Should utilities (electricity, water/sewer, etc) be allowed to run for profit?

[greenforest32]

My electricity is provided by a publicly traded, for-profit company that profits from the service and pays out dividends to its shareholders. This profit is extracted from the ratepayers and is an unnecessary added cost.

I believe that utilities should not be run for-profit, but rather as at-cost or below-cost (subsidized) public services provided by the government (or a non-profit organization).

Your thoughts?

[TJ in Wisco]

We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh!

[realisticidealist]

No.

[Lіef]

Of course not. Only in libertarian fantasyland is this a good idea.

[© Tweed the Younger]

We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh!

yeah go have competing sewer systems running though Manhattan.  good idea.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Private utilities shouldn't exist.

[TJ in Wisco]

We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh!

yeah go have competing sewer systems running though Manhattan.  good idea.

You don't have private networks for utilities (and water sewer you probably don't have private anything at least in urban areas, rural ones however are very different). What you need is a public network with privately generated electricity, much like our road system. Just beacuse we have government-sponsored roads doesn't mean we need government sponsored cars.

[dialectical fetishist]

No. Nationalize them and run them as cheap as possible.

[Sibboleth]

I got my electricity bill today. No.

[Frodo]

No. Nationalize them and run them as cheap as possible.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This.  The PEPCO debacle in Maryland should serve as a cautionary note to anyone who thinks that the primary focus of a utility company should be to its shareholders. 

[Formerly Californian Tony]

No. Nationalize them and run them as cheap as possible.

[President Marokai]

Private utilities shouldn't exist.

[You kip if you want to...]

The situation we have in England is clear evidence of why they need to be nationalised.

[dialectical fetishist]

The situation we have in England is clear evidence of why they need to be nationalised.

Exactly. When people in poorer areas only flush their toilet once a day to save money on the ridiculous water prices, you begin to understand why water privatization is an absolutely moronic idea.

[phk]

Private utilities shouldn't exist.

What about solar panels?

[white trash heroes]

We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh!

Stop making sense.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

I don't think water/sewer practically can practically be run privately, given the nature of the infrastructure necessary for them to run and where the water comes from to begin with. At best the government could contract out the work, but it would have to own the infrastructure.

Electricity is a bit different. The electrical grid itself is the biggest piece of infrastructure, but anyone who can produce electricity can put it on the grid, (IIRC in many places if you put power back onto the grid by generating your own then your electric company has to pay you for it) and as such models exist where multiple companies could be operating on the same infrastructure and therefore compete. In some cases regulation to prevent gouging might be needed, but since the infrastructure does allow for competition of some degree I'm inclined to allow a for profit company to be an available option.

[greenforest32]

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29597

Democratic Party Platform of 1940
July 15, 1940

Electric Power

During the past seven years the Democratic Party has won the first major victories for the people of the nation in their generation-old contest with the power monopoly.

These victories have resulted in the recognition of certain self evident principles and the realization of vast benefits by the people. These principles, long opposed by the Republican Party, are:

That the power of falling water is a gift from God, and consequently belongs not to a privileged few, but to all the people, who are entitled to enjoy its benefits;

That the people have the right through their government to develop their own power sites and bring low-cost electricity to their homes, farms and factories;

That public utility holding companies must not be permitted to serve as the means by which a few men can pyramid stocks upon stocks for the sole purpose of controlling vast power empires.

We condemn the Republican policies which permitted the victimizing of investors in the securities of private power corporations, and the exploitation of the people by unnecessarily high utility costs.

We condemn the opposition of utility power interests which delayed for years the development of national defense projects in the Tennessee Valley, and which obstructed river basin improvements and other public projects bringing low-cost electric power to the people. The successful power developments in the Tennessee and Columbia River basins show the wisdom of the Democratic Party in establishing government-owned and operated hydro-electric plants in the interests of power and light consumers.

Through these Democratic victories, whole regions have been revived and restored to prosperous habitation. Production costs have been reduced. Industries have been established which employ men and capital. Cheaper electricity has brought vast economic benefits to thousands of homes and communities.

These victories of the people must be safeguarded. They will be turned to defeat if the Republican Party should be returned to power. We pledge our Party militantly to oppose every effort to encroach upon the inherent right of our people to be provided with this primary essential of life at the lowest possible cost.

The nomination of a utility executive by the Republican Party as its presidential candidate raises squarely the issue, whether the nation's water power shall be used for all the people or for the selfish interests of a few. We accept that issue.

What happened to our spine?

[Communists For McCain]

We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh!

Stop making sense.

[President Marokai]

We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh!

Stop making sense.

So I take it you would all be fine heavily subsidizing alternative forms of electricity generation for American consumers, then?

[Gustaf]

A natural monopoly obviously cannot be allowed to run unregulated.

But it isn't really cheaper to subsidize it. You're just shifting costs based on ideological considerations.

[TJ in Wisco]

We live in a world where now we want people to conserve electricity, be sustainable, and save the environment, meanwhile wanting to lower utility costs and favoring government subsidies to drive prices down even further so they can use even more electricity, requiring a larger carbon footprint, so then we try to limit carbon emissions and spend even more money on inefficient technologies like solar and wind so we can subsidize the whole mess even further and push us all into an even larger government money-sink. Argh!

Stop making sense.

So I take it you would all be fine heavily subsidizing alternative forms of electricity generation for American consumers, then?

Not really. I would tolerate some degree of subsidization of large pieces of infrastructure like dams and nuclear reactors, but dislike subsidies for more individualized forms like personal solar panels or oil extraction it begins to lose any sort of public interest. I certainly want us to stop trying to pick energy sources as a government, like say corn-based ethanol that aren't practical.

Sorry guys, but electric bills really aren't that high. My old roommate spends more on alcohol in a weekend than I do on electricity in a month. I fail to see the need to spend a bunch of money subsidizing it for anyone except those who are very, very poor.

[Governor Scott]

No.  Natural monopolies should never be for-profit.

[Chairman Wow]

Absolutely. Profit is not a bad thing for the users...

However, should they be public? That depends on the utility. Take electricity, I don't think the distributive infrastructure should be private, but would have no problem with the producers to be privately held...

In MA we have had a problem with municipal light departments not cashing in the "green" credits, towns losing literally millions just so they can say they are green. When in actuality they are acting counter to the created mechanism to reinforce green activity.
( to be fair, to the rate payer it would not be significant savings...but that is the sort of absurdity you get with non-profit utility...)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of course not. When they are, the price often quadruples.