Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

2834 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 2:07 PM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-17 12:17:26 PM  
If solar is seen as a threat by power companies then I guess it is becoming practical.
 
2014-04-17 12:25:41 PM  
I have a solar-powered flashlight. It only works in the daytime.
 
2014-04-17 12:27:27 PM  
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.
 
2014-04-17 12:35:20 PM  

NecoConeco: If a customer uses less than 1000 kWh per month, they get charged $9.99.


don't worry, the invisible hand of the free market will aahhh hhahahaha fark everything and everyone
 
2014-04-17 12:38:31 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.


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.
 
2014-04-17 12:41:55 PM  
Hooray, let's punish people who care about the environment!
 
2014-04-17 12:43:49 PM  

NecoConeco: For some reason people think it's unreasonable that they get charged for following all the energy conservation tips we bombard them with.



"Your bill is larger because you're using less of our product."

I don't blame them.
 
2014-04-17 12:47:38 PM  
While it's a stupid waste, would it be possible to circumvent this law by just prohibiting locally generated energy from entering the grid?
 
2014-04-17 01:03:35 PM  
SB 1456 was authored by Sen. A.J. Griffin, R-Guthrie, and sponsored by Rep. Mike Turner, R-Edmond.

So much for that whole "small government" shiat, eh Real American Republicans?
 
2014-04-17 01:07:21 PM  
I may be wrong, but I seem to remember this as part of the ALEC bills being pushed around the country.  I think this has been shot down in some states and obviously not in others.  This stinks of an ALEC bill.
 
2014-04-17 01:08:50 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 01:09:27 PM  
As the use of solar power skyrockets across the U.S., fights have sprung up in several states over how much customers should be compensated for excess power produced by their solar panels and sold back to the grid - a policy known as net metering. Net metering laws have come under fire from the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group backed by fossil fuel corporations, utility companies, and the ultra-conservative Koch brothers. Forty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have net metering policies in place and ALEC has set its sights on repealing them,
Oklahoma "could be the first complete defeat for solar advocates in their fight against utility efforts to recover costs lost to DG [distributed generation] use,"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/16/3427392/oklahoma-fee-sol ar -wind/
 
2014-04-17 01:10:36 PM  

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...
 
2014-04-17 01:14:47 PM  
Oklahoma's racking up derp points today on Fark.
 
2014-04-17 01:40:13 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: 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.


Raising the rates in times of low water demand is reasonable, as the maintenance on the system is a mostly fixed expense.  It affects all customers, as does the burden of maintaining the water system.  Never dropping the rates when demand picks up, though?  Yeah that's sh*tty.
 
2014-04-17 01:48:01 PM  

factoryconnection: Pokey.Clyde: 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.

Raising the rates in times of low water demand is reasonable, as the maintenance on the system is a mostly fixed expense.  It affects all customers, as does the burden of maintaining the water system.  Never dropping the rates when demand picks up, though?  Yeah that's sh*tty.


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.
 
2014-04-17 01:54:18 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.


Either way, customers will pay for it, except that if you tie it to rates then those that use more (and thus create more maintenance stress on the system) will pay more.  That seems fair to me.
 
2014-04-17 01:59:41 PM  
Oh and we have the Rare and wonderful Oklahoma trifecta in play.
 
2014-04-17 02:09:18 PM  
If you like your higher electric bill you can keep your higher electric bill!
 
2014-04-17 02:11:59 PM  
Sounds like they are picking the winners.

B--b-b-but Free market! Free market!
 
2014-04-17 02:12:10 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 really is the problem and it's been that way for decades now.  If profits don't continue to rise then that is exactly the same as losing money.  Profits are never, ever to level off or (god forbid) go down.  Even tho my understanding is that 'profit' is the term used for what is left after all expenses have been paid.
 
2014-04-17 02:14:06 PM  
Small Government*! Less regulation*!


*Void when profits drop
 
2014-04-17 02:14:33 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.


I can understand a minimum monthly charge.  I would assume that the meter still has to be read, lines need to be maintained, trees trimmed, etc.  It makes sense that everyone pays a flat fee for having a connection to a service.

However, a fee for underutilizing a service, fark that.
 
2014-04-17 02:16:07 PM  

jst3p: If you like your higher electric bill you can keep your higher electric bill!


I'm trying real hard to figure out what your lame ass meme has to do with the OK legislature farking people over on behalf of their energy sector donors.
 
2014-04-17 02:18:55 PM  
you know last time i bought eight hotdogs from walmart and then tried to return nine they got very upset with me

i don't see why it's different for power
 
2014-04-17 02:22:15 PM  
I used to do collections for a major utility company. God, that was depressing.
 
2014-04-17 02:23:35 PM  

EvilEgg: factoryconnection: Pokey.Clyde: 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.

Raising the rates in times of low water demand is reasonable, as the maintenance on the system is a mostly fixed expense.  It affects all customers, as does the burden of maintaining the water system.  Never dropping the rates when demand picks up, though?  Yeah that's sh*tty.

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.


That's what my water department does.  The first so-many gallons each month costs you a flat fee, whether use all the way up to that level or whether you don't use a drop.  After that there's some dollar amount per gallon extra.
 
2014-04-17 02:24:01 PM  
They already do it now, so this means it will be legal and allow them to add  on my illegal fees.

This state needs to be nuked.
With or without me still in it; getting to not matter anymore.
 
2014-04-17 02:24:09 PM  
OOOOOOKlahoma where the Derp now runs the show!
Solar power's a great big no-no,
we'll charge you more so we can buy more blow,
We pay our workers as low as we can go!
Oklahoma, No way!
 
2014-04-17 02:26:11 PM  
I'm pretty green, but even I understand the need for charges like this. If you really really really want to be 'full solar', then buy yourself all those bigass expensive ass batteries you need so you can power your house at night, and then pay to have them replaced every 5 years, and get fully off the grid. Otherwise, you're just using the grid as a battery, and then expecting not to pay for access? If the power company has to run lines and updated transformers (to handle accepting your power) for your home or neighborhood, then yeah, you've gotta pay for it. And yeah, YOU have to pay for it. Your neighbors shouldn't have to foot that expense for you paying less on your bill.

Kudos for using solar though.
 
2014-04-17 02:26:18 PM  
Yet another wonderful REPUBLICAN idea   (lets prong the middle class)
 
2014-04-17 02:26:49 PM  

sprawl15: you know last time i bought eight hotdogs from walmart and then tried to return nine they got very upset with me

i don't see why it's different for power


Bravo.
 
2014-04-17 02:28:02 PM  
As a conservative and an Oklahoman, all I have to say is I'm sure this could all be fixed by changing the name of the bill  to the EnergyJobs bill. That way, if someone opposes it, we can ask them why they are against creating jobs for Oklahomans in the energy industry.
 
2014-04-17 02:28:17 PM  

Blues_X: NecoConeco: For some reason people think it's unreasonable that they get charged for following all the energy conservation tips we bombard them with.


"Your bill is larger because you're using less of our product."

I don't blame them.


Isn't it cyclical? Spring and summer, I use a lot of electric for air conditioning.  Since I hate bright light, I use strings of Christmas lights, candles, and 40 Watt bulbs.  I also hate artificial heat.  2 seaons = $$$$$$$$$   the other 2? $.
 
2014-04-17 02:29:10 PM  
Are they not satisfied with the standard monthly service fee they charge customers just for the privilege of being their customers? That's standard, right? I think all my utilities have charges like that added, ostensibly to cover meter reading, back office paperwork, or whatever.
 
2014-04-17 02:30:16 PM  

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.


Or, even better, look at zero precedent for people ALREADY conserving when it looked like a drought was going to be declared. They essentially incentivize people to use more water in the month or two BEFORE a drought is declared so they get cut back to their usual rate.
 
2014-04-17 02:31:36 PM  
ALEC P. KEATON
 
2014-04-17 02:31:42 PM  
LOL. "Fark you, pay me."

Between this and the blanket ban on min wage increases, Oklahoma sure is looking pretty conservative and small-governmenty lately

/keep it up, OK, you're doing great!
 
2014-04-17 02:32:46 PM  

Jackson Herring: NecoConeco: If a customer uses less than 1000 kWh per month, they get charged $9.99.

don't worry, the invisible hand of the free market will aahhh hhahahaha fark everything and everyone


Nothing like getting fist-f*cked by the Invisible Hand, right?
 
2014-04-17 02:33:04 PM  
God, I love my small government state.

Well, at least I personally don't own any of these ghey solar panels.

I'm sure they will never figure out a way to not put this charge on me, wink wink.
 
2014-04-17 02:34:21 PM  

serpent_sky: Spring and summer, I use a lot of electric for air conditioning. Since I hate bright light, I use strings of Christmas lights, candles, and 40 Watt bulbs. I also hate artificial heat. 2 seaons = $$$$$$$$$ the other 2? $.


is people wrapping themselves in christmas lights all summer a common thing where you're from

i assume you're from the north pole
 
2014-04-17 02:37:49 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.


My friend disconnected over that kind of charge.
 
2014-04-17 02:38:13 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.


Is there a reason that electric companies don't generally have a standard connection change to cover your first 1000kWhs? Its the way most water companies bill. I guess its just a historic relic in the way electricity was used/billed?
 
2014-04-17 02:38:31 PM  
world problems.

there's just NO competition, they rape rape you every chance they get & what are you gonna do about it?
I wish i was in a financial position to purchase some land drill for water, use propane & go solar.

fark these Fortune 500 utility holdings companies, fark Sempra Energy.
 
2014-04-17 02:43:24 PM  

Almet: 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 unreasonablte that they get charged for following all the energy conservation tips we bombard them with.

I can understand a minimum monthly charge.  I would assume that the meter still has to be read, lines need to be maintained, trees trimmed, etc.  It makes sense that everyone pays a flat fee for having a connection to a service.

However, a fee for underutilizing a service, fark that.


What they should do is decouple Fixed costs from Variable and have a subscription fee and then have an extra charge based on usage.

I think people would have a less of a problem with it and it might actually work.
 
2014-04-17 02:44:15 PM  
Hey You Guyyyyyyys!
 
2014-04-17 02:52:27 PM  

FnkyTwn: I'm pretty green, but even I understand the need for charges like this. If you really really really want to be 'full solar', then buy yourself all those bigass expensive ass batteries you need so you can power your house at night, and then pay to have them replaced every 5 years, and get fully off the grid. Otherwise, you're just using the grid as a battery, and then expecting not to pay for access? If the power company has to run lines and updated transformers (to handle accepting your power) for your home or neighborhood, then yeah, you've gotta pay for it. And yeah, YOU have to pay for it. Your neighbors shouldn't have t


I'm not sure I agree with that. First, around here in the summers, due to all the cranked A/Cs, everyone is encouraged to conserve electricity in order to avoid excessive strain on the grid. If I'm running off my own solar power, I've just eased the usage of the grid during their peak hours. Also, it's not as though the power I'm putting back out is going into some black hole. The utility company is selling that same power to someone else, no?
 
2014-04-17 02:52:49 PM  
Scum and villainy.
 
2014-04-17 02:56:56 PM  
With all that wind and sun in the summer, and to pay more?  Who wouldn't want to live in that hot flying trash hell hole?
 
2014-04-17 02:59:00 PM  

MindStalker: 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.

Is there a reason that electric companies don't generally have a standard connection change to cover your first 1000kWhs? Its the way most water companies bill. I guess its just a historic relic in the way electricity was used/billed?


Is that $9.99 in addition to what would be considered normal billing? If so, I'd be really pissed off.
My power bill, for example, is a $7.00 "customer charge" plus $0.1079 per kWH used.
So for a winter power bill (332 kWH on the February bill that I'm looking at) it totaled out to $49.19 after various taxes and franchise fees were added. That's on a moderately sized 3BR house.

The "customer charge" is for stuff like line maintainence, meter reading, etc. I'd be pissed if I was billed another 100 kWH worth of usage because I used 670 less than what they think I should every month.

The only time we ever go over 1000 is in the hot summer months when the AC is running, Basically I'd be getting screwed for 8 months out of the year.
 
2014-04-17 03:00:47 PM  
Yeah think of those poor coal and nuculur fired companies losing relevance. I'm becoming verklempt.
 
2014-04-17 03:03:30 PM  

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.


You do know that utility companies have their profits regulated by the state, don't you?
 
2014-04-17 03:05:00 PM  
Now only if I wasn't charged a fee for a nuclear plant that provides NO electricity on my electric bill.

Wait until the nuclear power plants you use close and you have to pay for plants that provide zero electricity
even though the energy companies promised to pay those costs themselves.

I think this is why they are running so many nuclear plants way passed when they were supposed to because they are afraid of everyone knowing that you'll be paying "Decommission fees" for decades on plants that provide zero power.
 
2014-04-17 03:06:14 PM  
 
2014-04-17 03:08:11 PM  

GoldSpider: When drivers use less gas, state governments make sure they still get their $$ too.


That would be dumb. They should just increase the taxes on gas.

Doing it by the mile doesn't help us off foreign oil,  or  help C02 reduction where charging more on gas does.
 
2014-04-17 03:09:26 PM  

GoldSpider: When drivers use less gas, state governments make sure they still get their $$ too.


Don't worry. It won't pass. The right to drive trumps any sensible transportation policy.
 
2014-04-17 03:11:04 PM  

Karac: 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.

That's what my water department does.  The first so-many gallons each month costs you a flat fee, whether use all the way up to that level or whether you don't use a drop.  After that there's some dollar amount per gallon extra.


Out here on the Left Coast, too. Typically $30 to $40 for the water/sewer hookup and first several thousand gallons of water, plus about $2/1000 gallons above that. A penny buys 5 gallons on average.
 
2014-04-17 03:11:45 PM  

Corvus: That would be dumb. They should just increase the taxes on gas.


an effectively regressive tax that hurts the poor the most is real smart though.
 
2014-04-17 03:11:48 PM  
"The representatives said utilities need the new surcharge to prevent customers who can't afford the installation costs of distributed generation from subsidizing customers who have the systems installed."

The customer already took on the cost of installing the solar panels and switches to get the power back to the grid.
//Does the electric company charge non-residential providers the same fee?
 
2014-04-17 03:11:51 PM  
It's almost as if Oklahoma has a vast and established traditional energy industry with huge state government connections who use it to stifle competition.
 
2014-04-17 03:11:52 PM  

GoldSpider: When drivers use less gas, state governments make sure they still get their $$ too.


Yep, the cost of your electricity is not just the cost of generation. They have the infrastructure to maintain as well.  That cost does not go down in proportion to your reduction in electrical usage.

If you want to beef up our infrastructure, how the hell else is it going to get paid for?
 
2014-04-17 03:12:56 PM  
Cutting costs is OK when you are a business, but god forbid an individual tries to cut cost.
 
2014-04-17 03:15:43 PM  

HeadLever: If you want to beef up our infrastructure, how the hell else is it going to get paid for?


they could do it in a way that doesn't come off as scammy.
 
2014-04-17 03:17:53 PM  
disinter.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-04-17 03:19:16 PM  
Representatives of Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co. and Public Service Co. of Oklahoma said the surcharge is needed to recover some of the infrastructure costs to send excess electricity safely from distributed generation back to the grid.

Does anyone know if they buy your excess power from you in OK when you add it to the grid? If so, that will be the next law passed. First, they'll charge you for HAVING the system in place, then they'll wrangle things to get your excess electricity for free and then charge OTHERS for it.
 
2014-04-17 03:20:34 PM  

whidbey: GoldSpider: When drivers use less gas, state governments make sure they still get their $$ too.

Don't worry. It won't pass. The right to drive trumps any sensible transportation policy.


Don't tell that to the derpheads in VA, who last year doubled the registration cost of electric vehicles.

// as well as giving NoVA a big middle finger, but that happens every year
 
2014-04-17 03:21:24 PM  

HeadLever: GoldSpider: When drivers use less gas, state governments make sure they still get their $$ too.

Yep, the cost of your electricity is not just the cost of generation. They have the infrastructure to maintain as well.  That cost does not go down in proportion to your reduction in electrical usage.

If you want to beef up our infrastructure, how the hell else is it going to get paid for?


Tax increases. Public money. You have to ask?
 
2014-04-17 03:21:43 PM  

sprawl15: you know last time i bought eight hotdogs from walmart and then tried to return nine they got very upset with me

i don't see why it's different for power


Which is completely not what's happening. I see you're paying attention about as much as you normally do. They aren't using as much power, so they get charged more. It would be(using your lame metaphor) like buying an 8 pack of hotdogs, but being told that you are going to be charged for 2 8 packs whether you walk out of the store with both of them or not.
 
2014-04-17 03:26:25 PM  

Headso: they could do it in a way that doesn't come off as scammy.


It depends upon how they have their rate structure set up.  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.  They are going to have to change something (either the usage rate or the entire structure of the bill).  In the end, everyone's bill will be going up and folks are going to complain.

Now if they they were playing games with the breakdown between usage and fixed costs (and how they were billing the public) and they got caught, they deserve to be kicked in the teeth by the public.
 
2014-04-17 03:28:49 PM  

whidbey: Tax increases. Public money


Not all infrastructure is government-owned.  Much of it can be (and is) privately owned.  Especially in the gas/oil and electricity sectors.
 
2014-04-17 03:29:21 PM  

Mikey1969: It would be(using your lame metaphor) like buying an 8 pack of hotdogs, but being told that you are going to be charged for 2 8 packs whether you walk out of the store with both of them or not.


well either way i'm not shopping at walmart again
 
2014-04-17 03:30:32 PM  

HeadLever: whidbey: Tax increases. Public money

Not all infrastructure is government-owned.  Much of it can be (and is) privately owned.  Especially in the gas/oil and electricity sectors.


Trying to make necessities like power and lights profitable is rarely if ever a good idea.
 
2014-04-17 03:30:53 PM  

sprawl15: you know last time i bought eight hotdogs from walmart and then tried to return nine they got very upset with me

i don't see why it's different for power


Think of it like gold.  If you want gold, you go to the market and buy gold. But in this case there is only one person that usually  sells the gold, so they determined the 'fair market price' all by themselves. Now you decided to screw up the whole system by buying a solar panel that produces more gold than you can use. Your gold is exactly the same as the gold that was previously sold, but somehow it is unfair for you to be allowed to sell your own gold on the market. Sure, they pay for the upkeep of the market, so it would make sense for them to get a comission when you sell.  But they surely don't deserve a daim if you decide you never want to buy gold from them again.
 
2014-04-17 03:32:35 PM  

sprawl15: Mikey1969: It would be(using your lame metaphor) like buying an 8 pack of hotdogs, but being told that you are going to be charged for 2 8 packs whether you walk out of the store with both of them or not.

well either way i'm not shopping at walmart again


I avoid it when I can. Especially for hot dogs. Until they can get the same number of buns in a package as they do hot dogs, I'm not going back.
 
2014-04-17 03:33:10 PM  

HeadLever: Headso: they could do it in a way that doesn't come off as scammy.

It depends upon how they have their rate structure set up.  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.  They are going to have to change something (either the usage rate or the entire structure of the bill).  In the end, everyone's bill will be going up and folks are going to complain.

Now if they they were playing games with the breakdown between usage and fixed costs (and how they were billing the public) and they got caught, they deserve to be kicked in the teeth by the public.


you can't possibly be saying that people's statements can't be amended to include some other line item that includes infrastructure maintnence as an excuse for why they have to list charges in a way that is obviously  infuriating to people trying to mitigate their electric bills?
 
2014-04-17 03:33:17 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Now you decided to screw up the whole system by buying a solar panel that produces more gold than you can use.


all the gold i can eat?
 
2014-04-17 03:34:46 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 03:34:55 PM  
Power companies also have to pay for the costs associated with the building, maintenance, and operation of generation facilities.  Presumably, these costs are also reflected in your power bill.

But since people with grid-connected solar are paying those costs directly by building, maintaining, and operating their own power plants, they should get a discount, right?  Or perhaps their costs of running solar should be reflected in the net metering rate that they sell their electricity back to the power company at.

It's one of those goose/gander situations, isn't it?
 
2014-04-17 03:35:42 PM  

Headso: HeadLever: Headso: they could do it in a way that doesn't come off as scammy.

It depends upon how they have their rate structure set up.  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.  They are going to have to change something (either the usage rate or the entire structure of the bill).  In the end, everyone's bill will be going up and folks are going to complain.

Now if they they were playing games with the breakdown between usage and fixed costs (and how they were billing the public) and they got caught, they deserve to be kicked in the teeth by the public.

you can't possibly be saying that people's statements can't be amended to include some other line item that includes infrastructure maintnence as an excuse for why they have to list charges in a way that is obviously  infuriating to people trying to mitigate their electric bills?


They're charging them because people are turning elsewhere to solve their problems. If anything, it shows just how lax power companies are in upgrading their own infrastructure. They want to pretend it's still the 1980s in terms of power distribution.
 
2014-04-17 03:36:30 PM  

Headso: you can't possibly be saying that people's statements can't be amended to include some other line item that includes infrastructure maintnence as an excuse for why they have to list charges in a way that is obviously  infuriating to people trying to mitigate their electric bills?


My post again:

They are going to have to change something (either the usage rate or the entire structure of the bill).  In the end, everyone's bill will be going up and folks are going to complain.
 
2014-04-17 03:38:52 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 03:40:49 PM  

Cataholic: 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.

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


And your point would be?  You're not really implying that all states should be fairly counted on to "regulate" utility companies with the public's best interest in mind, are you? Perhaps I'm thoroughly misunderstanding you here?
 
2014-04-17 03:44:31 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 03:44:32 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-17 03:47:47 PM  

sprawl15: Tricky Chicken: Now you decided to screw up the whole system by buying a solar panel that produces more gold than you can use.

all the gold i can eat?


If you shave it really thin, it makes ordinary peppermint schnapps taste better.
 
2014-04-17 03:48:34 PM  
It WAS NEVER DEBATED and passed 83-5. Dead god I hate our state legislature. We're not all that bad... i swear.

Then again "Rep. Top Gun" was unchallenged for his seat this year. And Inhofe will be reelected this year.

goddammitsomuch
 
2014-04-17 03:50:00 PM  

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.


No I actually don't want that. The services delivered are more important than any profit, especially when it comes to necessities. Would you have the same attitude towards distributing water?

Again, if the service is a money-loser, then subsidize it. Government in general should and frankly cannot be run as a business. And I'm sure this is a separate argument I know I'm not going to convince you of here.

Back to the topic, the utility company in question should eat the loss and invest in infrastructure more attractive to its customer base, not punish its customers for finding solutions outside of the industry.
 
2014-04-17 03:50:02 PM  
Looks like greens are the only people able to be free riders.
 
2014-04-17 03:50:52 PM  
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.
 
2014-04-17 03:53:00 PM  

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



Good thing there is no history of the utilities industry attempting to bribe the three elected members of the Oklahoma Corporation Commission then? That would be terrible.
 
2014-04-17 03:54:07 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 03:54:30 PM  

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.


Oh now that's gonna make some Farkers mad.
 
2014-04-17 03:55:59 PM  

HeadLever: Headso: you can't possibly be saying that people's statements can't be amended to include some other line item that includes infrastructure maintnence as an excuse for why they have to list charges in a way that is obviously  infuriating to people trying to mitigate their electric bills?

My post again:

They are going to have to change something (either the usage rate or the entire structure of the bill).  In the end, everyone's bill will be going up and folks are going to complain.


I wasn't sure about that part because you had just said something like "how else can they get money for infrastructure"... It read to me like "they are going to have to change something" was too difficult.
 
2014-04-17 03:56:30 PM  
I'm gonna pay them ahead for two months service, and then later pay them less for taking one less payment from me in the same timeframe.
 
2014-04-17 03:57:18 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.


and american idol
 
2014-04-17 03:59:56 PM  

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 forgot "Healthcare."

I'd have no problem with power being for-profit, but it's virtually impossible to have even the illusion of competition if the company that owns the infrastructure is also a power seller.

Up until last year, our electric utility was LIPA - they had no generating capacity of their own to speak of. Instead they just maintained the infrastructure and purchased power to reselling to consumers. Under this model, you could (and the program might still exist) specify who the power you use was purchased from. For example, if I wanted to specifically buy my power from XYZ Solar or whatever, I'd tell the utility that and they wold be obligated to buy my share of KWHrs from that supplier... and I'd pay the rate that supplier charged of course.

LIPA has been taken over by PS&G, which DOES own generating capacity, and they already annulled any existing homeowner agreements with respect to domestic solar rebates and power-purchasing agreements.
=Smidge=
 
2014-04-17 04:04:50 PM  

whidbey: The services delivered are more important than any profit, especially when it comes to necessities. Would you have the same attitude towards distributing water?


Never said they weren't. However, if your department or the company supplying water was not able to make some sort of profit, they would no long be able to function as efficiently as they can as their suppliers would no longer want to do business with them.  In addition, the late fees that they rack up from not being able to pay their bills will end up costing someone more.  That someone is typically the end user of the service.

Plus their bonds become much cheaper which help them construct capital improvements much more efficiently and cost effective.

In the end, if you want to cost yourself much more for water, power and sewer, start forcing your department to operate at a loss.

Again, if the service is a money-loser, then subsidize it

Then it wound't be a money-loser, would it?

Back to the topic, the utility company in question should eat the loss and invest in infrastructure more attractive to its customer base, not punish its customers for finding solutions outside of the industry.

Maybe.  A company that is required to operate under a loss for a sustained amount of time is not going to be able to invest in infrastructure.  This is why it is important for these companies to be profitable.  Again, on the government side, this ties into their bond ratings.
 
2014-04-17 04:05:11 PM  
The bill was supported by the state's major electric utilities

Gee, I wonder why.
 
2014-04-17 04:06:34 PM  

Smidge204: 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 forgot "Healthcare."



I am still undecided about healthcare

I want the smrtest and brightest kids to aspire to be doctors.  If you are a brilliant kid, are you going to enter a field that requires 8 years of postgraduate drudgery and huge debt and wont get you rich, or maybe get a two year masters degree and make a killing in the business realm?

I sort of want doctors to get obscenely rich for just that reason.
 
2014-04-17 04:07:21 PM  
A couple of good tornadoes could wipe that mobile home-infested state off the map. Come on Global Warming! Work for us for once.
 
2014-04-17 04:08:14 PM  

nmrsnr: Hooray, let's punish people who care about the environment!


Bootstrappy: protesting in front of an abortion clinic, making it harder to vote
Not Bootstrappy: relying on yourself to make your own electricity
 
2014-04-17 04:08:19 PM  

Headso: It read to me like "they are going to have to change something" was too difficult.


It can be a difficult process as it requires an accounting of all costs and revenue streams in the context of a pretty hefty life-cycle cost analysis.  However, it is by far the best way to break down bills to the public.
 
2014-04-17 04:09:12 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I am still undecided about healthcare

I want the smrtest and brightest kids to aspire to be doctors. If you are a brilliant kid, are you going to enter a field that requires 8 years of postgraduate drudgery and huge debt and wont get you rich, or maybe get a two year masters degree and make a killing in the business realm?

I sort of want doctors to get obscenely rich for just that reason.


Or we could do what most industrialized countries do and not force college kids to incur so much farking debt..... Nah!!! Fark it.  It builds character or something.  And bootstraps, such as.
 
2014-04-17 04:13:51 PM  
Everybody sing:

Yooooooooooookelhoma, where the sister-farkers came to stay.
 
2014-04-17 04:22:01 PM  

FarkedOver: Tricky Chicken: I am still undecided about healthcare

I want the smrtest and brightest kids to aspire to be doctors. If you are a brilliant kid, are you going to enter a field that requires 8 years of postgraduate drudgery and huge debt and wont get you rich, or maybe get a two year masters degree and make a killing in the business realm?

I sort of want doctors to get obscenely rich for just that reason.

Or we could do what most industrialized countries do and not force college kids to incur so much farking debt..... Nah!!! Fark it.  It builds character or something.  And bootstraps, such as.


OK, make med school free.  It still takes 8 years.  An MBA takes 2, and you make twice as much. No malpractice insurance overhead.  Only a moron or a massochist would go into medicine these days.
 
2014-04-17 04:22:23 PM  

HeadLever: Back to the topic, the utility company in question should eat the loss and invest in infrastructure more attractive to its customer base, not punish its customers for finding solutions outside of the industry.

Maybe.  A company that is required to operate under a loss for a sustained amount of time is not going to be able to invest in infrastructure


Then maybe they should get out of the business, and let someone else do it more efficiently.

This is why it is important for these companies to be profitable. Again, on the government side, this ties into their bond ratings.

Like that's some sort of justification for gouging customers who aren't buying their product.
 
2014-04-17 04:23:11 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I want the smrtest and brightest kids to aspire to be doctors.  If you are a brilliant kid, are you going to enter a field that requires 8 years of postgraduate drudgery and huge debt and wont get you rich, or maybe get a two year masters degree and make a killing in the business realm?


But you aren't getting the best and brightest. You're getting the ones who know the system and don't care about the actual people. Going into school you know no matter what, you will be wealthy coming out. It is the reason they take loans. Residents are underpaid, only when you compare them to the attending physicians salary, not the average citizen's salary. 

There is no shortage of applicants to medical schools for a reason, however the metric they use (like college admission) has no correlating evidence showing it produces better doctors.

Oh- they now have M.D./M.B.A joint programs so they can have best of both worlds.
 
2014-04-17 04:26:28 PM  

HeadLever: Maybe.  A company that is required to operate under a loss for a sustained amount of time is not going to be able to invest in infrastructure.  This is why it is important for these companies to be profitable.  Again, on the government side, this ties into their bond ratings.


Profit occurs at the expense of the poor and underprivileged, and is inherently immoral.  End of discussion.

That's what some people in this thread actually believe.
 
2014-04-17 04:28:00 PM  

thehobbes: Tricky Chicken: I want the smrtest and brightest kids to aspire to be doctors.  If you are a brilliant kid, are you going to enter a field that requires 8 years of postgraduate drudgery and huge debt and wont get you rich, or maybe get a two year masters degree and make a killing in the business realm?

But you aren't getting the best and brightest. You're getting the ones who know the system and don't care about the actual people. Going into school you know no matter what, you will be wealthy coming out. It is the reason they take loans. Residents are underpaid, only when you compare them to the attending physicians salary, not the average citizen's salary.
There is no shortage of applicants to medical schools for a reason, however the metric they use (like college admission) has no correlating evidence showing it produces better doctors.

Oh- they now have M.D./M.B.A joint programs so they can have best of both worlds.


beats the hell out of the M.D.M.A. joint programs
 
2014-04-17 04:30:04 PM  

whidbey: Then maybe they should get out of the business, and let someone else do it more efficiently.


You mean find someone that can operate it profitably?   Sure, if that is the hypothetical you want to present, I'll agree with that.

Like that's some sort of justification for gouging customers who aren't buying their product.

Contrary to your assertion, being profitable is not dependent upon gouging customers.  In fact, not being profitable can be considered gouging the customer as the operating costs and bond interest rates will generally be much higher than normal.  As with anything, moderation is the key.
 
2014-04-17 04:30:06 PM  

thehobbes: Tricky Chicken: I want the smrtest and brightest kids to aspire to be doctors.  If you are a brilliant kid, are you going to enter a field that requires 8 years of postgraduate drudgery and huge debt and wont get you rich, or maybe get a two year masters degree and make a killing in the business realm?

But you aren't getting the best and brightest. You're getting the ones who know the system and don't care about the actual people. Going into school you know no matter what, you will be wealthy coming out. It is the reason they take loans. Residents are underpaid, only when you compare them to the attending physicians salary, not the average citizen's salary. 

There is no shortage of applicants to medical schools for a reason, however the metric they use (like college admission) has no correlating evidence showing it produces better doctors.

Oh- they now have M.D./M.B.A joint programs so they can have best of both worlds.


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.
 
2014-04-17 04:31:05 PM  

Cataholic: 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.

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


Not necessarily, and surprisingly, not in the libbiest state of all, Maryland, where PEPCO makes us pay extra when we lose power for a week.
 
2014-04-17 04:31:18 PM  

GoldSpider: HeadLever: Maybe.  A company that is required to operate under a loss for a sustained amount of time is not going to be able to invest in infrastructure.  This is why it is important for these companies to be profitable.  Again, on the government side, this ties into their bond ratings.

Profit occurs at the expense of the poor and underprivileged, and is inherently immoral.  End of discussion.

That's what some people in this thread actually believe.


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.

I know you can't handle that, but leaving that out of your statement is a more than a bit disingenuous.
 
2014-04-17 04:36:41 PM  
That'll teach you hippies for trying to save money and save the environment. Thought you could keep some money out of the oil companies' hands didn't you? Seditious little bastards!
 
2014-04-17 04:37:32 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 04:39:17 PM  

Huggermugger: Not necessarily, and surprisingly, not in the libbiest state of all, Maryland, where PEPCO makes us pay extra when we lose power for a week.


They made up a word Duracheo and charged us double to not provide us power and used that as justification for a rate hike because their system is to unstable to provide power and it is my fault.

I think they hired somebody from the tea-party to write up their justificaitons on that one.
 
2014-04-17 04:41:09 PM  

whidbey: No, "some people in this thread actually believe" that necessities like utilities shouldn't be bought and sold to the highest bidder,


That is fine, but has little to do with the statement of  'making necessities like power and lights profitable is a bad idea'.  Many will agree with one and laugh at the other.
 
2014-04-17 04:42:42 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 04:42:44 PM  

GoldSpider: Profit occurs at the expense of the poor and underprivileged, and is inherently immoral. End of discussion.

That's what some people in this thread actually believe.


Hey! I resemble that remark!
 
2014-04-17 04:46:59 PM  

HeadLever: whidbey: No, "some people in this thread actually believe" that necessities like utilities shouldn't be bought and sold to the highest bidder,

That is fine, but has little to do with the statement of  'making necessities like power and lights profitable is a bad idea'.  Many will agree with one and laugh at the other.


It's a bad idea in this example. By all observation, the power company did not upgrade to efficiency standards. They should be swallowing that shortfall, not gouging their customers.

Or getting out of business altogether. You just want to defend an industry that isn't even achieving your standards of profitability. You wouldn't make that exception for Goldman Sachs or a bank, would you?
 
2014-04-17 04:47:44 PM  
I'm more than happy to allow energy companies to do this once they pay back the trillions in subsidies, interest free loans and free easements that they have been given over the last century.

I seem to remember just in the last year where energy companies were saying that only drilling for oil, coal and natural gas were the answers to any energy problem.

Personally, I'm surprised that there are enough energy executive dicks in Oklahoma to satisfy all of the hungry Republican mouths.  I'd wager that when an energy company man unzips, it's like a bunch of Republican piglets jostling for who gets the first suck.
 
2014-04-17 04:54:54 PM  
For fark's sake, Drew!  Give Oklahoma a tag already!
 
2014-04-17 04:57:01 PM  
If batboy wins his reelection in FL, I would expect this to pass here too.

/FL farker, who just put the panels up.
 
2014-04-17 04:58:12 PM  

whidbey: It's a bad idea in this example. By all observation, the power company did not upgrade to efficiency standards. They should be swallowing that shortfall, not gouging their customers.

Or getting out of business altogether.


The issue here is that the company need to have the ability to adjust its fee schedule based upon the current market and projected future market trends.  If you don't allow a company or municipality to do that, you are arbitrarily handicapping their ability to stay in business.  Yes, if they misjudged a market change, they should take the immediate loss, however, they should also be able to adjust future billings to correct for this change.  No one can project the future correctly 100% of the time, nor should they be expected to.

Again, if they were playing games with these fees, or completely dropped the ball on something they should have known about, then they deserve to get slapped around.
 
2014-04-17 04:59:02 PM  

rosebud_the_sled: I seem to remember just in the last year where energy companies were saying that only drilling for oil, coal and natural gas were the answers to any energy problem.


Where?
 
2014-04-17 05:05:51 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Smidge204: 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 forgot "Healthcare."


I am still undecided about healthcare

I want the smrtest and brightest kids to aspire to be doctors.  If you are a brilliant kid, are you going to enter a field that requires 8 years of postgraduate drudgery and huge debt and wont get you rich, or maybe get a two year masters degree and make a killing in the business realm?

I sort of want doctors to get obscenely rich for just that reason.


Dude - you just put on the list the way that it doesn't take a huge debt to become a doctor

/Average GP income in most western countries is over $100,000 (US)
// source:http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-docto rs-in-ot her-countries-make/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
///logic: how does it work?
 
2014-04-17 05:09:28 PM  

menschenfresser: Are they not satisfied with the standard monthly service fee they charge customers just for the privilege of being their customers? That's standard, right? I think all my utilities have charges like that added, ostensibly to cover meter reading, back office paperwork, or whatever.


Well the point is to discourage you from using renewables, and the standard service fee doesn't do that.
 
2014-04-17 05:12:36 PM  

factoryconnection: Pokey.Clyde: 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.

Raising the rates in times of low water demand is reasonable, as the maintenance on the system is a mostly fixed expense.  It affects all customers, as does the burden of maintaining the water system.  Never dropping the rates when demand picks up, though?  Yeah that's sh*tty.


Well if the cost of supplying water isn't linked to demand why is it funded by demand? Wouldn't the smarter thing be to have a standard fee per household or business and then a surcharge on top of that for excessive use?
 
2014-04-17 05:17:36 PM  

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.
 
2014-04-17 05:25:11 PM  

whidbey: Dude, it's hardly rocket science.


Yeah, directly contradicting yourself is not rocket science.
 
2014-04-17 05:30:57 PM  

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.


How, exactly, do those two statements contradict each other?
 
2014-04-17 05:34:30 PM  

Faddy: factoryconnection: Pokey.Clyde: 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.

Raising the rates in times of low water demand is reasonable, as the maintenance on the system is a mostly fixed expense.  It affects all customers, as does the burden of maintaining the water system.  Never dropping the rates when demand picks up, though?  Yeah that's sh*tty.

Well if the cost of supplying water isn't linked to demand why is it funded by demand? Wouldn't the smarter thing be to have a standard fee per household or business and then a surcharge on top of that for excessive use?


Because they're letting the heavy users subsidize the sparse users

That's all this stupid temper-tantrum boils down to, the people who installed solar panels want to mooch off everyone else and get free infrastructure for cloudy days.  Either pay the actual flat rate connection/maintenance fee or go live off grid and freeze/stave to death when its cloudy (or pay out the nose for large enough flow batteries).  And no selling back to the grid doesn't do crap since you have to limit it for proper load balancing across the whole grid,and only actually benefits your immediate neighbors.  And that's assuming they installed upgraded transformers in the area otherwise you're causing even more maintenance problems
 
2014-04-17 05:35:45 PM  

DrBenway: How, exactly, do those two statements contradict each other?


One advocates that operating profitably is not a good idea while the other advocates the addition of subsidies for those that lose money.

If operating at a loss is so desirable, why do you advocate offsetting this loss with subsidies?
 
2014-04-17 05:44:48 PM  
Yeah, no surprise here.

Republicans hold the entire Oklahoma political machine in a death-grip and they love their energy industry money. The whole damn state is rotten and there's no effort to stem the tide of greed, hate, and evil-minded bullshiat.

(Fun fact: In the 2010 elections, Sen. Tom Coburn (R) ran essentially unopposed, save by a known paranoid schizophrenic who was disavowed by the national Democratic party. Trying to break the Republican stranglehold on OK is considered a waste of resources on the part of Democrats.)
 
2014-04-17 05:48:32 PM  

FnkyTwn: I'm pretty green, but even I understand the need for charges like this. If you really really really want to be 'full solar', then buy yourself all those bigass expensive ass batteries you need so you can power your house at night, and then pay to have them replaced every 5 years, and get fully off the grid. Otherwise, you're just using the grid as a battery, and then expecting not to pay for access?


Agree wholeheartedly. The surcharge is probably a pittance compared to the price of a single solar battery.
 
2014-04-17 05:49:34 PM  
it's okay to raise taxes as long as it goes to our corporate overlords.
 
2014-04-17 05:50:56 PM  

HeadLever:

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.

whidbey: Dude, it's hardly rocket science.

Yeah, directly contradicting yourself is not rocket science.


I made no such contradiction.

However, you seem to think that subsidizing a money loser=profit, though.
 
2014-04-17 05:51:41 PM  
Frankly surcharges like this are complete, total and absolute bullshiat. It's designed to be punitive for people who install distributed renewable energy. As most people know, it's extremely difficult to get a household to be net-zero year round. Typically there's an excess of power generated in the summer, and during the winter months they buy power back from the utility. If this fee wasn't designed to be punitive, and designed to maintain the grid it would be structured fairly.

UNFAIR = solar customers get an extra $10 monthly surcharge, regardless.

SEMI FAIR = solar customers, on the months when they generate more power than they use, and have a $0 bill at the end of the month will get a $10 grid fee charge for grid connectivity.

FAIR = all customers are charged a base connection rate to be serviced by the grid & then charged by the kWh for their consumption.

And don't get me started at the utility practice of buying customer generated power at standard wholesale cost, even though it's likely generated at a time of peak-rate billing charges and peak plant production rates.
 
2014-04-17 05:53:35 PM  

Mikey1969: I avoid it when I can. Especially for hot dogs. Until they can get the same number of buns in a package as they do hot dogs, I'm not going back.


Might want to find a new joke, old man. Dogs and buns have both come 8/pack for a long time now.
 
2014-04-17 05:54:35 PM  

MrSteve007: And don't get me started


No please, by all means, GET STARTED. Anything to clear the good ol' boy stench in here.
 
2014-04-17 05:54:41 PM  

MrSteve007: Frankly surcharges like this are complete, total and absolute bullshiat. It's designed to be punitive for people who install distributed renewable energy. As most people know, it's extremely difficult to get a household to be net-zero year round. Typically there's an excess of power generated in the summer, and during the winter months they buy power back from the utility. If this fee wasn't designed to be punitive, and designed to maintain the grid it would be structured fairly.

UNFAIR = solar customers get an extra $10 monthly surcharge, regardless.

SEMI FAIR = solar customers, on the months when they generate more power than they use, and have a $0 bill at the end of the month will get a $10 grid fee charge for grid connectivity.

FAIR = all customers are charged a base connection rate to be serviced by the grid & then charged by the kWh for their consumption.

And don't get me started at the utility practice of buying customer generated power at standard wholesale cost, even though it's likely generated at a time of peak-rate billing charges and peak plant production rates.


yeah this is meant to punish those damned liberals and their damned energy conservation methods.
 
2014-04-17 05:55:38 PM  

Pokey.Clyde: Mikey1969: I avoid it when I can. Especially for hot dogs. Until they can get the same number of buns in a package as they do hot dogs, I'm not going back.

Might want to find a new joke, old man. Dogs and buns have both come 8/pack for a long time now.


Not all of them.

content.clearchannel.com
 
2014-04-17 06:02:36 PM  
It's funny this thread came up this afternoon. I was just taking a break at the cost analysis and layout I'm putting together to a proposal to double my office's current rooftop PV array. When complete, it would cover about half of the annual energy needs of my office (some 30 people working inside + servers + heat). if it wasn't for us being in cloudy Seattle, in an area like Arizona, California, or even Oklahoma, it would be enough to cover all of the facility's annual energy needs.

img.fark.net

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-17 06:04:53 PM  

HeadLever: DrBenway: How, exactly, do those two statements contradict each other?

One advocates that operating profitably is not a good idea while the other advocates the addition of subsidies for those that lose money.

If operating at a loss is so desirable, why do you advocate offsetting this loss with subsidies?


Perhaps because municipalities have to balance their books one way or another? Point me back to where whidbey (or anyone else) said that a loss, specifically, was "so desirable."
 
2014-04-17 06:06:42 PM  
So if the power company generates the electricity they bill the consuming customer for the cost of delivery.

If a private windmill or solar source generates the electricity the power company still bills the consuming customer for the cost of delivery.

Either way, the power company has to have infrastructure to get the electricity from the point of generation to the point of consumption, and they bill the consumer.  Why should they get to double dip and bill the generator?
 
2014-04-17 06:09:36 PM  

DrBenway:
Perhaps because municipalities have to balance their books one way or another? Point me back to where whidbey (or anyone else) said that a loss, specifically, was "so desirable."


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


the opposite of profitable is........
 
2014-04-17 06:16:45 PM  

HeadLever: DrBenway:
Perhaps because municipalities have to balance their books one way or another? Point me back to where whidbey (or anyone else) said that a loss, specifically, was "so desirable."


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

the opposite of profitable is........


I must have dreamed the concept of "break-even" then. My bad. Hence my thought that subsidies might be in order to bring numbers back in line with this apparently hallucinated so-called "break-even" point.
 
2014-04-17 06:18:51 PM  

HeadLever: the opposite of profitable is........


Such infantile words games.
Necessities like power should not be for-profit, they should be at-cost. The only goal should be to get the necessity where it is needed. If the goal is also to make money, you have a conflict of interest whenever delivery of the service comes up against what makes more money.
 
2014-04-17 06:19:07 PM  

HeadLever: DrBenway:
Perhaps because municipalities have to balance their books one way or another? Point me back to where whidbey (or anyone else) said that a loss, specifically, was "so desirable."


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

the opposite of profitable is........


I fail to see how your lack of comprehension constitutes further discussion.

I made no contradiction. If you can't actually argue why public ownership is better than private, I don't expect anything more.
 
2014-04-17 06:19:47 PM  

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.
 
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
 
2014-04-18 01:07:30 PM  

MrSteve007: They pay for the farking dams and transmission system at no profit.


Not always.  The BPA does collect surplus market revenue (profit) above and beyond its direct costs.  This money is used for things like unexpected maintenance and infrastructure costs as well as a buffer on any unanticipated changes in power generation or market influences.

This is a standard way of operating for a not-for-profit entity.  If you don't believe me, check out their rate adjustment notification for this year:

In 2014-2015, BPA's costs will increase by about 6 percent, primarily driven by necessary maintenance on the hydroelectric system and required improvements at the Columbia Generating Station nuclear plant. Another major contributing factor is a reduction in BPA's surplus market revenue due to the prolonged economic slump and the negative impact of natural gas prices on electricity markets.

/emphasis mine
 
2014-04-18 01:07:54 PM  

HeadLever: 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.

I really don't want to get down to calling you names, but it seems you decided to skip over what I said. I'll try to distill it down for you.

Who tells the ACoE guys to open or close the spillways or generators of the dam? The BPA. Who pays for the Federal investments of the dams & powerlines? The BPA. Who transmits and sells that power to everyone? The BPA. Who builds the powerlines? The BPA.

To say that the BPA doesn't operate and pay for the the NW regional power system, at no profit, is being pedantic.
 
2014-04-18 01:24:24 PM  

MrSteve007: Who tells the ACoE guys to open or close the spillways or generators of the dam?


That can be anyone from Federal Courts, to the BPA, to any other number of stakeholders.  In any case, it is obvious that your assertion that the BPA operates the dams is not correct, no matter how you try to spin that misstatement.


The BPA. Who transmits and sells that power to everyone? The BPA. Who builds the powerlines? The BPA.

Nothing I have said contradicts that point.
 
2014-04-18 01:25:16 PM  

MrSteve007: To say that the BPA doesn't operate and pay for the the NW regional power system,


But those that say that they operate the dams is flat our wrong.
 
2014-04-18 01:53:05 PM  

Tricky Chicken: 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.


hurr

Yeah well next time make real arguments about shiat, not refer to your interpretations of others posts in other threads.

It kind of proves my point about you.
 
2014-04-18 01:58:05 PM  

HeadLever: In any case, it is obvious that your assertion that the BPA operates the dams is not correct, no matter how you try to spin that misstatement.

I'll admit, it isn't a person from the BPA with their hand on the lever at the dams that controls the spillway. But you have to admit that in a vast majority of the time, it's someone from the BPA who tells the ACoE guy that he should pull the lever. And it's the BPA who pays for and manages everything involved with electricity in the system - along with for the safety of salmon and wildlife in the system.

They're far more than a simple marketing agency. They own, build and operate the transmission lines. They are the region's main provider of grid electricity. And they pay the costs for the main generators on the system, including paying for the nuclear power plant. They are the ones private and public local utilities deal with when buying power. They are the main guys who negotiate power purchase contracts, regionally and internationally. They also administer and service the bonds involved with the federal and state owned power generation stations. They provide load-balancing across several states. And the only organization utilities or large customers can deal with when buying federally managed electricity

For all extensive purposes, it's the BPA who manages and operates the NW regional power grid and is the only one who tells the federal power generators how much power is needed. They are for all extensive purposes, a massive public utility. Which all goes back to your original argument:

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.

The BPA (and the federal partners in the system that the BPA funds), does exactly this. They provide millions of people electricity, and balance their books perfectly. And they have for 77 years.
 
2014-04-18 02:10:18 PM  

MrSteve007: But you have to admit that in a vast majority of the time, it's someone from the BPA who tells the ACoE guy that he should pull the lever.


On the powerhouse side, yes as they set the power generation guidelines.  However, this can be changed based upon differing scenarios.   On the lock side, they have little presence.


They're far more than a simple marketing agency. They own, build and operate the transmission lines.

Which I have inferred in my point 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.


 it's the BPA who manages and operates the NW regional power grid and is the only one who tells the federal power generators how much power is needed.

Yep. I agree and have said as much.


The BPA (and the federal partners in the system that the BPA funds), does exactly this.

Read my discussion in my 3rd post up regarding profit.
 
2014-04-18 02:30:45 PM  

HeadLever: Which I have inferred in my point 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 . . .

who also creates, services, backs, and funds the public bonds that pay for all the public electrical generation dams in the region and a nuclear power plant

So, a transmission middleman who does all the work with grid stability, demand loads, international contract negotiations, salmon protection, private renewable generation integration, local conservation programs, directly funding experimental energy storage systems and pays bills of all the federal energy projects involved. Oh, and is also Congressionally mandated to distribute the profits, once all the fed's bills are paid, to benefit ratepayers. That's quite a bit more work than simply a "middleman."

There's a reason why our electricity is some of the cheapest in the nation. And why it's so reliable and efficient. And it has nothing to do with private utilities, and everything to do with the BPA.
 
2014-04-18 02:36:51 PM  

MrSteve007: And why it's so reliable and efficient. And it has nothing to do with private utilities, and everything to do with the BPA.


I never said they were bad at their job. Believe me, I know exactly what the BPA does.  They are not a producer and they are not a utility.  They are a go between (aka middleman) between the two.  Yes, it is more complicated than but I was trying to explain sum up.
 
Displayed 209 of 209 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report