Hickenlooper Signs Higher Rural Energy Rates

To subsidize inefficient alternative energy sources. Looks like northern Colorado is looking at seceding.

FredHayek wrote: To subsidize inefficient alternative energy sources. Looks like northern Colorado is looking at seceding.

Rural and Urban Colorado really are two different places with completely different political ideas. It makes sense to form a new state.

I think Hickenlooper is an idiot.

Hick also signed up to illegal aliens being invited to get legal drivers licences in Colorado.
I don't get it, why have laws if laws aren't enforced?

Freezeman wrote: Hick also signed up to illegal aliens being invited to get legal drivers licences in Colorado.
I don't get it, why have laws if laws aren't enforced?

They only enforce the ones they want to here in CO.

I don't see a problem with subsidizing green energy as long as it has a reasonable chance of doing some future good. But I'm from a place that uses mostly renewable energy (wind and hydro) and it's a perfect fit for that town. There was a cost in the form of higher taxes for the new technology but it will payoff many times over.

The reason the energy companies aren't doing it on their own is that fiscally it doesn't yet make sense to do it. If, and it's a big one at that, solar and wind ever achieve price parity, or actually become less expensive, then the energy companies will implement it all on their own.

Xcel Energy doesn't give a hoot how expensive the energy is, they have a government granted monopoly to provide power which guarantees them a profit. The rural companies are not blessed with a guaranteed profit from the government, they actually have to earn their profit, so of course they are going to be more resistant to implementing a more expensive, and less profitable, source of energy for themselves.

How would you like it if the government said that when you put on a new roof that you had to add at least X kW of solar panels in order to get your roof fixed? You would be OK with that I presume? And how do you propose to pay for that infrastructure upgrade at a time when we are running trillion dollar deficits at the national level, go deeper in debt? Tax credits and deductions perhaps? The only people who can take advantage of those are people who don't really need them. It's like the rebates for the $40K Chevy Volt. If you can afford to spend $40K on a car, then you really don't need the discount, do you?

Yet another instance of the Democratic party, which is supposed to be the one looking out for the little guy if you listen to them, taking more money away from the people who can least afford to have it taken away from them and trying to convince everyone that the other guys are the ones who favor the rich.

Science Chic wrote: Fossil fuels started out (and continue to this day) as subsidies, so why not other forms of energy production, especially ones that can pay themselves back like wind and solar and so should go down in price over time? Each region will have its strengths on what's best/most efficient to install, and if we couple it with a grid-wide infrastructure upgrade so we aren't losing a lot of energy to waste it will only benefit the economy, and our own pocketbooks. It's sad that it has to legislated, the energy companies should be implementing this on their own initiative - they stand to gain the most.

I always hear that "energy companies get subsidies"....can you elaborate the specific subsidies they receive?

RenegadeCJ wrote:

Science Chic wrote: Fossil fuels started out (and continue to this day) as subsidies, so why not other forms of energy production, especially ones that can pay themselves back like wind and solar and so should go down in price over time? Each region will have its strengths on what's best/most efficient to install, and if we couple it with a grid-wide infrastructure upgrade so we aren't losing a lot of energy to waste it will only benefit the economy, and our own pocketbooks. It's sad that it has to legislated, the energy companies should be implementing this on their own initiative - they stand to gain the most.

I always hear that "energy companies get subsidies"....can you elaborate the specific subsidies they receive?

I know what point you're getting at here and I agree those tax deductable expenses are not subsidies - they are the same deductable costs every other company gets. But I do think there is a need for real subsidies for renewable energy companies, otherwise we'll be stuck with oil until the limited supply makes that unaffordable and we'll wish we converted sooner.