3 ms·
Given PREPA’s history and turmoil, it’s questionable how efficiently they would use any amount of money. It’s not an argument for a for-profit monopoly, but for
by himom 9y ago
Given PREPA’s history and turmoil, it’s questionable how efficiently they would use any amount of money. It’s not an argument for a for-profit monopoly, but for well-managed, capital-efficient, accountable service provider that doesn’t extort customers.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoTesla? No different then PPA rooftop offerings. Also sidesteps bondholder claims if you go straight to customers.
- himom 9y agoTesla doesn’t have relevant expertise or local knowledge to deploy a complete energy grid suitable for PR. Plus, they would create a profit-centric monopoly that would end up squeezing poor people. Instead, a non-profit or state-run monopoly that is run well, unlike PREPA is a required precondition. PR can’t sustain competitors due to its tiny size, so they need an “Amtrak” for most services. It would be nice to deploy solar, wind and distributed battery storage along with cleaner power generation, but it doesn’t have to be Tesla. Costa Rica’s generation-side has some good clean energy deployments that might make useful templates.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoCan’t be state sponsored, due to bondholder claims on territory revenue streams. Decades of poor governance decisions by the people of PR coming home to roost.
- greglindahl 9y agoI don't know where you're from, but the overwhelming majority of the USA gets its power from regulated private companies which have a monopoly on distribution. Your first paragraph makes it seem like you're unaware of this.