4 ms·

There's already growing competition in power generation. But power transmission is a natural monopoly, and that (the power lines) is what causes fire risk. The

There's already growing competition in power generation. But power transmission is a natural monopoly, and that (the power lines) is what causes fire risk. The fact is that many Californians are served by an under-maintained aging grid, nominally maintained by a public-private utility with regulated pricing. PG&E is thrashing because they can't raise rates and they can't cut off customers and they don't have a maintenance time machine, so they are made a whipping boy for not solving the impossible. At least this is focusing our attention on our electrical grid issues. There's major fire risk, but solar demands modernization as well. Let's hope this crisis does not go to waste.

sitkack 7y ago
net income 2014 1.45B 2015 888M 2016 1.41B 2017 1.66B https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/pcg/financials https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/pcg/financials Maybe they could use some of that to a) not burn down california and b) provide their customers with reliable power. The weasel words like 'fact', and 'aging grid' and 'whipping boy' stand no water here. PG&E needs to be dissolved.
- gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
  trying to paint the parent comment as a misleading trickster isn't very helpful, and just stating PG&E's net income doesn't touch on how regulated utilities work. Removing all the profit puts a couple 2-3 year band-aid over the fact that PG&E's infrastructure recovery requests make up the bulk of their cases. CPUC sees all their projections, plans, requests, and expenses, compensation when they come to them for rate cases. They also make decisions on executive compensation and incentive plans. Whether or not you make the assumption that CPUC is in cahoots with IOUs, what changes when you liquidate PG&E, when the new boss is just the old boss' boss? You're probably better off trying to rebuild some generation system avoiding transmission lines in risky areas.
- millstone 7y ago
  Perhaps you read my comment as a defense of PG&E. I carry no water for them! I'm a Californian and I hope only for reliable affordable power, and climate change leadership. > Maybe they could use some of that to a) not burn down california and b) provide their customers with reliable power. Unfortunately they cannot because they are literally bankrupt. > PG&E needs to be dissolved Dissolving PG&E does not magically cut back vegetation or modernize the grid. That's the whipping boy: it's like blaming Exxon for climate change. It directs the energy of our anger to impotent punishment for past misdeeds, without solving today's problems. CA's electrical grid has maintenance debt and underinsured fire risk. I think you're saying that my utility bill is more than enough to cover that - if so, that's great news! I'd love to be convinced that Calfornia can have reliable safe power for no more than I'm paying now. But from what I've read, PG&E has a backlog of work and liability risk, plus limited ability to raise rates. So either our bills or taxes go up. And when then do, hopefully it also provides for the grid modernization necessary for climate change. (And wringing out the PG&E rent seekers would be fine by me too.)
  - sitkack 7y ago
    With the net incoming directly from their financials, how were they prevented from clearing lines of fire hazards? They are bankrupt NOW because they failed to act with the resources at hand. Did they argue for rate increases to make the lines safe while at the same time failing to use that net income to clear the lines of hazards? There is this false dichotomy woven in your arguments equating rate increases with safety measures. Did I say that there is magic in a PG&E dissolution? If the organizational structure of PG&E can't use the resources it has (people, money, influence) to operate the grid safely, someone else needs to take over. When someone is systematically lousy at their job, they get fired. Your rhetoric is riddled with logical fallacies, you aren't making analogies that explain your reasoning. You are making straw men and putting words in my mouth.

sitkack 7y ago

net income 2014 1.45B 2015 888M 2016 1.41B 2017 1.66B https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/pcg/financials https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/pcg/financials Maybe they could use some of that to a) not burn down california and b) provide their customers with reliable power. The weasel words like 'fact', and 'aging grid' and 'whipping boy' stand no water here. PG&E needs to be dissolved.

gimmeThaBeet 7y ago
trying to paint the parent comment as a misleading trickster isn't very helpful, and just stating PG&E's net income doesn't touch on how regulated utilities work. Removing all the profit puts a couple 2-3 year band-aid over the fact that PG&E's infrastructure recovery requests make up the bulk of their cases. CPUC sees all their projections, plans, requests, and expenses, compensation when they come to them for rate cases. They also make decisions on executive compensation and incentive plans. Whether or not you make the assumption that CPUC is in cahoots with IOUs, what changes when you liquidate PG&E, when the new boss is just the old boss' boss? You're probably better off trying to rebuild some generation system avoiding transmission lines in risky areas.
millstone 7y ago
Perhaps you read my comment as a defense of PG&E. I carry no water for them! I'm a Californian and I hope only for reliable affordable power, and climate change leadership. > Maybe they could use some of that to a) not burn down california and b) provide their customers with reliable power. Unfortunately they cannot because they are literally bankrupt. > PG&E needs to be dissolved Dissolving PG&E does not magically cut back vegetation or modernize the grid. That's the whipping boy: it's like blaming Exxon for climate change. It directs the energy of our anger to impotent punishment for past misdeeds, without solving today's problems. CA's electrical grid has maintenance debt and underinsured fire risk. I think you're saying that my utility bill is more than enough to cover that - if so, that's great news! I'd love to be convinced that Calfornia can have reliable safe power for no more than I'm paying now. But from what I've read, PG&E has a backlog of work and liability risk, plus limited ability to raise rates. So either our bills or taxes go up. And when then do, hopefully it also provides for the grid modernization necessary for climate change. (And wringing out the PG&E rent seekers would be fine by me too.)
- sitkack 7y ago
  With the net incoming directly from their financials, how were they prevented from clearing lines of fire hazards? They are bankrupt NOW because they failed to act with the resources at hand. Did they argue for rate increases to make the lines safe while at the same time failing to use that net income to clear the lines of hazards? There is this false dichotomy woven in your arguments equating rate increases with safety measures. Did I say that there is magic in a PG&E dissolution? If the organizational structure of PG&E can't use the resources it has (people, money, influence) to operate the grid safely, someone else needs to take over. When someone is systematically lousy at their job, they get fired. Your rhetoric is riddled with logical fallacies, you aren't making analogies that explain your reasoning. You are making straw men and putting words in my mouth.