrote: 
Glad to hear participation is voluntary, I wasn't sure.  My concerns would be more relevant if it was mandatory.

OBTW, does anyone still call PG&E, pigs, goats and elephants anymore ?  I remember that from days gone by.

 kurtster wrote: 
I was offered the choice a year or so ago, but my wife vetoed the idea that, on power hungry days when it's likely that we'll need the AC, it would be possible for PG&E to throttle our use.

California welfare cards can be used in many casino ATMs

Times review finds that in more than half of the state's casinos and gaming rooms, welfare recipients can get cash from state-issued EBT cards.