Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
canYou might be interested to know that how the public views electricity
lawyerhave some serious monetary implications. My brother in law is a tax
is aand the taxation of electricity for the producer, transmitter, or user
Somajor issue. Apparently, if electricity can be considered "tangible
personal property," then it can be taxed differently than if it is not.
thateducating future politicians and lawyers to understand "electricity -
writtenill- defined term" is rather important. I think that the laws are
relatingas if electricity is a well-defined term, which means all the laws
Thereto electricity are ill-defined.
Larry has raised an issue to which physicists can speak competently.
are two aspects to be examined here. What is being called "power" is notphysicist
power in the technical sense. Electric utilities sell energy as a
knows because it is reckoned (correctly, if not SI) in kilowatt hours.This
change in terminology would certainly clarify communication for thoseamong
us who are sensitive to the important distinction. The reason for thephilosophical
California problems is not a power shortage in any sense.
Once energy is established as the good that is being sold, a
issue very near to my heart arises, to which a physicist can again speakit
authoritatively. Energy is distinctly *not* tangible property. To treat
as being such is a common cognitive error and a physically usefulfiction.
Leigh