Why can't we all just get along?

Well, in some circumstances we still can. Part of Bush's budget calls for federally subsidized power companies to start charging customers market value for power. Local officials are maintaining that this will raise the cost of power for local residents something like 20% per year.

The plan also would affect three other regional agencies that supply power to dozens of states: the Colorado-based Western Area Power Administration; Georgia-based Southeastern Power Administration; and Oklahoma-based Southwestern Power Administration. Overall, the plan could save as much as $12 billion during 10 years by removing subsidies and other federal assistance, officials said.

Ordinarily, I am in favor of market conditions and privatization, but this smells of something different. This feels more like an additional tax to raise money for the feds. Currently, the BPA charges to cover the cost of producing power. Makes it kind of like a non-profit. Is this fair?

"There are plenty of sources of power out there. They can't compete with the BPA because they are charging a discounted price based on cost and subsidy," Carnes said.
The administration plan "levels the playing field" with nonfederal providers that are being undercut by as much as 30 percent, Carnes said.

But RoguePundit points out that:

Carnes is engaging in a wee bit of hyperbole. There is very little spare power in the West during hot summers...so "plenty" is certainly an exaggeration. The plants that have excess capacity also produce greenhouse gasses, whereas dams do not. We subsidize wind and solar power to help make these cleaner power sources more affordable, so why would we want to potentially make fossil fuel power cheaper than hydropower?

Again, I say that since this is a government power company, where is the extra income that would come from charging market value going to? Federal coffers?
The interesting part about this is who is supporting it and who is opposing it. You would expect that NW congress persons would be against it. Count DeFazio (D-OR), Cantwell (D-WA), Inslee (D-WA) and Gordon Smith (R-OR)

Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., also opposed the plan, which he said could cost Northwest ratepayers as much as $2 billion during three years.
"BPA's customers are still recovering from the West Coast energy crisis and a sluggish economy. They've already been hit with rate hikes, and they can't afford any more. I am going to exhaust every right and privilege I have as a senator to kill this proposal," Smith said.

On a national level you have a mix as well. California Senators Fienstein and Boxer (both D) and Representatives Miller (D) and Bilbray (R) all are in favor of stopping the BPA from providing subsidized or at-cost power to their customers.
The chairman of the Senate Energy and NR committee, Pete Domenici (R-NM) opposes it.

The proposal immediately faced trouble in Congress. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called it "politically untenable."
"Every once in a while, administrations of either party come up with this idea, and I won't support it," Domenici said.

This is all getting pretty surreal, watching Democrast demand a market solution and Repubs demanding subsidized power. But like I said before, since these are government agencies, the profits are just new government funds, which would be just like a new tax, so there's why Democrats would not have a problem with it.
I wonder if this is more of a regional thing than a Democrat-Republican thing. It seems like the winers in California are pissed that we up here in the NW have all this nice cheep power when they can't seem to restrain themselves when creating water and power for millions in southern California strains the system.