Is Electricity or Gasoline next?

With highly regulated, monopolistic industries like Utilities, they WILL raise the price if profit should sink due to drops in demand...

Those markets are not subject to the laws of supply and demand as other posters have hinted at

I am not sure about the wireless electricity. As far as no more gasoline for our cars in the next century, it is more likely to be within the next ten years. Despite what most people think, the fuel cell battery has actually been around for a very long time. The idea for a fuel cell battery was first described by a team of scientists in the year 1800, and the first one was developed in 1849 by William Grove. With all of the technological advances that are being made for fuel cell engines, the price continues to drop. There is a new nickle nano-particle powder that will soon be able to replace the platinum that is currently being used as the catalyst in the fuel cell engine. Even though the nickle nano-particles are not quite as powerful as a catalyst, nickle is 10,000 times more abundant and 500 times cheaper than platinum. Once fuel cell automobiles drop to a more affordable price, the next step will be building an infrastructure for hydrogen fueling stations.

I hate to say it, but maybe the federal government should take over electrical production. I know the 'wingers will scream bloody murder, but let's be real...private power companies SELL electricity so it's in their interest to sell as much as they can at the highest price they can charge. They also have the responsibility to maintain a modern and up to date distribution system...that costs money. Every dime spent on maintenance and capital improvements comes out of profits. For that reason power companies encourage over use and under maintenance. If the federal government took over power generation the main issue would be to reduce pollution, invest in the best for a distribution system, run as a non-profit corporation and encourage both decentralized power production such as home and business solar panels and conservation. Admittedly it will be 50 years before any politician who wants to keep his job could even suggest such a thing, but the logic of the idea really can't be discredited by wailing on about 'socialism'. Personally I don't like the idea of making a profit on essentials. If we had private sewer companies we'd get charged per flush....think of your bill if the family ever came down with the #$%^s.....major bummer!

It's actually against common sense. Demand drops, supply remains, price should drop. Increasing price to make up for a shortfall in profits is price gouging.

More efficient energy usage should do the same, reduce demand, supply remains, price should drop.

Queens Borough is playing games with its people, it needs revenue and since water revenue is dropping it wants to make up for it, what it doesn't realize is that water is a commodity and should behave like a commodity in an economy, not like a cash cow that they can tap for funding.

As for gasoline, it doesn't work that way. As usage goes down, surplus goes up, and the price goes down to get rid of the surplus.

With public utilities, they don't store it anywhere (for water, you are mostly paying for waste water, which is based on the amount you use). You use less, they raise the price to compensate for the revenue loss.

Yes, regardless.

Wealthy libs - those who choose to live in 10k# homes and fly in their leer jets or, their children aboard our military planes - consider it a sin for us commoners to use either our meager vehicles or, electricity to 'wastefully' satisfy our own comforts at whim. If we continue to consume at the present rate we will be hit with a use tax.

If, as you say, we don't, we will be hit with higher rates.

Just another way for the liberals to degrade us, exploit us and rob us of our freedoms.

That's not how supply and demand work.