TVA: worth the price?

I first got the news via a text message on my cell phone: TVA is raising rates for electric power by 20%, effective October 1.

Blue Collar Muse has an excellent (and link-rich) post about the subject.  And he’s right about where the blame belongs.  But, there’s more to the story that gets under my skin in a big way, referring back to an article in the News-Sentinel last December 13:

In a separate report to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, TVA detailed incentive payments greater than $25,000 to 54 top executives.

TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore earned total compensation of $1.84 million for the fiscal year, up from $1.59 million last year. Kilgore is eligible to make $2.7 million next year under a compensation plan approved last month by TVA’s board.

Other top earners for 2007 were Chief Operating Officer Bill McCollum ($1.76 million), Vice President of Nuclear Generation Development and Construction Ashok Bhatnagar ($1.04 million) and Chief Nuclear Officer Bill Campbell ($1 million).

Since TVA is supposed to be a not-for-profit type entity, it surely seems to me that part of the criteria for earning bonuses ought to be whether they’ve done all they can to provide maximum customer service at the minimum price.

Folks, November is fast approaching.   We all know that developing alternative energy sources is necessary, whether to protect the environment or to quit sending billions to people who want us dead.  We’ve used hydroelectric for years, and it works well when it rains.  We’re developing a taste for wind and solar, which works well where the wind blows or the sun shines.

Nuclear power doesn’t depend on the weather.  It’s reliable, and we know how to do it right. 

John McCain gets it.  So does Zach Wamp.

5 Responses to “TVA: worth the price?”

  1. on 20 Aug 2008 at 2:53 pm Joel

    Yeah, the only problem is that the only way nuclear power is profitable is with government mandates and subsidies. As a free-market alternative, the numbers just don’t add up.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0607-nuclear_debate.html

  2. on 20 Aug 2008 at 3:09 pm Netmom

    Maybe they didn’t in 2007; as of August 2008, it seems to have evened up “except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.”
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

    The concept of distributed micro-power generation is an interesting one, and one that I plan to keep up with. If I can power my home on my own and sell back any spare kilowatts, that’s pretty cool.

    It isn’t going to do much for industry, though. Someone still has to supply peak demand amounts to keep the factories going… and TVA’s mammoth increase is putting their continued presence in our state at risk.

  3. on 20 Aug 2008 at 5:35 pm girlfriend

    When the Public Utilities Commission was the watchdog of public utilities and all raises in rates and salaries had to be jusitifed and approved by them this type of gross misuse of funds did not happen.

  4. on 20 Aug 2008 at 5:41 pm Joel

    “It seems to have evened up “except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels.”

    Other than a link to an organization that is in the business of promoting nuclear power, do you have any evidence for this assertion?

    Here is the argument against nuclear (beyond the fact that no private money will invest without government subsidies):

    http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php

  5. on 05 Oct 2011 at 3:57 pm Abner

    good web site. appreciate your this wonderful posting. i be thankful a lot.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post

Leave a Reply