The end of free power?

First for what 'you' pay for electricity, I wouldn't consider that free.. LOL!

It's my understanding the Utility is Nationalized, so how would they charge themselves for what they use?

Should have stayed Privatized in my mind..

Wow had no idea municipalities didn't pay for power. It had already been decided there would be a rate increase in august this year. Here's the link https://www.elnuevodia.com/noticias/loc … s-2202415/

Yea, real common here.   I have seen power taken from the lines that feed the police station near me.

With the bankruptcy of the utility an opportunity for cutting off freeloaders?

I don't doubt that the history is correct.  And if the solution proposed by Forbes is adopted, namely market price for everyone, then the price for the consumer would go down, while the price for the municipalities would go up (from zero).  Of course, the municipalities don't have the money to pay for the electricity, so taxes would rise.

Nevertheless, if municipalities are charged for electricity use, don't you think they will be more miserly in how they use it?

A friend of mine spent a year in Sulemaniya, in the Kurdish region of Iraq.  Oil money was used to subsidize many things, most notably water.  No one paid for water.  As a result, he frequently found faucets left running.  Why go to the trouble to turn it off if you don't pay for it?

Actually, I have seen the faucet next door left on by a careless passer by.   Again, a public source and an attitude of "don't give a **it".   

The larger issue is wide spread abuse and waste in the public utility systems here.  Water, electric power, land fill operations, etc will be stressed for the foreseeable future.

As residents and tax payers we will pay more and be enjoying it less.   

I've been careless like that.  But it's not carelessness when the commodity is "free".  That's the basic economic point of the Forbes article.  There is a non-zero cost to turning off the faucet (it requires some, albeit modest effort), while there is no cost to leaving it on.  Therefore, it gets left on.

Similarly, there is non-zero cost to turning off a lightswitch.  If the cost of electricity in municipal buildings is zero, why turn it off?

Lastly, you choose when and how long to run AC.  You may invest in energy-efficient appliances and lightbulbs, all because electricity has a non-zero cost for you.  Isn't it a good idea for the municipalities to be more judicious in their use of electricity?

Just basic economics, which by the way, isn't about money.  Economics is about making choices.

Ultimately the consumer, not the business, government or municipalities pay the electricity. All consumers end up paying in their food bill, their gas bill, their electric bill, their water, additional taxes, higher parking at the beach, higher tolls, etc. Whether municipalities pay or not makes no difference, at the end of the day it all ends up being payed by the consumer since even the corporations pass the cost to the consumer in higher prices.

BTW that water park in the west of the island does not pay electricity either.

What they need to do is send crews out looking for people stealing electricity and fine them for a year of an average bill for the consumers in the neighborhood, pay up or jail time.

This means checking their records, checking any wires out of the posts to homes and businesses and inspecting all electric meters.

Either way the consumer pays, so go get those that are stealing it, municipalities are paying indirectly since part of what they collect goes to the central government.

There are some in congress pissed off at the Federal board (PROMESA) because they did not take the deal with the bond holders and instead declared bankruptcy. The are loud whispers that some of the members of the board may be replaced. Under that deal the PREPA insured bonds were going to be cut by 8%, and the uninsured PREPA bonds were going to be cut by 15%, so when you see that preparation bonds were being cut by 15%, that is only 50% of all PREPA bonds, so it is not the whole story. It was a bad deal for PRZEPA and for the people and it would have meant that you would have end up paying about 3 more cents per KWH and maybe more. The board said that they would not take the deal because it meant that consumers would pay above 21 cents per KWH by 2026. In reality you are paying more than that today, so what the board wanted was to lower your bill by cutting how much the bond holders get. All across looks like the board is aiming to cut all the debt by at least 50%, and that is why some in congress are pissed because the bond industry is pressuring them to get more out of PR in general, not less.

Almost all original bond holders have already lost their money, the big corporations that own the bonds purchased them at pennies on the dollar and knew the risk since they were rated junk before they purchased them, but they are pressuring to get between 85% and 100% of the face value. Even with a 15% haircut they are making close to 300% on their investment.

Some talk about US pensions being affected, YES, those that saw it go down and sat on their shares, most other would have sold at a lost and got the hell out much earlier. Had that money been on anything else like mutual funds and lost value the same way, they would have gone after the investment management company instead of going thru all this mess, so in my book that is a self inflicted injury, you never take your eyes out of your investments. Remember most are not individuals, these funds are managed by a corporation that was hired to manage those retirement funds.

I don't know squat about bankruptcy - but seems to me if bonds were bought at a big discount, they don't deserve to be paid a profit. The court ought to clip a % off the discount price paid. The pain needs to be shared.

Any legal eagles want to enlighten us?