Wang Yanjia, William Chandler
{
"authors": [
"William Chandler"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "SCP",
"programs": [
"Sustainability, Climate, and Geopolitics"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Climate Change"
]
}Source: Getty
Obama's Moment to Overhaul the TVA
President Obama can avoid being labeled the greatest socialist in American history by selling or completely revamping the Tennessee Valley Authority to make it a force for more-efficient energy use, better jobs, and a low-carbon future.
Source: Christian Science Monitor

By completely revamping or selling the Tennessee Valley Authority.
TVA is the nation’s largest utility. Federally-owned, it is an icon of the New Deal, and yet it has the worst environmental record of any utility in the nation. Three days before Christmas, a sludge dam at its Kingston coal-fired steam plant failed, sending 5 billion gallons of watery ash to inundate houses and hundreds of acres, and filling the Emory River with coal waste and heavy metals.
Congress created the TVA at the nadir of the Great Depression and the start of the New Deal, 75 years ago. President Franklin Roosevelt’s idea – which sounds very familiar today – was to stimulate the economy, create jobs, and conserve natural resources by investing in new energy systems.
TVA didn’t live up to its supposed goals. Both during and after the Great Depression, manufacturing jobs were created faster just outside TVA than in the TVA area. Non-TVA counties in northern Georgia and Alabama and western North Carolina in 1933 were as poor or poorer than TVA counties, but by 1953 they were generally better off. Even rural electrification and the use of household appliances grew faster in the non-TVA south.
To be sure, TVA created jobs for some 13,000 workers, but for at least four decades, Depression-era investments in TVA dams, waterways, and recreation areas have failed to pay for themselves by any economic measure.
In the 1950s and ’60s, under plans enacted by Democratic populist and former chairman David Lilienthal, the agency made its mission to provide electric power, at any environmental or social cost. Within two decades, TVA’s coal-fired plants made it the nation’s largest violator of the Clean Air Act. A coalition of environmentalists sued the agency in the late 1970s and won, forcing it finally to install air pollution controls. But even today, TVA ranks among the nation’s largest sources of greenhouse-gas emissions.
Could Obama turn TVA into an exemplar of the smart power grid he wants to create?
It’s not as simple as it may seem. The agency is owned by the US government, and its management appointed by a nine-member board of directors (currently all Republicans), who are in turn appointed by the president for five-year terms. All power generation costs, however, including investments in new power plants, must be met by the customers of the TVA. The TVA board sets its own power rates. Capital is made cheaper by the implicit financial backing of the US government.
It will be at least 2011 before President Obama could assert majority control over the board by replacing members as their terms expire.
Because customers pay for power, and because TVA policy is to provide power at the lowest possible cost, there is no room to subsidize the creation of a smart grid, new energy systems, greater environmental protection, or even general economic development. Environmental protection comes only when the government requires it, and the fact that the government owns the utility does little to serve the public interest.
If TVA is merely a power company, why shouldn’t it be privatized? Yet historically, proposals to sell TVA elicit howls of outrage. Would the current Republican board consider sale of the agency as an option, or would they defend the status quo?
Obama will have to grapple with the history and the politics of this question as he ponders how to make TVA a force for more-efficient energy use, better jobs, and a low-carbon future.
At the least, Obama could put TVA management on notice of his expectations. He could direct his Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency to define steps TVA should take to reform the 75 year-old agency. He could require – and reward – investment in energy efficiency and disincentivize the wasteful use of power. He could require TVA to create the most advanced carbon mitigation measures of any US utility – and then of any utility anywhere in the world. He could inform managers that if by 2011 this plan is not well advanced, they will be replaced, and the agency put up for sale.
None of this is likely to come easily. No lobbying group with any credibility is calling for reforms at the TVA. But as Obama could well note, there’s nothing conservative about propping up a filthy, state-owned utility company, and nothing socialist about expecting it to provide clean energy to meet customers’ demands.
This op-ed first appeared in The Christian Science Monitor on February 24, 2009. All rights reserved.
About the Author
Former Adjunct Senior Associate, Energy and Climate Program
Chandler is a leading expert on energy and climate. As an adjunct senior associate in the Energy and Climate Program he supports Carnegie’s work in these fields, collaborating closely on projects with Carnegie’s offices in Moscow, Beijing, Brussels, and Beirut.
- Understanding Energy Intensity Data in ChinaOther
- President Obama's Chances of Success in CopenhagenQ&A
William Chandler, Taiya M. Smith
Recent Work
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?Article
India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.
Konark Bhandari
- India Signs the Pax Silica—A Counter to Pax Sinica?Commentary
On the last day of the India AI Impact Summit, India signed Pax Silica, a U.S.-led declaration seemingly focused on semiconductors. While India’s accession to the same was not entirely unforeseen, becoming a signatory nation this quickly was not on the cards either.
Konark Bhandari
- The Impact of U.S. Sanctions and Tariffs on India’s Russian Oil ImportsCommentary
This piece examines India’s response to U.S. sanctions and tariffs, specifically assessing the immediate market consequences, such as alterations in import costs, and the broader strategic implications for India’s energy security and foreign policy orientation.
Vrinda Sahai
- NISAR Soars While India-U.S. Tariff Tensions SimmerCommentary
On July 30, 2025, the United States announced 25 percent tariffs on Indian goods. While diplomatic tensions simmered on the trade front, a cosmic calm prevailed at the Sriharikota launch range. Officials from NASA and ISRO were preparing to launch an engineering marvel into space—the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar (NISAR), marking a significant milestone in the India-U.S. bilateral partnership.
Tejas Bharadwaj
- TRUST and TariffsCommentary
The India-U.S. relationship currently appears buffeted between three “Ts”—TRUST, Tariffs, and Trump.
Arun K. Singh