4 ms·
This isn't a privatization of a public service, it's a state-granted monopoly. If private property was respected, you could freely associate with another provi
by DINKDINK 8y ago
This isn't a privatization of a public service, it's a state-granted monopoly. If private property was respected, you could freely associate with another provider. Citizens of California can't.
- ucaetano 8y agoYeah, because someone would build a second distribution line next to an existing one. Can you imagine ever house with 10 wire pairs coming in from the street, one from each utility? Competition on distribution or transmission is simply not going to happen. But it can - and should - happen on generation, as it already does in a lot of markets around the world.
- DINKDINK 8y agoYou're talking about T&D redundancy when I'm talking about an open market of competition. You don't have to have T&D redundancy to have open market of competition. If you live in an area with an abundance of sun and wind, you can buy your local T&D and provide competitive pricing to your market. You cannot do this when there's a state-granted monopoly.
- ucaetano 8y agoNo, I'm not talking about T&D redundancy, I'm talking about competition and game theory. Once you have a distribution network or a transmission line in place, nobody will build a second one. It doesn't make any economic sense. Even if it was a complete laissez-faire (a bad idea, IMHO), there would be no competition on transmission lines and distribution networks. But I do agree with more competition, particularly on generation. And you can make it better by decoupling transmission from distribution, and forcing the separate operation of each, plus a state-managed electricity pool, resulting in customers buying either from the pool or directly from generators.