Ted, I replied to AngryGuy40 this morning, but something's not right. It seems to have been counted but not displayed. Count says 4 comments, but I only see the three. I don't see any option to expand replies, either. I'm Chrome on OSX.

First, I'd like to suggest you use the more formal third person when discussing abstracts. "One's standard of living shouldn't be subsidized..." Your formulation implies you're addressing me. (Also, if you're replying to me, perhaps using the reply feature would be in order. It just helps keep things organized should one of those Internet flame wars break out.)

So, to the substance. You're a private contractor? Welcome to my world. You have the discipline to set the taxes by, and that's good. Just watch out for disasters; the unforeseen can bite you in the... (Learned the hard way.) I far prefer to put myself on salary and do the deductions. Also, how you liking paying both halves of the FICA? You'll quickly learn that pretty much everything in the tax code is skewed against the 1099ers.

But, honestly, don't you see the many, many logical assumptions that you make that may or may not be right? Below, I make an assertion, but confess that I have no data. How do you know that they're not $30 knock-off sneakers?

As a "serial gentrifier", I spend lots of time with poor people; my experience shows that, by and large, your assumptions are not accurate ones. The idea that people "don't want to work" is almost always faulty. It's far more accurate to say that many are unable to work for various reasons, be they self-inflicted, random, structural, etc.

Lastly, you're repetition of "let's not worry" leaves you open to the charge of heartlessness. Combined with your screen name, you come off as quick to judge and, harboring an unexplained anger. Is that really what you're all about?

Well, this is all first pass, but there is some ugly looking stuff in there. Nobody can say he hasn't spread the pain everywhere. In particular, the non-profit purchases tax sounds great for Brown and PC, but not so much for the little groups like, oh, say, Riverzedge Arts Project in Woonsocket. Higher fees for bounced checks sounds like the kind of predatory thing banks do; common sense says that it hits those who can least afford it, although I have no data. Lower unemployment benefits also hit those in need.

One thing they might consider is for him, Whitehouse and the Browns, the Williamses, etc - the old, blue money - to pony up a fund of substantial size and target that money to the very bottom of the income scale. At very least, it would demonstrate that he's not tone-deaf.

Bottom line: OUCH!

Suspension of disbelief or a not-all-that-big increase in the cost of natural gas. But, definitely, go with the unicorns.

So I've been poking around, looking to fill in the gap between what I "know" and what ISO says. Not that the electricity production industry is unnecessarily opaque, but it took me an hour to confirm that the "SCC" seasonally capability claim figures are, in fact, megawatts. Just to add to the confusion, ISO-NE lists 750 Mw of production (Lake Road 1-3) as being in RI when they're in CT. Be that as it may...

Here's what I found out: my data were old. As recently as the mid-90s, RI imported 80% of its electricity according to this Brown U study. And that included the Manchester St facility.

In the past decade, the Tiverton facility (280 MW WSCC) and the Johnston facility (574 MW WSCC) have come online, both fired by natural gas. These two facilities represent something less than half the total power generated in state.

So, erroneous as my assertions were, they're not that far out of scope. When your state nearly doubles production in a few years, I reckon it makes an impact.

Also, Ted, you fail to point out that RI produces a mere pittance of the total electricity we consume. The vast majority of the electricity we USE comes from coal burned at Brayton Point, the local base load facility.

Just in case any of you were lazy in math class, this is clearly a scare story. Dimensionalize it as you would in a business. The only city for which we have the relevant data - Cranston - shows an increase of 1.5% on electricity.

Staggering.

Also there's a faulty assumption that non-wind electricity will NOT rise over time. This couldn't me more foolish, as all serious energy watchers have PERSONALLY prepared for high oil prices.

Thus a dispassionate analysis would point out that, in the long term, these production facilities will almost certainly act to keep down electricity prices for Rhode Islanders.

When the commie-pinko is doing the math and pointing out the obvious business case, consider the case closed.

Please. If AZ weren't the economic, real estate, environmental, social and cultural cluster-up that it is, then something like this would be "news".

Shouldn't this get filed under "par for the course".

Psst, Lefty, progressives just took over the state of RI. Ran out just about every last old-school blue dog. New PVD mayor way more liberal than Cicilline. But the latter won CD1 and is gonna gay up our nation's capital just that little bit more. Our 'indy' governor is on board. (Gay marriage law by Valentine's Day. #scoreboard) Watch us for more fun stuff. If you're mobile, come on up...

Well, Ted, how does success feel?

At least one of you carpet-baggers got it right. But you say it like it's a bad thing! Welcome to RI. We're enjoying our 15 minutes.