SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: flatsville who wrote (54933)1/6/2001 2:51:42 AM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor  Read Replies (1) of 436258
 
Flats...it sounds like a good proposal on the surface. I can think of 3 main problems with it offhand, though:

1) The bond would be backed by a "by a special fee that appeared on the bills of utility customers. If this fee, technically called a tariff, is set in stone by the state legislature, this arrangement can provide top ``AAA'' bond ratings even for companies that this week saw their own ratings plummet.

The fee has to be ``free from regulatory and political oversight'' to assure investors it won't be reduced"

Sounds like they could take care of the bills incurred up to the present with this. But the meter continues to run, and the fees won't necessarily be small. Given the aversion to increasing power bills in Cali, politically it may not fly as opposed to letting 'em go busto and having the state takeover.

2) About those "small fees". Are they determined proportionate to past power use? By type of entity being served (home vs small/large commercial vs industrial)? How does that play, who decides and most importantly, how long does it take to put into place.

3) If it does fly, they'll have to go back to the well repeatedly untill they increase retail power rates commensurate with prevailing wholesale costs. Seems like a rather unwieldy system that leaves intact the underlying regulatory issue of shielding the consumer from the costs of power used, resulting in excessive consumption and scuttling conservation efforts. Why not simply let retail rates float which would assuredly encourage conservation, while increasing the (desparately needed) revenues.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News