Sometimes I wonder if this has ever crossed your mind? ....if a muni you saw ever had the chance to become bigger, possibly become an invester owned utility, and cover more towns, cities, and overall distance but still retain the characteristic construction styles and pole specs? As you all would probably agree, munis do have some interesting pole designs and constructions. Just imagine if one these "shoestring" munis ever had the chance to expand and cover more distance of customers like a large invester own utility? I think it would be pretty interesting.
If you could choose any muni and actually see what it would be like for this to happen, which muni would you pick and why?
Loading
2 comments
David Dahle said:
David Dahle said:
The munis are owned by the city as part of its infrastructure and therefore answers to its government. All the proceeds from the utility operations go back into the city's coffers, whether or not there is a separate fund set aside for the muni's upkeep.
Investor-owned utilities are owned by the shareholders and therefore there is always a little pressure to ensure there is money to pay dividends on the shares each quarter (it must be a balancing act sometimes to figure out how much money can be saved for ongoing work versus money that has to go to the shareholders). There are times when an IOU may be inclined to favor the shareholders' returns over reasonable rates for the customers, and is one of the reasons for rate regulation by the states.
Cooperatives have a double responsibility to their members - as customers AND collectively, as the owners. Money earned above and beyond what the coop needs for its ongoing work is eventually returned to the members in the form of "capital credits".
So, overall, it seems that the cooperative system may be the best model of the three.