3 ms·

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?

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?