5 ms·

The problem with applying it to utilities is that they're near universal and have a natural monopoly, so when you try and punish them, the tendency to seek reco

The problem with applying it to utilities is that they're near universal and have a natural monopoly, so when you try and punish them, the tendency to seek recovery through rates makes it everyone's problem. And I'm not saying this from a "privatized profit/socialized loss" argument standpoint. I'm saying it from a "nearly everyone is some electric utility's customer, so when you find the utility liable, the customers (i.e. everyone) ends up paying for it somehow". If the state assumed stewardship of the grid, the liability would still go to customers through either rates or taxes. So at that point, what we're really discussing, is how you feel about/how does fully public ownership of an electric utility fare relative to a regulated private entity replete with executive compensation and capitalistic motivations? Once you hit up the utility for all the money you can get, either you ditch the grid altogether, or everyone using the grid is going to end up paying for most of it in one way or another. Who knows, maybe California will decide to try some grand gridless experiment. But the options are limited.

joe_the_user 8y ago
Once you hit up the utility for all the money you can get, either you ditch the grid altogether, or everyone using the grid is going to end up paying for most of it in one way or another. That's ridiculous. Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior. Thus the state of California could run PG&E as public utility pretty quickly if it wished and then charge whatever rates it felt appropriate, making up costs with taxes or not. The main thing that would happen is PG&E shareholders and possibly bondholders lose their investment, high paid private executives and consultants are fired and the savings to the state.
- njarboe 8y ago
  The bigger question is would this cause a decrease of fires and other problems, reduce costs, and increase reliability and access to power. Hard to know. The problems of delivering power in California are hard and complicated.
- dahdum 8y ago
  I think you are underestimating the impact drastically of California seizing and nationalizing PG&E, or even trying to.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior. Bankruptcy will indeed prevent that.
  - gruez 8y ago
    Why? Bankruptcy doesn't magically cancel your debts; you have to liquidate (almost) all of you assets.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Bankruptcy doesn't magically cancel your debts Bankruptcy sets a legally-defined priority of creditors, and prevents execution of judgements (it doesn't stop them being found liable and establishing a debt, but it does prevent execution of the judgement, i.e., by seizing assets to satisfy the debt.) > you have to liquidate (almost) all of you assets. Sure, California could bid on the assets.
- nitwit005 8y ago
  > That's ridiculous. Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior. Nothing besides the fact that the state has no interest in running a power company? They could have nationalized it long ago if they wanted to.
koboll 8y ago
That's why the solution is nationalization. Their negligence will be our problem either way. The only solution that effects justice is to confiscate the company from shareholders entirely.

joe_the_user 8y ago

Once you hit up the utility for all the money you can get, either you ditch the grid altogether, or everyone using the grid is going to end up paying for most of it in one way or another. That's ridiculous. Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior. Thus the state of California could run PG&E as public utility pretty quickly if it wished and then charge whatever rates it felt appropriate, making up costs with taxes or not. The main thing that would happen is PG&E shareholders and possibly bondholders lose their investment, high paid private executives and consultants are fired and the savings to the state.

njarboe 8y ago
The bigger question is would this cause a decrease of fires and other problems, reduce costs, and increase reliability and access to power. Hard to know. The problems of delivering power in California are hard and complicated.
dahdum 8y ago
I think you are underestimating the impact drastically of California seizing and nationalizing PG&E, or even trying to.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior. Bankruptcy will indeed prevent that.
- gruez 8y ago
  Why? Bankruptcy doesn't magically cancel your debts; you have to liquidate (almost) all of you assets.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Bankruptcy doesn't magically cancel your debts Bankruptcy sets a legally-defined priority of creditors, and prevents execution of judgements (it doesn't stop them being found liable and establishing a debt, but it does prevent execution of the judgement, i.e., by seizing assets to satisfy the debt.) > you have to liquidate (almost) all of you assets. Sure, California could bid on the assets.
nitwit005 8y ago
> That's ridiculous. Broadly, there's nothing preventing California from seizing PG&E's assets as partial compensation for the company's past behavior. Nothing besides the fact that the state has no interest in running a power company? They could have nationalized it long ago if they wanted to.

koboll 8y ago

That's why the solution is nationalization. Their negligence will be our problem either way. The only solution that effects justice is to confiscate the company from shareholders entirely.