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 24
    More: Ironic, Oklahoma House, electricity, Mary Fallin, customers  
•       •       •

2814 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2014 at 2:07 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-04-17 01:48:01 PM  
4 votes:

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 01:03:35 PM  
4 votes:
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 02:14:06 PM  
3 votes:
Small Government*! Less regulation*!


*Void when profits drop
2014-04-17 12:38:31 PM  
3 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-17 12:17:26 PM  
3 votes:
If solar is seen as a threat by power companies then I guess it is becoming practical.
2014-04-17 04:42:42 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:14:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 01:07:21 PM  
2 votes:
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 12:43:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:41:55 PM  
2 votes:
Hooray, let's punish people who care about the environment!
2014-04-17 12:35:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:18:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:22:01 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:54:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:50:52 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:50:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:52:49 PM  
1 votes:
Scum and villainy.
2014-04-17 02:43:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:26:18 PM  
1 votes:
Yet another wonderful REPUBLICAN idea   (lets prong the middle class)
2014-04-17 02:23:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:12:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:11:59 PM  
1 votes:
Sounds like they are picking the winners.

B--b-b-but Free market! Free market!
2014-04-17 01:09:27 PM  
1 votes:
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/
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report