> We might want competition at the generation point, but the transmission lines should be a monopoly. A perfectly reasonable argument. If a certain market nee

> 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.