>But investor-owned utilities (IOUs), which administer electricity for well over half of Americans, face another imperative: to make money for investors. They can’t make money selling electricity; monopoly regulations forbid it. Instead, they make money by earning a rate of return on investments in electrical power plants and infrastructure.
Wouldn't the next logical course be for IOUs to convince legislators of outdated/inefficient infrastructure, thus paving the way for infrastructure plans that provide tax benefits as well as real dollars to replace existing infrastructure. This would let the IOUs 'skim off the top' to provide profits on this upheaval for investors?
Where municipalities are unconvinced that they need new infrastructure either through insufficient budget or other reasons, IOUs could convince regulators that stricter environmental limits are required, forcing municipalities to pay for the new infrastructure, usually by allowing utilities to pass that cost on to consumers by tacking on additional charges to subscribers bills.
Seems like a prime environment for this to happen -- if the proper cogs were greased in this direction.
Wouldn't the next logical course be for IOUs to convince legislators of outdated/inefficient infrastructure, thus paving the way for infrastructure plans that provide tax benefits as well as real dollars to replace existing infrastructure. This would let the IOUs 'skim off the top' to provide profits on this upheaval for investors?
Where municipalities are unconvinced that they need new infrastructure either through insufficient budget or other reasons, IOUs could convince regulators that stricter environmental limits are required, forcing municipalities to pay for the new infrastructure, usually by allowing utilities to pass that cost on to consumers by tacking on additional charges to subscribers bills.
Seems like a prime environment for this to happen -- if the proper cogs were greased in this direction.