Don't like harping too much of fossil fuel subsidies because then you get people telling you that $500 per ton of CO2 avoid for biofuels is "Okay".

I doubt that the subsidies for rural electrification are specifically linked to coal-fired power plants. Rather, I suspect, the fact that a large number of rural electric co-ops are located near rail lines that serve coal-mining areas means that they tend to favor coal as more than private power companies building near cities.

I talked recently to an executive in the rural electrical cooperative industry about this issue. Having something like one fourth the customers per mile of distribution line compared to the investor-owned sector is one of the many reasons they have traditionally received subsidy support like this to balance costs to customers. Now that rural electrical supply is increasingly to high-income exurban commuter development and less and less to low-income farm families may be a reason to review the basis of that subsidy: however it is correct that the subsidy is not specifically tied to coal generation.

The fact remains though that as rural electrical provision implicitly attracts higher costs than urban and suburban distribution the pressure to seek the cheapest generation options is intense. Perhaps rural electric programs will have more to gain than most from emerging distributed generation technologies - that remains to be seen. For now their options are still limited. For decades the boards of these cooperatives have accepted greater kWH sales as the core measure of performance. They face some serious challenges as they go forward.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Hillary talked about diverting fossil fuel subsidies to renewables in that video featured here on the blog excerpted from the debate.   It was contained in the answer to the question about nuclear power  by Edwards, Obama, and Hillary.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Rural electric co-ops show how neutral subsidies can turn out badly.  The rural electrification project was perhaps the most popular and successful anti-poverty program in America for decades.  Started by Roosevelt and propelled by the need to find some use for all those megawatts provided by the new Tennessee Valley Authority and Bonneville Power Authority, the co-ops were the first to bring lights to the hollows in many places.

I had a group of friends out west who, as young boys, had to haul water by hand and milk cows by lantern light because the private power company would not bring electric into the county; the public utility districts provided "postage stamp rates" (flat rate for all takers, regardless of density) -- socialism, in other words.

Lyndon Johnson really got his start in politics when he took a job with the rural electric program, which brought parts of Texas into the 20th Century in the 30s.

The problem was that the program and the subsidies, as usual, don't stop when the problem does.  Once virtually everyone who wanted it had power, the REA became a political powerhouse with a singular mission: keep the subsidies going, no matter what.

A lesson perhaps:  not all subsidies are bad, socialism can be very popular in America, and subsidy programs need to be designed carefully so that they don't become like the March of Dimes, a permanent institution that continues after the reason for its creation passes on.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

"the public utility districts provided "postage stamp rates" (flat rate for all takers, regardless of density) -- socialism, in other words."

Bit of a stretch as a definition ... Comrade Lenin would not be amused. A flat rate fee is what my ISP charges, regardless of location. Socialist it ain't.

(insert friendly emoticon of your choice here)

I agree entirely that the subsidy is past due for review.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

Federalism and Socialism are actually polar opposites.

Government owned
versus
Worker owned

I think that public utility districts qualify as socialist by anyone's definition: publicly owned, with elected boards, with all members having one vote, rather than votes according to wealth.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

PUD Boards answer to members, not shareholders, and members can mandate no more coal.  

Lucky me, my PUD only gets 1% from coal.

"I think that public utility districts qualify as socialist by anyone's definition: publicly owned, with elected boards, with all members having one vote, rather than votes according to wealth."

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

why we have a hard time knowing what to call it --- such a rare thing these days!

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.