4 ms·

PG&E's retail rates have been regulated by the state for a long, long time, since they provide a utility which is vital to the public interest and past deregula

PG&E's retail rates have been regulated by the state for a long, long time, since they provide a utility which is vital to the public interest and past deregulatory efforts have immediately resulted in market manipulation and energy crises [1]. However, this doesn't prevent PG&E from performing the appropriate maintenance on their equipment. That fault lies with the policies of upper management. CPUC is well aware of PG&E's obligations to maintain their equipment and regularly audits them and has made hay in the past about PG&E's reactive approach to maintenance [2]. The people who bring up the regulation of retail prices tend to be the ones who have an ideological love for deregulating everything. That's the wrong hammer for this particular screw and hasn't worked out so well in the past. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis [2]: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-cited-for-late-maintenance-work-more-often-12303697.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-cited-for-...

someguydave 8y ago
>That's the wrong hammer f So the regulators failed to monitor and enforce maintenance on the PG&E transmission lines, but they also are the only solution because you say so?
edmundsauto 8y ago
Insufficient budgets force managers to prioritize urgent maintenance at the expense of proactive maintenance. I'm confused, if they can't raise their rates, and they don't have enough money to do the proactive maintenance, how do we reach a solution? FWLIW, I definitely haven't dug into their books, so maybe they're cutting fat checks to execs in lieu of this stuff.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  Why do you think they can't raise their rates? They just have to justify their rate increases. All PG&E had to do, years ago, was tell the CPUC, "we've identified a massive maintenance backlog and we need to raise our residential rates __% to clear it." You can see this in action now, at https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regu..., where PG&E has filed a new publicly-available 2020-2022 rate increase request: > This GRC proposal will help bolster wildfire prevention, risk monitoring and emergency response. It will also add new and enhanced safety measures, increase vegetation management, and harden our electric system to increase resilience and help further reduce wildfire risk. > Every three years, PG&E submits the GRC, a proposal for funding its core gas and electric operations. The CPUC conducts an open and transparent review of PG&E's proposal. The CPUC, in turn, has to deal with angry residents and lobbyists from multiple industries. You can find reporting from a rate substantial rate increase four years ago, at https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 I think the quote from PG&E spokesman Keith Stephens in the SF Chronicle article I linked two comments up pretty well sums up where fault lies here: "As we moved from more of a 'monitor only and fix when we can' process, we were much more focused on getting work done," PG&E's maintenance strategy for years -- set by management, not by a lack of funds or prohibition against rate increases -- was, "wait until it becomes a problem." CPUC regulators started investigating it around 2008, found a huuuuuuuge maintenance backlog, and then PG&E said, "oh, yeah, our new strategy now is to try to catch up on some of this stuff."
  - edmundsauto 8y ago
    It seems like an obviously poor decision to just be lazy, when they could theoretically raise rates to cover these maintenance costs. What information are we missing that could make sense of the decision? I know that rate hikes are heavily protested by citizens, so maybe there's some sort of political infeasibility? That would certainly be a mark against a gov't run critical service -- maybe it's really hard (near impossible) to raise rates to cover required maintenance.

someguydave 8y ago

>That's the wrong hammer f So the regulators failed to monitor and enforce maintenance on the PG&E transmission lines, but they also are the only solution because you say so?

edmundsauto 8y ago

Insufficient budgets force managers to prioritize urgent maintenance at the expense of proactive maintenance. I'm confused, if they can't raise their rates, and they don't have enough money to do the proactive maintenance, how do we reach a solution? FWLIW, I definitely haven't dug into their books, so maybe they're cutting fat checks to execs in lieu of this stuff.

thaumaturgy 8y ago
Why do you think they can't raise their rates? They just have to justify their rate increases. All PG&E had to do, years ago, was tell the CPUC, "we've identified a massive maintenance backlog and we need to raise our residential rates __% to clear it." You can see this in action now, at https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regulation/general-rate-case/grc.page https://www.pge.com/en_US/about-pge/company-information/regu..., where PG&E has filed a new publicly-available 2020-2022 rate increase request: > This GRC proposal will help bolster wildfire prevention, risk monitoring and emergency response. It will also add new and enhanced safety measures, increase vegetation management, and harden our electric system to increase resilience and help further reduce wildfire risk. > Every three years, PG&E submits the GRC, a proposal for funding its core gas and electric operations. The CPUC conducts an open and transparent review of PG&E's proposal. The CPUC, in turn, has to deal with angry residents and lobbyists from multiple industries. You can find reporting from a rate substantial rate increase four years ago, at https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93303&page=1 I think the quote from PG&E spokesman Keith Stephens in the SF Chronicle article I linked two comments up pretty well sums up where fault lies here: "As we moved from more of a 'monitor only and fix when we can' process, we were much more focused on getting work done," PG&E's maintenance strategy for years -- set by management, not by a lack of funds or prohibition against rate increases -- was, "wait until it becomes a problem." CPUC regulators started investigating it around 2008, found a huuuuuuuge maintenance backlog, and then PG&E said, "oh, yeah, our new strategy now is to try to catch up on some of this stuff."
- edmundsauto 8y ago
  It seems like an obviously poor decision to just be lazy, when they could theoretically raise rates to cover these maintenance costs. What information are we missing that could make sense of the decision? I know that rate hikes are heavily protested by citizens, so maybe there's some sort of political infeasibility? That would certainly be a mark against a gov't run critical service -- maybe it's really hard (near impossible) to raise rates to cover required maintenance.