6 ms·

We already are on the hook, either as taxpayers or as customers. What I don't understand is why we'd want the regulators that let PG&E get so bad take over the

by trimbo 7y ago

We already are on the hook, either as taxpayers or as customers. What I don't understand is why we'd want the regulators that let PG&E get so bad take over the place.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
Are you implying the regulators forced PG&E to be awful? Or that they allowed PG&E to be awful? If the former, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. If the later, that doesn't mean the regulators are worse. I'm not saying I'm pro-regulator or think PG&E should be bought out. I just am perplexed by your comment.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  Not OP, but I'm fairly certain he meant the latter. And I think his point wasn't so much they'll be worse, but why do we believe they'll be better?
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    What do we have to lose? Other than more lives than PG&E has already taken from us... given that PG&E has caused fires many times so far it seems worthwhile to attempt more direct methods of fixing this. If the regulators taking over somehow makes it worse, we can always privatize it again. There are other private power companies in the state that will remain private.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      > What do we have to lose? More lives, more money, more vegetation, more houses, more resources. If you're going to replace something, it's usually a good idea to have some reason to believe what you're replacing it with will be better. I'm not advocating for PG&E, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. But currently I don't see any obvious solution to the situation.
      - kevingadd 7y ago
        Right, but you're automatically assuming it will be worse. We have many examples of well-operated state-owned power companies. It's an obvious thing to try since it's already worked elsewhere. Other incentive methods have not forced PG&E to fix their behavior.
        malandrew 7y ago
        > We have many examples of well-operated state-owned power companies. Are any of those examples in California?
        kevingadd 7y ago
        Yes. For one example, a poster in another thread talked about how much they love their local municipal power company. You can see a partial list of public-owned utility companies in CA here: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities.html https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities...
        jonas21 7y ago
        I don't think OnlineGladiator is assuming it will be worse. You asked, "what do we have to lose?", and they're answering the question by pointing out that we still have a lot to lose.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      > What do we have to lose? There are 365 days in a typical year. That's the theoretical limit for how many days Californians can go without power. That should give you an idea how much you have to lose from a power availability aspect. On top of that, there are millions upon millions of acres of unburnt land in California. A even more mismanaged PG&E could result in many more fires than we've seen thus far. Basically, there is a LOT you can still lose.
      - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
        Considering even places like Syria and Venezuela have power most of the time, I think the idea that a state-owned power company would be unable to provide electricity for even one second of the year is an unrealistic consideration. I agree there is a lot to lose. But I think you're being a little aggressive with your negativity.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > And I think his point wasn't so much they'll be worse, but why do we believe they'll be better? Because unlike a privately-owned and publicly-regulated utility, it would be subject to undivided public accountability.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      Do the regulators have to get public approval for each new regulation they pass? Does that system actually align incentives so that the utility is motivated to preempt problems like these?
      - jcranmer 7y ago
        If we're talking national or state-level regulatory agencies, there's a public review and commentary process where the public (usually affected companies and interested advocacy agencies, since relatively few individuals bother to notice) submit comments on proposed regulations. The agencies are required to acknowledge these comments, but this can sometimes be as little as "Comment noted, we've decided otherwise."
      - dragonwriter 7y ago
        > Do the regulators have to get public approval for each new regulation they pass? No, and that would actually defeat undivided accountability for outcomes. > Does that system actually align incentives so that the utility is motivated to preempt problems like these? Do politicians like to be blamed for burning down the state with no one else to point to?
- blackflame 7y ago
  California's stringent green energy initiatives and regulations have cut into the budget allocated for updating transmission lines. The same people that pass those laws, also pass laws limiting the maximum profit of a utility to 10% and then lambast them for being greedy and not updating their lines. Yet if you look at the balance sheets of PG&E there isn't much net profit.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    Do the regulators set the price? PG&E could easily fix the lines and pass the price onto the consumers. If anything, if their profits are limited to 10%, you'd think there would exist a perverse cost+ incentive on PG&E's part.
    - uxp100 7y ago
      Yes, well, regulators have a say at least.
    - bzbarsky 7y ago
      The regulators get to set the consumer-facing rates, yes.
  - triceratops 7y ago
    They paid dividends fairly regularly from 2011 to 2017.[1] They couldn't have used that money for updates and maintenance? You can't really claim to be profitable if you're deferring necessary maintenance expenses. Isn't that defrauding shareholders, in a way? 1. https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=PCG https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=PCG
    - wpietri 7y ago
      You're not the only person wondering about whether PG&E has defrauded investors: https://www.courthousenews.com/investors-sue-pge-over-wildfire-prevention-blackouts/ https://www.courthousenews.com/investors-sue-pge-over-wildfi...
    - 7y ago
- fiter 7y ago
  The CPUC is directly responsible for the safety standards that PG&E has to meet. "The CPUC meets publicly[15] to carry out the business of the agency, which may include the adoption of utility rate changes, rules on safety and service standards, implementation of conservation programs, investigation into unlawful or anticompetitive practices by regulated utilities and intervention into federal proceedings which affect California ratepayers."[0] It is also their mission to assure access to reliable utility services. "The CPUC regulates services and utilities, protects consumers, safeguards the environment, and assures Californians’ access to safe and reliable utility infrastructure and services."[1] However, the CPUC does not regulate governmental utilities. "The CPUC does not regulate the rates of utilities and common carriers operated by government agencies."[0] I would prefer that my county was responsible for utilities as they are much more responsive to local demands and its much easier for me to justify rate increases for safety improvements. [0] CPUC Wikipedia [1] CPUC Mission Statement
- nerfhammer 7y ago
  The CPUC basically already has unlimited power over PG&E. "The Constitution of California declares that the Public Utilities Code is the highest law in the state, that the legislature has unlimited authority to regulate public utilities under the Public Utilities Code, and that its provisions override any conflicting provision of the State Constitution which deals with the subject of regulation of public utilities." They often veto PG&E's proposed maintenance and infrastructure expenditure: https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 The fact that this is often forgotten may be a political convenience: https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187978236891807745 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187978236891807745
- bzbarsky 7y ago
  > Are you implying the regulators forced PG&E to be awful? Yes. See https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 and https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187972495250341888 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187972495250341888 for the mechanism whereby this happened. If state regulators are striking specific line items to do with maintenance from PG&E's budgets and the awfulness is that PG&E doesn't do enough maintenance, then yes, the state regulators are forcing PG&E to be awful.
AmericanChopper 7y ago
It’s remarkably convenient for every politician in California that we’re all having this conversation about how bad PG&E is, while completely ignoring how California’s absolutely terrible forestry management is what’s actually been driving the risks up. A drought combined with decades of highly aggressive fire suppression has sent the number of dead trees in CA forests skyrocketing. PG&E is an absolutely perfect scapegoat for CA politicians, but what would we say if one of our bosses told us to completely disregard mitigating impact, and instead focus all our attention on reducing the likelihood of failure to 0?
- lliamander 7y ago
  This is basically what I hear from the firefighters actually having to deal with this. EDIT: not that PG&E is without responsibility, but it's just aspect in a complicated issue.
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    I thought the Feds owned the vast majority of the forests under question?
    - lliamander 7y ago
      That may be. In either case, the point is that forestry management has been poor.

by trimbo 7y ago

We already are on the hook, either as taxpayers or as customers. What I don't understand is why we'd want the regulators that let PG&E get so bad take over the place.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

Are you implying the regulators forced PG&E to be awful? Or that they allowed PG&E to be awful? If the former, I'd like to know how you came to that conclusion. If the later, that doesn't mean the regulators are worse. I'm not saying I'm pro-regulator or think PG&E should be bought out. I just am perplexed by your comment.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
Not OP, but I'm fairly certain he meant the latter. And I think his point wasn't so much they'll be worse, but why do we believe they'll be better?
- kevingadd 7y ago
  What do we have to lose? Other than more lives than PG&E has already taken from us... given that PG&E has caused fires many times so far it seems worthwhile to attempt more direct methods of fixing this. If the regulators taking over somehow makes it worse, we can always privatize it again. There are other private power companies in the state that will remain private.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    > What do we have to lose? More lives, more money, more vegetation, more houses, more resources. If you're going to replace something, it's usually a good idea to have some reason to believe what you're replacing it with will be better. I'm not advocating for PG&E, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion. But currently I don't see any obvious solution to the situation.
    - kevingadd 7y ago
      Right, but you're automatically assuming it will be worse. We have many examples of well-operated state-owned power companies. It's an obvious thing to try since it's already worked elsewhere. Other incentive methods have not forced PG&E to fix their behavior.
      - malandrew 7y ago
        > We have many examples of well-operated state-owned power companies. Are any of those examples in California?
        kevingadd 7y ago
        Yes. For one example, a poster in another thread talked about how much they love their local municipal power company. You can see a partial list of public-owned utility companies in CA here: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities.html https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/utilities...
      - jonas21 7y ago
        I don't think OnlineGladiator is assuming it will be worse. You asked, "what do we have to lose?", and they're answering the question by pointing out that we still have a lot to lose.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    > What do we have to lose? There are 365 days in a typical year. That's the theoretical limit for how many days Californians can go without power. That should give you an idea how much you have to lose from a power availability aspect. On top of that, there are millions upon millions of acres of unburnt land in California. A even more mismanaged PG&E could result in many more fires than we've seen thus far. Basically, there is a LOT you can still lose.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
      Considering even places like Syria and Venezuela have power most of the time, I think the idea that a state-owned power company would be unable to provide electricity for even one second of the year is an unrealistic consideration. I agree there is a lot to lose. But I think you're being a little aggressive with your negativity.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > And I think his point wasn't so much they'll be worse, but why do we believe they'll be better? Because unlike a privately-owned and publicly-regulated utility, it would be subject to undivided public accountability.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Do the regulators have to get public approval for each new regulation they pass? Does that system actually align incentives so that the utility is motivated to preempt problems like these?
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      If we're talking national or state-level regulatory agencies, there's a public review and commentary process where the public (usually affected companies and interested advocacy agencies, since relatively few individuals bother to notice) submit comments on proposed regulations. The agencies are required to acknowledge these comments, but this can sometimes be as little as "Comment noted, we've decided otherwise."
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Do the regulators have to get public approval for each new regulation they pass? No, and that would actually defeat undivided accountability for outcomes. > Does that system actually align incentives so that the utility is motivated to preempt problems like these? Do politicians like to be blamed for burning down the state with no one else to point to?
blackflame 7y ago
California's stringent green energy initiatives and regulations have cut into the budget allocated for updating transmission lines. The same people that pass those laws, also pass laws limiting the maximum profit of a utility to 10% and then lambast them for being greedy and not updating their lines. Yet if you look at the balance sheets of PG&E there isn't much net profit.
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  Do the regulators set the price? PG&E could easily fix the lines and pass the price onto the consumers. If anything, if their profits are limited to 10%, you'd think there would exist a perverse cost+ incentive on PG&E's part.
  - uxp100 7y ago
    Yes, well, regulators have a say at least.
  - bzbarsky 7y ago
    The regulators get to set the consumer-facing rates, yes.
- triceratops 7y ago
  They paid dividends fairly regularly from 2011 to 2017.[1] They couldn't have used that money for updates and maintenance? You can't really claim to be profitable if you're deferring necessary maintenance expenses. Isn't that defrauding shareholders, in a way? 1. https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=PCG https://www.streetinsider.com/dividend_history.php?q=PCG
  - wpietri 7y ago
    You're not the only person wondering about whether PG&E has defrauded investors: https://www.courthousenews.com/investors-sue-pge-over-wildfire-prevention-blackouts/ https://www.courthousenews.com/investors-sue-pge-over-wildfi...
  - 7y ago
fiter 7y ago
The CPUC is directly responsible for the safety standards that PG&E has to meet. "The CPUC meets publicly[15] to carry out the business of the agency, which may include the adoption of utility rate changes, rules on safety and service standards, implementation of conservation programs, investigation into unlawful or anticompetitive practices by regulated utilities and intervention into federal proceedings which affect California ratepayers."[0] It is also their mission to assure access to reliable utility services. "The CPUC regulates services and utilities, protects consumers, safeguards the environment, and assures Californians’ access to safe and reliable utility infrastructure and services."[1] However, the CPUC does not regulate governmental utilities. "The CPUC does not regulate the rates of utilities and common carriers operated by government agencies."[0] I would prefer that my county was responsible for utilities as they are much more responsive to local demands and its much easier for me to justify rate increases for safety improvements. [0] CPUC Wikipedia [1] CPUC Mission Statement
nerfhammer 7y ago
The CPUC basically already has unlimited power over PG&E. "The Constitution of California declares that the Public Utilities Code is the highest law in the state, that the legislature has unlimited authority to regulate public utilities under the Public Utilities Code, and that its provisions override any conflicting provision of the State Constitution which deals with the subject of regulation of public utilities." They often veto PG&E's proposed maintenance and infrastructure expenditure: https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 The fact that this is often forgotten may be a political convenience: https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187978236891807745 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187978236891807745
bzbarsky 7y ago
> Are you implying the regulators forced PG&E to be awful? Yes. See https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187969182182166530 and https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187972495250341888 https://twitter.com/cjg2127/status/1187972495250341888 for the mechanism whereby this happened. If state regulators are striking specific line items to do with maintenance from PG&E's budgets and the awfulness is that PG&E doesn't do enough maintenance, then yes, the state regulators are forcing PG&E to be awful.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

It’s remarkably convenient for every politician in California that we’re all having this conversation about how bad PG&E is, while completely ignoring how California’s absolutely terrible forestry management is what’s actually been driving the risks up. A drought combined with decades of highly aggressive fire suppression has sent the number of dead trees in CA forests skyrocketing. PG&E is an absolutely perfect scapegoat for CA politicians, but what would we say if one of our bosses told us to completely disregard mitigating impact, and instead focus all our attention on reducing the likelihood of failure to 0?

lliamander 7y ago
This is basically what I hear from the firefighters actually having to deal with this. EDIT: not that PG&E is without responsibility, but it's just aspect in a complicated issue.
- selimthegrim 7y ago
  I thought the Feds owned the vast majority of the forests under question?
  - lliamander 7y ago
    That may be. In either case, the point is that forestry management has been poor.