3 ms·

There's a comment in the thread suggesting something I'd never thought of before, but which sounds like a great idea, although I'm not too good with economic th

There's a comment in the thread suggesting something I'd never thought of before, but which sounds like a great idea, although I'm not too good with economic thinking: "Generation and transmission need to be separated. Generation can be a perfectly competitive market and is naturally suited to private business. Transmission is inherently a monopoly and should be publicly owned. Combining the two in one for-profit company is asking for trouble."

herrkanin 6y ago
This is how it works in Sweden. I pay two separate bills each month, one for the amount of electricity I've used, and another for using the electrical infrastructure. We have a ton of options to choose from regarding who generates our electricity and seems to keep the competition healthy.
bagacrap 6y ago
ok great, but would you trust a government entity with a limited budget not to make the same decisions?
unbearded 6y ago
I believe that Brazil gives a good case study on the subject. The whole sector used to be state-owned and electricity used to be more expensive and outages a very regular thing. Currently, some parts of the country have private generation and transmission with targets sets for the number of planned shutdowns, outages and inspection set by the regulatory agency. The private companies are light-years ahead on any metric that you can think of. The parts of the sector that are still public-owned are legendary on their wastefulness and lack of accountability.
burlesona 6y ago
It can go the other way as well. Originally power companies like PG&E were also streetcar companies. They found that power generation was profitable, but main line transmission wasn’t. But if you’re going to do the work of building a main line into a city... why not run a streetcar underneath it and sell fares? That combination turned out to be profitable, and to be a great win for the cities. This was made illegal during the rise of the automobile, all those companies were forced to split up. This greatly weakened the transit companies and helped undo them (as desired by the oil and auto cabal).

herrkanin 6y ago

This is how it works in Sweden. I pay two separate bills each month, one for the amount of electricity I've used, and another for using the electrical infrastructure. We have a ton of options to choose from regarding who generates our electricity and seems to keep the competition healthy.

bagacrap 6y ago

ok great, but would you trust a government entity with a limited budget not to make the same decisions?

unbearded 6y ago

I believe that Brazil gives a good case study on the subject. The whole sector used to be state-owned and electricity used to be more expensive and outages a very regular thing. Currently, some parts of the country have private generation and transmission with targets sets for the number of planned shutdowns, outages and inspection set by the regulatory agency. The private companies are light-years ahead on any metric that you can think of. The parts of the sector that are still public-owned are legendary on their wastefulness and lack of accountability.

burlesona 6y ago

It can go the other way as well. Originally power companies like PG&E were also streetcar companies. They found that power generation was profitable, but main line transmission wasn’t. But if you’re going to do the work of building a main line into a city... why not run a streetcar underneath it and sell fares? That combination turned out to be profitable, and to be a great win for the cities. This was made illegal during the rise of the automobile, all those companies were forced to split up. This greatly weakened the transit companies and helped undo them (as desired by the oil and auto cabal).