3 ms·
Ultimately it's a consequence of privatization. Power in California (and particularly PG&E) has been poorly managed for decades and focused on profit at the exp
by kevingadd 7y ago
Ultimately it's a consequence of privatization. Power in California (and particularly PG&E) has been poorly managed for decades and focused on profit at the expense of safety measures, maintenance, etc. Even if these blackouts were a necessary safety measure, the way they were performed is a great example of this - they failed to properly notify customers, their website was broken, their services available for people with medical needs were inadequate, etc. The only way to explain how poorly it was handled is cost-cutting - they had plenty of time in advance to prepare for this.
I'm not really sure whether strong regulatory oversight of PG&E would fix things or if the state just needs to take over. I'm sure privatized power works in other places but I've lived in this state for decades and PG&E has always been a disaster company with a high death count that pays out to investors and execs aggressively.
- mikorym 7y agoIn SA it's the opposite—govt entities are pitifully incompetent and in debt; Naspers, one of the only state owned companies that went private is I think now close to the most valuable company on the JSE (although they spinned off Prosus to compensate for undervalues Tencent shares). In any case, maybe Naspers is not what you would want all the state owned entities to turn into? There is always an argument for the risks of privitasation as well...
- masonic 7y agoit's a consequence of privatization No privatization occurred in CA -- it was never a public utility.