4 ms·

You'll say that until the company is full of public service workers who dont care and electricity costs 3x as much. Pretty much every developed country has priv

by rb808 7y ago

You'll say that until the company is full of public service workers who dont care and electricity costs 3x as much. Pretty much every developed country has privatized electricity generation to keep prices down.

cranky_coder 7y ago
Why do we have to assume a publicly owned utility wouldn’t be able to focus on safety and efficiency at the same time? I mean, there’s data on Medicare being more efficient than private insurance[0]. Why is this different? I’m not sure I’m convinced that the profit incentive needs to exist for them to worry about costs. [0] https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/private-insurance-vs-medicare-truth-numbers https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/private-insurance-vs-m...
Scoundreller 7y ago
I don’t think that’s matched Americans’ experience with internet prices, and that’s with a few competitors.
electic 7y ago
This isn't accurate. In the Bay Area some cities have decided to run their own public utilities instead of relying on PG&E. For example, Santa Clara runs their own public utility[2]. The average resident pays about 10.4 cents per KWh. That's about 30 percent less than rates PG&E charges. Also, their energy is greener and their infrastructure is better maintained. The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends. You can see that played out here [1]. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-money-for-profit-bonuses-2500175.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-... [2] http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/ http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/
- roenxi 7y ago
  > The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends. They aren't incentivised to be excessively lean. The incentive structure for someone who has spent a fortune on expensive capital investment is to maintain it. There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time. Anyway, it won't be capitalist incentives at work; it will be something in the details of the regulations. In Australia, due to poor market regulations, we have the opposite problem where our utilities spend far too much on grid maintenance.
  - inferiorhuman 7y ago
    There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time. Sure there is: short-term profit.
    - roenxi 7y ago
      That isn't an incentive, that is just greed. And not actual "make the most money" greed, but stupid greed where that is the choice that they would make if they don't think at all and nobody points out the obvious to them. Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid. There is no incentive to do that. They would make more money milking the grid for long-term profits.
      - inferiorhuman 7y ago
        Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid. If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears. But PG&E has been neglecting their infrastructure at least since the early 90s when their lackadaisical approach to clearing brush led to the Sierra Fire in '94. Keep in mind that PG&E's record keeping was so lax that they blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno after increasing the pressure on a gas pipeline without knowing if the line could support such pressure. Apparently PG&E also got sued a couple years ago by shareholders alleging gross mismanagement and demanding safety reforms. I'd say there's plenty of stupid and greed at PG&E to go around.
- zaroth 7y ago
  Arguably this is Santa Clara skimming from the system. Carve out a high density environment and let them pay just for themselves and you’re definitely going to come out ahead of trying to electrify rural California.
Spooky23 7y ago
Look at any of the municipal utilities or coops in the US. They are all cheaper and better.
dredmorbius 7y ago
There are numerous public utilities in California, and elsewhere. Generally the costs are lower and service levels higher than privately-held corporations. Granted, most munis don't have to deal with long-distance distribution, though there are four federal power administrations which do, the Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations. Also the Tennessee Valley Authority.
- dodobirdlord 7y ago
  > Granted, most munis don't have to deal with long-distance distribution That really seems to be the only thing that matters here, given that the issue is about the liabilities fires due to lack of line maintenance in forested areas.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    That fails to consider the second part of my statement. The government-run power administrations are all about long-distance transmission.

by rb808 7y ago

cranky_coder 7y ago

Why do we have to assume a publicly owned utility wouldn’t be able to focus on safety and efficiency at the same time? I mean, there’s data on Medicare being more efficient than private insurance[0]. Why is this different? I’m not sure I’m convinced that the profit incentive needs to exist for them to worry about costs. [0] https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/private-insurance-vs-medicare-truth-numbers https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/private-insurance-vs-m...

Scoundreller 7y ago

I don’t think that’s matched Americans’ experience with internet prices, and that’s with a few competitors.

electic 7y ago

This isn't accurate. In the Bay Area some cities have decided to run their own public utilities instead of relying on PG&E. For example, Santa Clara runs their own public utility[2]. The average resident pays about 10.4 cents per KWh. That's about 30 percent less than rates PG&E charges. Also, their energy is greener and their infrastructure is better maintained. The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends. You can see that played out here [1]. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-money-for-profit-bonuses-2500175.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/PG-E-diverted-safety-... [2] http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/ http://www.siliconvalleypower.com/

roenxi 7y ago
> The problem with for profit utilities is that they are incentivized to keep things as lean as possible. They neglect maintenance of their infrastructure and use that money for bonuses and dividends. They aren't incentivised to be excessively lean. The incentive structure for someone who has spent a fortune on expensive capital investment is to maintain it. There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time. Anyway, it won't be capitalist incentives at work; it will be something in the details of the regulations. In Australia, due to poor market regulations, we have the opposite problem where our utilities spend far too much on grid maintenance.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  There is no point incentive to build a vast system of poles and wires then letting it degrade over time. Sure there is: short-term profit.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    That isn't an incentive, that is just greed. And not actual "make the most money" greed, but stupid greed where that is the choice that they would make if they don't think at all and nobody points out the obvious to them. Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid. There is no incentive to do that. They would make more money milking the grid for long-term profits.
    - inferiorhuman 7y ago
      Making a long-term investment to squeeze it for unsustainable short term profits is genuinely stupid. If you've got a better name for it I'm all ears. But PG&E has been neglecting their infrastructure at least since the early 90s when their lackadaisical approach to clearing brush led to the Sierra Fire in '94. Keep in mind that PG&E's record keeping was so lax that they blew up a neighborhood in San Bruno after increasing the pressure on a gas pipeline without knowing if the line could support such pressure. Apparently PG&E also got sued a couple years ago by shareholders alleging gross mismanagement and demanding safety reforms. I'd say there's plenty of stupid and greed at PG&E to go around.
zaroth 7y ago
Arguably this is Santa Clara skimming from the system. Carve out a high density environment and let them pay just for themselves and you’re definitely going to come out ahead of trying to electrify rural California.

Spooky23 7y ago

Look at any of the municipal utilities or coops in the US. They are all cheaper and better.

dredmorbius 7y ago

There are numerous public utilities in California, and elsewhere. Generally the costs are lower and service levels higher than privately-held corporations. Granted, most munis don't have to deal with long-distance distribution, though there are four federal power administrations which do, the Bonneville, Southeastern, Southwestern, and Western Area Power Administrations. Also the Tennessee Valley Authority.

dodobirdlord 7y ago
> Granted, most munis don't have to deal with long-distance distribution That really seems to be the only thing that matters here, given that the issue is about the liabilities fires due to lack of line maintenance in forested areas.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  That fails to consider the second part of my statement. The government-run power administrations are all about long-distance transmission.