If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsOK)   Oklahoma House passes law allowing electric companies to add a "you bought less electricity this month" surcharge to customer's bills   (newsok.com) divider line 209
    More: Ironic, Oklahoma House, electricity, Mary Fallin, customers  
•       •       •

2820 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 2:07 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-17 06:26:40 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Necessities like power should not be for-profit, they should be at-cost


That is not the point.  Being 'profitable' was the issue I was taking exception to (hopefully, you know the difference)

Again, that is much better than the reverse of what being profitable implies.
 
2014-04-17 06:27:39 PM  

whidbey: . If you can't actually argue why public ownership is better than private,


That has nothing to do with any of my points.  Being profitable is not mutually exclusive with public ownership.
 
2014-04-17 06:30:01 PM  
Cataholic:

You do know that utility companies have their profits regulated by the state, don't you?

Viewed from an admittedly skewed perspective, every corporations profits are regulated by the state.
 
2014-04-17 06:34:03 PM  

HeadLever: DrBenway: I must have dreamed the concept of "break-even" then.

When was the last time one of these agencies actually had revenues balance out costs perfectly?  That is always a possibility, but not much of a reality.

Bonneville Power Administration. every year for some 77 years now.

Created by the US Congress in 1937 to manage and operate the Pacific NW's 31 hydro dams & regional power grid. Since creation, it hasn't directly taken a cent of taxpayer dollars. Since the region's dams generate ~3x's the region's demand, they sell and transport that excess power to utilities outside of it's service area (namely California and Canada). Once all of their costs are covered, every cent of the excess is given back to PNW ratepayers in terms of reduced electricity charges and local conservation incentives.

It's frankly the perfect system. Socialized all of the risks, paid off those bonds for building the dams, continually self funding and socialized all of the benefits. You won't find a more reliable and stable grid either.
 
2014-04-17 06:35:58 PM  

HeadLever: DrBenway: I must have dreamed the concept of "break-even" then.

When was the last time one of these agencies actually had revenues balance out costs perfectly?  That is always a possibility, but not much of a reality.


Not merely a possibility, but a target. As opposed to an aim of profitability. No mention of an aim at a loss. If the numbers come in above, you run a surplus. If they come in below, you make up the money elsewhere. Perhaps at which point subsidies come into play.

I want to think you're just being disingenuous, but I am becoming increasingly skeptical about that explanation. Something about a deficit of some sort, actually.
 
2014-04-17 06:43:04 PM  

MrSteve007: HeadLever: DrBenway: I must have dreamed the concept of "break-even" then.

When was the last time one of these agencies actually had revenues balance out costs perfectly?  That is always a possibility, but not much of a reality.
Bonneville Power Administration. every year for some 77 years now.

Created by the US Congress in 1937 to manage and operate the Pacific NW's 31 hydro dams & regional power grid. Since creation, it hasn't directly taken a cent of taxpayer dollars. Since the region's dams generate ~3x's the region's demand, they sell and transport that excess power to utilities outside of it's service area (namely California and Canada). Once all of their costs are covered, every cent of the excess is given back to PNW ratepayers in terms of reduced electricity charges and local conservation incentives.

It's frankly the perfect system. Socialized all of the risks, paid off those bonds for building the dams, continually self funding and socialized all of the benefits. You won't find a more reliable and stable grid either.


Doesn't matter how efficient it is. That's socialism, and so clearly cannot be allowed here.
 
2014-04-17 06:46:03 PM  

NecoConeco: I work for an electric company, and we've had that kind of charge since day 1. If a customer uses less than 1000 kWh per month, they get charged $9.99. That's always a fun call to handle. For some reason people think it's unreasonable that they get charged for following all the energy conservation tips we bombard them with.


Here's an easy way to spot if a business has bribed a whole bunch of politicians.  They get to bill you for not using their service.

I want to be able to do that .  I'll run a Kwiki Mart and send bills to anyone who doesn't stop to get coffee or a squishee.
 
2014-04-17 06:50:38 PM  

Empty Matchbook: Or, even better, look at zero precedent for people ALREADY conserving when it looked like a drought was going to be declared.


I'm concerned about possible mandatory water cuts.  I've been through droughts several times and have good water conservation habits.  If I'm forced to cut my water usage, my coworkers are going to be unhappy when I have to skip showers except on weekends.
 
2014-04-17 06:52:15 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: BizarreMan: Pokey.Clyde: NecoConeco: I work for an electric company, and we've had that kind of charge since day 1. If a customer uses less than 1000 kWh per month, they get charged $9.99. That's always a fun call to handle. For some reason people think it's unreasonable that they get charged for following all the energy conservation tips we bombard them with.

Sounds like the same crap some of the water companies pull around here. Whenever we're in drought conditions, they enact water restrictions to save water. Then they complain about not making as much money because everyone followed the restrictions. So, they raise water rates to make up for their monetary shortfall. Of course, they never lower the rates once restrictions are lifted.

Lower prices? Inconceivable!

Profits must always increase.

"If you're not growing, you're dying!!"

/or something...



That actually is true....if you're a cancerous tumor.
 
2014-04-17 07:09:07 PM  

EvilEgg: Shouldn't they instead have a fixed cost portion of the bill that covers connection and other static costs, and then a variable cost portion that covers usage.


But that's less profitable than making shiat up to charge whatever we farking feel like to ensure every quarter's profits are higher than the previous.
Duh.

Electric service should be provided by a non-profit government agency.  I don't give a shiat if that's socialism or not--it would eliminate one avenue of profit-driven rape of society.
 
2014-04-17 07:09:44 PM  
How's that unbridled capitalist freedom treating you?
 
2014-04-17 07:11:30 PM  

grumpfuff: MrSteve007: HeadLever: DrBenway: I must have dreamed the concept of "break-even" then.

When was the last time one of these agencies actually had revenues balance out costs perfectly?  That is always a possibility, but not much of a reality.
Bonneville Power Administration. every year for some 77 years now.

Created by the US Congress in 1937 to manage and operate the Pacific NW's 31 hydro dams & regional power grid. Since creation, it hasn't directly taken a cent of taxpayer dollars. Since the region's dams generate ~3x's the region's demand, they sell and transport that excess power to utilities outside of it's service area (namely California and Canada). Once all of their costs are covered, every cent of the excess is given back to PNW ratepayers in terms of reduced electricity charges and local conservation incentives.

It's frankly the perfect system. Socialized all of the risks, paid off those bonds for building the dams, continually self funding and socialized all of the benefits. You won't find a more reliable and stable grid either.

Doesn't matter how efficient it is. That's socialism, and so clearly cannot be allowed here.


yeah some fatcat isn't getting rich and buying off politicians so it's anti-American
 
2014-04-17 07:12:43 PM  
No healthcare for you! And what's that, trying to save on your electric bill? Well, fark you there too!!
 
2014-04-17 07:13:10 PM  

doctor wu: How's that unbridled capitalist freedom treating you?


Like plebs in an Oligarchy?
 
2014-04-17 07:22:37 PM  
LOL, i've been saying this for years.  The government will push solar power and renewables, along with energy conservation and when people actually listen they get hit with higher gas taxes, bigger energy costs and water restrictions.

Wait, you didn't think you could just have the sun for free and save rain in a barrel did you?

Solution: Flat grid/sewer hookup fee per month.  Yes it costs to deliver the grid to your house at the off chance that you do need it.  Want to be on the grid? Pay the flat fee, and any usage on top of it.

whidbey: No, "some people in this thread actually believe" that necessities like utilities shouldn't be bought and sold to the highest bidder, but publicly owned and controlled through industrial democracy.


Just imagine your electric company run with all the efficiency of the DMV and reliability of Amtrak.

whidbey: But if you insist, when you're adding to the chorus of impotent raging social conservatives out there who do in fact support racism, you're really not helping.


I should also add that Whidbey went 12 rounds ardently supporting the rounding up, visa revocation and deportation of Israeli educators/lecturers because of his feelings towards Israel's human rights record. - so this is nothing new.

Sergeant Grumbles: The only goal should be to get the necessity where it is needed.


I have to laugh at people who think that an energy company making a profit is horrible and ungodly but support a public entity prison-raping the taxpayer if the public electric co went out of business.

CSB time: I used to live in Gainesville, FL where the local utility company was run by the county commission.  Their water structure was based on raw usage per address and not usage per person, so a single girl who uses 800U/mo would be in tier 1, but a family of 4 who conserves and uses 1100U/mo would be put in the higher tier and pay nearly double for their water.

That and they spent tens of millions of dollars on a bio-waste burning plant which operates at a negative efficiency when you factor the manpower and diesel required to truck in all of the trees and crap that it runs on.

So yes, they delivered energy, but given the cost of living relative to the area, it was some of the most expensive utilities I've ever paid..and I've lived in the northeast for the last 4.
 
2014-04-17 07:57:56 PM  

HeadLever: That is not the point. Being 'profitable' was the issue I was taking exception to (hopefully, you know the difference)

Again, that is much better than the reverse of what being profitable implies.


Like I said, infantile word games. If that's all you've got, just go on home. Your troll-fu is weak.
 
2014-04-17 08:04:29 PM  

o5iiawah: Their water structure was based on raw usage per address and not usage per person, so a single girl who uses 800U/mo would be in tier 1, but a family of 4 who conserves and uses 1100U/mo would be put in the higher tier and pay nearly double for their water.


No utility company anywhere, public or private, calculates a home's bill based on per-person usage.  My water company doesn't even know how many people live in my home.  Nor is it any of their business.

And by definition, charging different rates based on "tiers" is NOT charging based on raw usage.
 
2014-04-17 08:27:07 PM  
we really need to EMP ourselves.
 
2014-04-17 08:30:17 PM  

FarkedOver: Psylence: Things that should not be for profit industries:
Water
Power
Education
Prison
Internet

Making necessities "for profit" encourages the exact opposite of the kind of behavior that humanity needs.

You left out healthcare.


fark. You're right!
 
2014-04-17 08:47:56 PM  

MrSteve007: Bonneville Power Administration. every year for some 77 years now.


The BPA is a marketing federal agency, not a producer or end user of electricity. I am not talking about this kind of entity and you know that.

Do you know why the BPA was created?

Congress and the Roosevelt Administration created BPA in 1937, just before completion of Bonneville and Grand Coulee dams in 1938 and 1941. They anticipated the need to market energy from these new power sources. One of BPA's early missions focused on electrifying farms and small communities with public power. These rural areas were not profitable for private utilities to serve.

Emphasis mine
 
2014-04-17 08:51:40 PM  

DrBenway: Not merely a possibility, but a target.


No it is not (at least when talking about direct cost vs direct revenues).  Again, the direct operating costs don't entail the infrastructure and maintenance headaches that are withing the utilities best interest to address.
 
2014-04-17 08:53:27 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Like I said, infantile word games.


So you don't know the difference between a not-for-profit entity and not being profitable?

NSIS.
 
2014-04-17 09:01:59 PM  

HeadLever: So you don't know the difference between a not-for-profit entity and not being profitable?


-2/10
 
2014-04-17 09:10:50 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: -2/10


So you don't?  lol.

Ok note to self - ignore rest of Sergeant Grumbles comments in this regard.
 
2014-04-17 10:07:56 PM  
Eh.  I have a phone bill, sewer bill, water bill, cable bill, internets bill, all regardless if I use the service that month or not.

I fail to see the outrage if it's structured like this.
 
2014-04-17 10:57:36 PM  

HeadLever: The BPA is a marketing federal agency, not a producer or end user of electricity. I am not talking about this kind of entity and you know that


Wait. What? The owner, operator of 31 dams (including the single largest power plant in North America), along with pumped storage facilities (which by definition are power consumers), along with being the manager of load balancing the regional grid, somehow a simple marketing agency.

Honestly, what the fark are you talking about?
 
2014-04-17 11:50:20 PM  
This is an...outrage?
 
2014-04-18 12:23:42 AM  
Yet more welfare for corporations.  Thanks, GOP!
 
2014-04-18 02:43:03 AM  

whidbey: HeadLever: whidbey: Trying to make necessities like power and lights profitable is rarely if ever a good idea.

Because the only 'good' way to deliver necessities is to lose money while doing it?

Even government municipalities have an obligation to keep their operation profitable.  Their bonds wouldn't be worth much otherwise.

That was a very dumb statement whidbey.

Sure, if you can't actually answer the point, call the other person "dumb."

It's a known tactic.


don't worry man he has no idea how municipal entities work.

My town for example has a municipal electric division as well as water treatment & service facilities.  They are explicitly denied the ability to make a profit.  As a result our electricity is about half of what ratepayers pay in surrounding cities and towns.  The municipal electric division makes enough off of its rates to pay for staff and equipment and all the necessities to keep the town's grid in shape and hooked up with the wider grid.  We even have a modern natural gas turbine for generation in an emergency.
You don't need to make a profit as a municipality as the tax payers are your customers and rarely are you doing things for anyone outside of that base.  You need to have output equaling intake.  If there is a shortfall or a projected shortfall then of course the town may approve a rate hike...but only insomuch as that you make up for the shortfall...there is no vig.

So now for a lesson on how towns make bonds attractive:

Running a financially sound town -
1) Don't over spend
2) prioritize modernization's (schools going from oil to natural gas boilers, energy efficient lighting, retrocommissioning projects).  You don't do em all at once!
3) When the town takes in excess tax receipts you put some away in a savings fund and return the balance to the tax payers (rinse and repeat over the years and you get a nice nest egg).
4) Don't have corrupt bid managers when bidding projects
5) tonnes more things but you get the point.

Towns bonds are attractive when the town has excellent liquidity and a good history of paying back previous bonds on schedule.  It requires the leadership to act and sometimes to not act, to refuse a project because even if it is good...the town might not be able to support it properly at that time.
 
2014-04-18 04:04:26 AM  

thehobbes: It WAS NEVER DEBATED and passed 83-5. Dead god I hate our state legislature. We're not all that bad... i swear.



Yes, you are. The sooner (no pun intended) you can accept this reality, the better.

/from Kansas
 
2014-04-18 04:23:05 AM  

o5iiawah: whidbey: No, "some people in this thread actually believe" that necessities like utilities shouldn't be bought and sold to the highest bidder, but publicly owned and controlled through industrial democracy.


Just imagine your electric company run with all the efficiency of the DMV and reliability of Amtrak.


Oh god this derpy talking point scenario again.

The mid-1980s called, dude. So did Zombie Reagan.

For the love of God, come up with real arguments next time, k?
 
2014-04-18 04:26:16 AM  

o5iiawah: I should also add that Whidbey went 12 rounds ardently supporting the rounding up, visa revocation and deportation of Israeli educators/lecturers because of his feelings towards Israel's human rights record. - so this is nothing new.


Um, derp?

You're two for two. Not only are you unable to make your rather backward busted ideology stick in an otherwise reasonable discussion, you have to bring up some non-sequitur you apparently think constitutes a personal attack.

So far, you've done little to convince me, or others here, that you're a genuine poster. You're a parody of an angry right-leaning neo-confederate, and done badly, I might add.
 
2014-04-18 04:31:52 AM  

HeadLever: whidbey: if you can't actually answer the point,

I directly refuted the point - that is trying to make necessities like power and lights un-profitable is never a good idea.  On the contrary, you want your water, power, sewer, gas, trash, street companies/departments to be profitable within reason.


You didn't refute it.  It's a bad idea, because people demand extra money as profits, and demand that profits rise.
 
2014-04-18 04:34:52 AM  

Alphax: HeadLever: whidbey: if you can't actually answer the point,

I directly refuted the point - that is trying to make necessities like power and lights un-profitable is never a good idea.  On the contrary, you want your water, power, sewer, gas, trash, street companies/departments to be profitable within reason.

You didn't refute it.  It's a bad idea, because people demand extra money as profits, and demand that profits rise.


Honestly I can't tell if he's just a laughing troll, or someone that enslaved to 20th century resource extraction industry thinking that he can't form external opinions.
 
2014-04-18 06:42:53 AM  
 
2014-04-18 07:37:13 AM  

HeadLever: If everything is lumped into the usage part of the fee and they don't have a fixed cost part, there is no way that they can.


The power companies get a benefit from solar users if they are producing more during the day than they are using. They have to produce less and they have to worry about high power transmission lines carrying in less (which becomes a big saver in areas where solar is widespread).

As mentioned before the user is also getting a big benefit even if they use less less net energy than they produce because the grid acts as a battery.

With both of those in mind there is no reason they need a fixed cost portion. It can all be covered by an appropriate surcharge for "selling" the power from the panels back to the grid. However either way (surcharge and flat fee) or both can work as long as the charge to solar owners isn't outrageous.
 
2014-04-18 07:55:58 AM  

HeadLever: When was the last time one of these agencies actually had revenues balance out costs perfectly? That is always a possibility, but not much of a reality


Define perfectly.

So at the end of the year the bokks are completely balanced, never.

At the end fo the year they give a refund, or put the money back in so the rate are a little lower the next year, pretty farking common.
 
2014-04-18 08:15:31 AM  

Diogenes: Oklahoma's racking up derp points today on Fark.


It's our own version of Pakistan's tribal areas.
 
2014-04-18 09:25:33 AM  
Are republicans on the right side of history on anything now?  They seriously are now passing laws that encourage people to overconsume energy.  Why? Because republicans love dirty energy companies and fark the environment, that's why.
 
2014-04-18 09:36:05 AM  

MrSteve007: HeadLever: The BPA is a marketing federal agency, not a producer or end user of electricity. I am not talking about this kind of entity and you know that

Wait. What? The owner, operator of 31 dams (including the single largest power plant in North America), along with pumped storage facilities (which by definition are power consumers), along with being the manager of load balancing the regional grid, somehow a simple marketing agency.

Honestly, what the fark are you talking about?


The Bonneville Power Administration is a federal 
nonprofit power marketing administration based in 
the Pacific Northwest . Although BPA is part of the 
U .S . Department of Energy  is self-funding and 
covers its costs by selling its products and services . 
BPA markets wholesale electrical power from 
31 federal hydro projects in the Columbia River 
Basin, one nonfederal nuclear plant and several small 
nonfederal power plants . The dams are operated by 
the U .S . Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau 
of Reclamation.


The dams are not operated by the BPA. They refer to themselves as a marketing agency. Not in the traditional sense of the word i.e. "advertising," but bringing the electricity to market for wholesale. They do not produce the power themselves, nor are they an end user of the electricity in the standard sense of the word. The above is from the BPA fact sheet itself.
 
2014-04-18 09:47:44 AM  

whidbey: HeadLever: What is funny with whidbey is that on one side of his face he is saying that 'trying to make necessities like power and lights profitable is a bad idea', and on the other he is saying that if they are a money-loser, then subsidize it

Dude, it's hardly rocket science. Tricky Chicken: HeadLever: GoldSpider: That's what some people in this thread actually believe.

What is funny with whidbey is that on one side of his face he is saying that 'trying to make necessities like power and lights profitable is a bad idea', and on the other he is saying that if they are a money-loser, then subsidize it.

I am uncertain if his position is shifting in light of our discussion or if he really does not understand his own direct incongruity.

He actually tried to convince me at one time that absolutely ANY criticism of president Obama on any matter is purely based upon unjustified racism. So don't expect too much rationality from that one.

Oh yeah, out of context non-sequitur FTW.

But if you insist, when you're adding to the chorus of impotent raging social conservatives out there who do in fact support racism, you're really not helping.


No, that had absolutely nothing to do with your position. You were clear and concise. Your clearly stated position was 'ANY criticism of this president is racism' You could be Nancy Pelosi, and if she disagreed with the president she would be a racist. You made no connection to social conservatives at all. Heck, if Michelle comments about his wardrobe, your argument would make her a racist.

I asked you to clarify several times, and you stuck to your guns,

I merely added this fact to help point out that you are merely a raving loon.
 
2014-04-18 10:52:23 AM  

MrSteve007: The owner, operator of 31 dams (including the single largest power plant in North America)


You realize that the BPA does not actually operate these dams correct?  That is left up to either the Bureau of Rec or ACoE.

Regarding Grand Coulee, the BoR is the operator of this dam.
 
2014-04-18 11:01:03 AM  

MrSteve007: Honestly, what the fark are you talking about?


From the first paragraph of your own Wiki link which you apparently did not read:

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) is an  federal agency based in the Pacific Northwest. The BPA was created by an act of Congress in 1937 to market electric power from the Bonneville Dam  located on the Columbia River and to construct facilities necessary to transmit that power. Congress has since designated Bonneville to be the marketing agent for power from all of the federally owned hydroelectric projects in the Pacific Northwest. Bonneville, whose headquarters are located in Portland Oregon, is one of four regional Federal Power Marketing Agencies within the Department of Energy (DOE).

Sounds like you are getting a lesson on what the BPA really does here.  Overall, they market and sell wholesale power to utilities and other power companies.  They are basically a transmission middleman between the producers and the utilities.

/TMYK
 
2014-04-18 11:12:00 AM  

Alphax: It's a bad idea, because people demand extra money as profits, and demand that profits rise.


Not always, as these profits (especially in the context of not-for-profit entities) is often funneled back into the business in the way of updating infrastructure, maintenance, installing new technology that allows efficiency gains, etc.  Sometimes these profits can be funneled into subsidies for individuals to install solar panels or make their homes more energy efficient.

When you force the utilities to operate at a loss, with respect to direct costs/revenues, these types of programs will never come to fruition.
 
2014-04-18 11:56:43 AM  

Tricky Chicken: thehobbes:  Now I am curious what a resident actually makes.  Net mind you after their insurance and other costs. I am talking the average resident. not a surgery or specialist that had to study extra years, but the general practicioner.  I somehow don't think it is eating caviar gated community money. Probably decent house on a cul-de-sac with a mortgage average middle class money.


It is a posted schedule.  http://www.medschool.vcu.edu/gme/applicant/salary/  PGY= Post grad year #1, etc. so at that school, 51k/year once you pass step 2 boards.
 
2014-04-18 12:20:27 PM  
Oh, and residents typically don't carry their own malpractice insurance. They are covered by the hospital/attending physician.
 
2014-04-18 12:35:19 PM  

HeadLever: You realize that the BPA does not actually operate these dams correct?

That is left up to either the Bureau of Rec or ACoE.Regarding Grand Coulee, the BoR is the operator of this dam.

And who do the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corp of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration all work for? The Federal Government. They're different arms of the exact same entity and required to work with another. The Bureau makes sure that farmers and recreation interests are maintained with the proper storage and distribution of the water resources. The Army Corp marks sure the dams don't collapse and keep running smoothly and the BPA makes sure that the regional power grid stays stable and the electricity gets out to the market. They're all interconnected in the system.

You're hard pressed to see a single press release from the BPA that doesn't mention the Army Corp - just as the reciprocal is true for any ACoE releases about the dam system will also quote the BPA as the ones who made the call. It also has to due to the legal regulations and charters involved with the Federal Government. The ACoE and BoR aren't chartered for the business or licensed in the retail of electricity or for making money. It's not their job, never had been and likely never will be.

When it comes to commands for power generation and distribution, along with treaty negotiation and conservation efforts, they're all attached at the hip, with the BPA calling the shots. They're the ones who built and maintain all of the region's power grid - which is much more than just a marketing agency.

In this region, the Army Corp can't arbitrarily act without the approval of the BPA - especially when it comes to dumping extra water over the dams, or for determining the level of electrical production, since they have no idea of what the demand or requirements are for load balancing. It's not the ACoE's job to build transmission or determine grid stability.

Heck, even in their official Mission Statement

The Bonneville Power Administration's mission as a public service organization is to create and deliver the best value for our customers and constituents as we act in concert with others to assure the Pacific Northwest:

-An adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply;
-A transmission system that is adequate to the task of integrating and transmitting power from federal and non-federal generating units, providing service to BPA's customers, providing interregional interconnections, and maintaining electrical reliability and stability; and
-Mitigation of the Federal Columbia River Power System's impacts on fish and wildlife.

BPA is committed to cost-based rates, and public and regional preference in its marketing of power. BPA will set its rates as low as possible consistent with sound business principles and the full recovery of all of its costs, including timely repayment of the federal investment in the system.

A simple three point mission statement - work with: 1. Provide cheap, reliable power. 2. Transmit that power to people. 3. Don't fark up the rivers for fish and wildlife. Oh, and in the last statement, they'll sell that power at a rate that'll essentially zero out the books for the Feds - which is exactly how this argument started. They pay for the farking dams and transmission system at no profit.

It's in the "damed" mission statement

/TMYN
 
2014-04-18 12:54:33 PM  

MrSteve007: And who do the Bureau of Reclamation, the Army Corp of Engineers, and Bonneville Power Administration all work for?


I already address this in my first sentence in reply to your post.  Did you not read that part?  Did you read any of what I said?

apparently not as the rest of your post is just an in-depth rehash of the points I have already made.  I am glad that you took the time to research this topic and lean about it and no longer believe that the BPA is the owner or operator of the PNW dams.

Class adjourned.
 
2014-04-18 01:04:14 PM  
This seems fairly reasonable. People generating their own power become free riders in that they aren't contributing to the upkeep of plants/lines etc. but at the same time can decide to "dip into" the electrical supply at any time.
 
2014-04-18 01:04:19 PM  
Energy corporations have seen the future, and so have their shareholders. They realize that future will involve them less and less.
/fark them
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report