4 ms·

> The solution furthermore is to legislate to remove the barriers to competition that California has set up. While I think you’re generally on point, this miss

> The solution furthermore is to legislate to remove the barriers to competition that California has set up. While I think you’re generally on point, this misses the mark a bit. We don’t want more transmission lines running in CA, right? We don’t want lots of little companies increasing the risk of fire by managing lines independently and the one that’s losing then doesn’t have the means to maintain those lines. We might want competition at the generation point, but the transmission lines should be a monopoly. What needs to be fixed on the transmission is that there should not be a profit in maintaining them, bc the profit comes from lack of maintenance. The last three disasters caused by PG&E, can basically be boiled down to a maintenance problem, or lack of. All the transmission lines and maintenance should be transferred to the state, and the profit motive, by not maintaining the infrastructure properly, be removed. Again, competition in power generation (and storage) is good, competition in transmission is bad.

tathougies 8y ago
> We might want competition at the generation point, but the transmission lines should be a monopoly. A perfectly reasonable argument. If a certain market needs to be a monopoly, then it ought to be state controlled, like the FCC's monopoly on air waves. That is the only way to ensure free-market capitalism. The purpose of the market is to create an efficient society. Indeed, it is the best vehicle to do so. However, a market means that there is choice. In the absence of a market, the next best alternative is democratic control, best exercised via government. > We don’t want more transmission lines running in CA, right? Not in the air. Luckily, you can put them under ground. > The last three disasters caused by PG&E, This is willful ignorance. I'd be happy to look over companies that simply had maintenance issues. However, PG&E has proven to not only be negligent, but malicious. They've poisoned people knowingly, without disclosure. They've covered up negligence over the explosions of city blocks. I am not anti-business. Despite its many issues, Southern California edison is a much better company. PG&E though is -- quite obviously -- quite a bit more nefarious than most utilities. > competition in transmission is bad. No it's not. Competition would always be good. Your argument was that competition in transmission was not possible.
happertiger 8y ago
No that’s exactly what we want. We want the free market to create efficiency without entrenched regulation, which could lead to some short-term increase in risk. But what you really want is to price in the risk, and the only way to do that is to remove government protections of individual corporations so that the free market can operate. Little companies increasing the risks of fire is a misnomer because competition and a truly free market would crush those companies and eliminate that problem faster than you could think of a solution. It’s only when you entrench a bureaucracy that you end up with problems like PG&E - a company that doesn’t have to deal with real consequences because it’s political connections will protect it. What your describing sounds fantastic and is politically expeditious because there is less risk in backing the prevailing methodology, but it is not improvement. Competition in transmission is good, because alternatives like alternative energy would completely displace these systems and technology advancements would be available and legal - unlike the current insanity. You know how you can’t put in an oversized solar system and sell power back to the grid, even if you can afford to? Did you notice that the grid is super inefficient because it’s got a limited number of highly centralized generation sources? No? Well that’s the consequence of ownership of the transmission lines. If you own the last mile you own the network. And if you also own the politicians who can protect your last mile interests, why would you invest in change?
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  I did consider your point, and in general, I agree with it in most cases. To me though, it’s like the road system in US. The transmission lines are very much like the shared cost of maintaining the interstate highway system. I agree that there are advancements in transmission needed. All of your points are correct, but I disagree that the risks of the free market are the way to get there. I just drove from SF to LA to let my kids have some some fresh air (ironic, right?). It took us 4 hours, all the way to the grapevine (just past Bakersfield) to not see the smoke, to have more than a few miles of visibility. The cost of the risks from an improperly maintained grid would be horrendous. I’m not an electrical engineer, and my knowledge of how the grid operates is limited, I’ll admit, I’m just incapable of seeing a free market solution here, where failure can result in a catastrophe like we’re experiencing here now. As I understand the interconnected nature of the grid, it needs centralized management to control the transmission system. I luckily have the means to get my family to safety (we came back yesterday as the air is finally starting to clear), but that’s not an option for many people. I don’t believe the free market you speak of could ever exist, and I don’t think it’s worth watching things deteriorate to find out.
diggernet 8y ago
Anyone know how Texas handles this? I know that they have many competing power utilities and people can choose which one to sign up with, but how is transmission managed?

tathougies 8y ago

> We might want competition at the generation point, but the transmission lines should be a monopoly. A perfectly reasonable argument. If a certain market needs to be a monopoly, then it ought to be state controlled, like the FCC's monopoly on air waves. That is the only way to ensure free-market capitalism. The purpose of the market is to create an efficient society. Indeed, it is the best vehicle to do so. However, a market means that there is choice. In the absence of a market, the next best alternative is democratic control, best exercised via government. > We don’t want more transmission lines running in CA, right? Not in the air. Luckily, you can put them under ground. > The last three disasters caused by PG&E, This is willful ignorance. I'd be happy to look over companies that simply had maintenance issues. However, PG&E has proven to not only be negligent, but malicious. They've poisoned people knowingly, without disclosure. They've covered up negligence over the explosions of city blocks. I am not anti-business. Despite its many issues, Southern California edison is a much better company. PG&E though is -- quite obviously -- quite a bit more nefarious than most utilities. > competition in transmission is bad. No it's not. Competition would always be good. Your argument was that competition in transmission was not possible.

happertiger 8y ago

No that’s exactly what we want. We want the free market to create efficiency without entrenched regulation, which could lead to some short-term increase in risk. But what you really want is to price in the risk, and the only way to do that is to remove government protections of individual corporations so that the free market can operate. Little companies increasing the risks of fire is a misnomer because competition and a truly free market would crush those companies and eliminate that problem faster than you could think of a solution. It’s only when you entrench a bureaucracy that you end up with problems like PG&E - a company that doesn’t have to deal with real consequences because it’s political connections will protect it. What your describing sounds fantastic and is politically expeditious because there is less risk in backing the prevailing methodology, but it is not improvement. Competition in transmission is good, because alternatives like alternative energy would completely displace these systems and technology advancements would be available and legal - unlike the current insanity. You know how you can’t put in an oversized solar system and sell power back to the grid, even if you can afford to? Did you notice that the grid is super inefficient because it’s got a limited number of highly centralized generation sources? No? Well that’s the consequence of ownership of the transmission lines. If you own the last mile you own the network. And if you also own the politicians who can protect your last mile interests, why would you invest in change?

bluejekyll 8y ago
I did consider your point, and in general, I agree with it in most cases. To me though, it’s like the road system in US. The transmission lines are very much like the shared cost of maintaining the interstate highway system. I agree that there are advancements in transmission needed. All of your points are correct, but I disagree that the risks of the free market are the way to get there. I just drove from SF to LA to let my kids have some some fresh air (ironic, right?). It took us 4 hours, all the way to the grapevine (just past Bakersfield) to not see the smoke, to have more than a few miles of visibility. The cost of the risks from an improperly maintained grid would be horrendous. I’m not an electrical engineer, and my knowledge of how the grid operates is limited, I’ll admit, I’m just incapable of seeing a free market solution here, where failure can result in a catastrophe like we’re experiencing here now. As I understand the interconnected nature of the grid, it needs centralized management to control the transmission system. I luckily have the means to get my family to safety (we came back yesterday as the air is finally starting to clear), but that’s not an option for many people. I don’t believe the free market you speak of could ever exist, and I don’t think it’s worth watching things deteriorate to find out.

diggernet 8y ago

Anyone know how Texas handles this? I know that they have many competing power utilities and people can choose which one to sign up with, but how is transmission managed?