Say hello to higher electricity costs....

#4
#4
Well, that's a fine how do you do for ya!! Man, I should have been a politician so I don't have to pay my fair share through life. I'd get to live free off taxpayer's dime & still draw a pay check.
 
#7
#7
I was just reading another story on Obama wanting to raise the cost of carbon emissions 60%. Which means it'll cost us more. I thought it had more to do with that.... Oops. Must read.
 
#8
#8
In this case, privatization would be bad. Rates would go up, pay for the higher-ups would go up, too.
 
#10
#10
82_VOL_83 said:
Say goodbye to some of the cheapest electricity prices in the nation.
Click to expand...

so you're saying the govt is more efficient in keeping down prices than the private market would be? Doesn't everyone deserve to have cheap energy prices in this country? I assume you are now for govt takeover of all utilities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
utvolpj said:
so you're saying the govt is more efficient in keeping down prices than the private market would be? Doesn't everyone deserve to have cheap energy prices in this country? I assume you are now for govt takeover of all utilities?
Click to expand...

I'm just for not paying higher energy prices period. And yes, TVA provides probably the lowest cost electricity to over 7 million households in the SE. They also provide electricity to the national grid as required so your rates would go up also in some minor form. I doubt that the Feds will sell the nuclear portion. May be good in some way to rid themselves of the fossil fuel and hydro facilities as many of these facilities require maintenance due to age. I guess I don't view TVA as the equivalent of the USPS, Dept. of Ed., Dept of Homeland Security, etc. They actually serve a useful purpose, produce a lower cost product, and aren't in the red. One wouldn't think that they were a federally owned entity.

Don't ever assume anything PJ, just makes you look like an ass. Discussion would be nice vs attack. But you don't have that in you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#13
#13
I'm a big fan of TVA. I was just pointing out the irony.

I believe they only recently became self-sufficient. And when I say recently, I mean the past 2 decades or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
Thrasher865 said:
I'm a big fan of TVA. I was just pointing out the irony.

I believe they only recently became self-sufficient. And when I say recently, I mean the past 2 decades or so.
Click to expand...

I think in the early 90's they became essentially independent of the feds. I wish they would do the same to the postal service, but that is too big of a cash cow for the general coffers.
 
#15
#15
82_VOL_83 said:
I'm just for not paying higher energy prices period. And yes, TVA provides probably the lowest cost electricity to over 7 million households in the SE. They also provide electricity to the national grid as required so your rates would go up also in some minor form. I doubt that the Feds will sell the nuclear portion. May be good in some way to rid themselves of the fossil fuel and hydro facilities as many of these facilities require maintenance due to age. I guess I don't view TVA as the equivalent of the USPS, Dept. of Ed., Dept of Homeland Security, etc. They actually serve a useful purpose, produce a lower cost product, and aren't in the red. One wouldn't think that they were a federally owned entity.
Click to expand...

whether you think they're a fed entity doesn't really matter. What actually matters is that you are up in arms that a govt entity is being sold off to the private market and that it will likely raise your rates.

so are you in favor of the govt owning all energy production in the US since you have shown that will likely lower rates for everyone? Or is it simply TVA since that affects your bill?

82_VOL_83 said:
Don't ever assume anything PJ, just makes you look like an ass. Discussion would be nice vs attack. But you don't have that in you.
Click to expand...

there was no attack. Just a couple questions you don't seem to be willing to consider
 
#16
#16
utvolpj said:
whether you think they're a fed entity doesn't really matter. What actually matters is that you are up in arms that a govt entity is being sold off to the private market and that it will likely raise your rates.

so are you in favor of the govt owning all energy production in the US since you have shown that will likely lower rates for everyone?

Only someone trying to attack would draw this conclusion. There was no evidence presented nor did I ever say this. And no, not in favor of government owning all utilities.

Or is it simply TVA since that affects your bill?

Probably only TVA. I have mixed feelings on this as my father worked for them for nearly 40 years. TVA filled a necessary nitch in a time of need. The need is no longer there, but they are being run with nearly the efficiency of a private company which is absolutely unheard of in the federal government.

there was no attack. Yes there was but I am learning that is just your nature. Just a couple questions you don't seem to be willing to consider
Click to expand...

Are you in favor of the government selling TVA even though it is self sufficient? Are you in favor of TVA's current customers paying higher power costs? Do you think private industry will offer lower rates than those TVA already offers? I think higher costs for power for anyone in the country on top of what the joker in chief has lined up for us is uncalled for. I doubt the sale would be approved by Congress and I also believe that there is an underlying agenda as TVA burns a lot of coal and oil which flies in the face of Barry's war on coal.
 
#17
#17
Also, I'm pretty sure TVA is in the red with Watts Bar Unit 2 and the coal ash spill. And their executives are outlandishly paid. Rates might go up, but it will at least be at the rate payers as opposed to federal tax payers expense. And they will probably be more efficient.
 
#18
#18
Weezy said:
Also, I'm pretty sure TVA is in the red with Watts Bar Unit 2 and the coal ash spill. And their executives are outlandishly paid. Rates might go up, but it will at least be at the rate payers as opposed to federal tax payers expense. And they will probably be more efficient.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, TVA hasn't accepted any Federal funding for two decades or more. This has been posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
82_VOL_83 said:
Are you in favor of the government selling TVA even though it is self sufficient? Are you in favor of TVA's current customers paying higher power costs? Do you think private industry will offer lower rates than those TVA already offers? I think higher costs for power for anyone in the country on top of what the joker in chief has lined up for us is uncalled for. I doubt the sale would be approved by Congress and I also believe that there is an underlying agenda as TVA burns a lot of coal and oil which flies in the face of Barry's war on coal.
Click to expand...

if you see an attack that's on you. You seem to view anyone questioning your beliefs as an attack which is hardly the case

I am for selling it and letting the rates go where they may. If it ends up being more expensive then that's between the business and its customers. That is called a consistent stance

and ftr my dad has been an engineer on the fossil fuel side for over 30yrs. I am familiar with what they do
 
#22
#22
Thrasher865 said:
AFAIK, TVA hasn't accepted any Federal funding for two decades or more. This has been posted.
Click to expand...

I guess where I'm coming from, is that at some point for TVA to keep rates below market price, the revenue must be coming from elsewhere. I have no additional information, just thinking through it...

If TVA can supply electricity at lower than market rates, it's not because they are super efficient. It's probably because a lot of their original capital (nuclear plant construction and other electricity generation facilities) was federally backed (i.e. tax payer expense).

My original post was under the assumption that the only way they can afford Watts Bar Unit 2 being billions over budget, and the coal ash spill, is due to taxpayer back funds (insurance, loans, idk).

But I suppose it could also be because their revenue streams are greater than the private market due to not having money tied up in past capital costs. For instance nuclear is extremely cost beneficial post construction, so if TVA isn't paying what others are for the original capital, they could maybe afford it. Or maybe it's because fuel supply or DOE tritium perks, who knows.

I'm just spitballing because if TVA is supplying energy at lower rates, it's not just due to magic government efficiency, not when they when they have a couple of problems costing them big. There's something else factoring in, and I'm assuming it has something to do with being a federal entity.
 
#23
#23
There's not taxpayer subsidy for TVA right now. There's also, by law, no federal taxpayer liability for for TVA debt. So if TVA is privatized, rate-payers would be on the hook.
 
#24
#24
So maybe they just have a lot of debt and the rates don't match it. The only point I'm trying to make is that TVA is not more efficient than the private sector. Their rates being low is due to something else.

Their latest nuke project is three years late, and almost double the original estimated cost. They had an ash spill that will cost hundreds of millions. And this ignores the future cost of coal since I can't really blame that on TVA. And their executives are still paid as much as the private sector (so they aren't making up cost there).
 
#25
#25
Weezy said:
So maybe they just have a lot of debt and the rates don't match it. The only point I'm trying to make is that TVA is not more efficient than the private sector. Their rates being low is due to something else.
Click to expand...

And what is this based on? Maybe they just don't demand as much profit as private power corporations.

Why can't a government program be more efficient than a private one? Just because it rarely happens?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top