4 ms·

Can someone explain how utility companies aren't part of the gov in the US of A? How is it in other countries? Are they private enterprises? It terrifies me th

Can someone explain how utility companies aren't part of the gov in the US of A? How is it in other countries? Are they private enterprises? It terrifies me that some private corporation is in charge of public infrastructure that cannot be controlled in capitalistic marketplace. For e.g., water utility company has no interest in the safety of water as far as there aren't any laws preventing them from saving money, and there isn't much of a competition for the public to choose from. With government handling public utilities, it comes with other challenges such as inefficiencies and quality of service but lot of US gov departments do well - US National Park Service, US National Labs, why can't Dept of Energy run utility companies?

momokoko 6y ago
PG&E is kind of public. We just structure it in a way that it’s technically private. This has a lot of clever tricks like the fact that if it loses a ton of money it can go bankrupt without the state of California going bankrupt or having to cover all the losses. Also, PG&E cannot just set whatever prices they want etc. the state has quite a bit of say over it.
- labster 6y ago
  PG&E is only public in the same sense as in IPO. They are regulated more than most industries, but make their own decisions on profits and investments. Which is why SoCal Edison and SDG&E are so much better off, better corporate boards. The state owns no share of the company, like say Norway does from its national oil company. California is prohibited from owning a portion of a company (outside of things like CALPERS), so it really cannot impose a true socialist model without violating the state constitution. It must own 100% or 0% only.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    My mind is unable to reconcile the claim that CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company and yet CALPERS invests most of it's ~$350B in companies, and quite a few CALPERS board members come from the CA government, and CALPERS is known as an activist shareholder that uses its ownership in companies to influence them. So the more accurate statement seems to be CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company, except not really.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      CALPERS isn't CA, pretty simple.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        In what way? The bosses at CALPERS come from CA government, the losses in CALPERS have to be made up by the CA government, the earnings of CALPERS go the CA government. They named it something different, but it's basically CA department of retirement benefits for CA employees. I don't see how it's different than any other CA department of <x>.
  - refurb 6y ago
    but make their own decisions on profits and investments I'm not so sure about that. I can't find the link, but someone posted the CPUC minutes on the discussion of PG&E's budget. It was a 900 page document. It has things like "PG&E recommends replacing the chain link fence surrounding the substation located 10 miles outside Modesto, CA". Then a comment by CPUC like "We find this request unreasonable as the fence still prevents site access and has an estimated remaining lifespan of 10 years". The way the minute read was PG&E doesn't make any decisions around where money is spent with the CPUC approving it. But maybe it's not binding? Either way the CPUC is deeply embedded with how PG&E operates.
qgrgergfqgfev 6y ago
Legitimate question, not sure why you are getting downvoted.
- dylan604 6y ago
  Of all of the utilities, power & water should be considered basic rights. Yet, I find it curious how cities provide water and sewage, yet power utilities are private. Solid waste also tends to be private. There are a few cities that provide power. Burbank, CA is one that I have personally had an account. I would include gas in that, but if you have power & water, you can do with out gas. In today's age, I think a basic internet connection (5mbps down/1Mbps up) should be required at all addresses, and then premium packages with higher speeds could be purchased. But that's a can I'd be happy to kick down the road if we could get power&water guaranteed to all first.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    Whether something can be considered a "basic right" is independent of who is doing the manufacturing and distribution. Food is a basic right. We have food stamps to cover those who can't afford food. But that doesn't mean we need a nationalized canned soup manufacturer. Or to nationalize Wonder Bread. With proper money allocation and regulation, there's no reason that "basic rights" can't be provided for by a competitive albeit monitored market.
dylan604 6y ago
> Can someone explain how utility companies aren't part of the gov in the US of A? Ronald Reagan. His administration started the deregulation of public utilities. While that's a bit different than taking gov't run services private, but I see deregulation of industries as the cause for a lot of issues of today. It took a while for them to take rot and fester, but we are seeing the results of it all today.
- refurb 6y ago
  Ronald Reagan? Was he around when Edison Electric was formed as a private company in NY? I'd say private utilities pre-date Reagan by decades.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    Do you even understand what deregulation did? It gave a free for all to the private run companies that they did not have before. In my comment, I even stated that deregulation is different taking gov't run institutions private. It seems that I needed to expand the thought further. As you stated, private companies have been running vital services for a long time. However, they were regulated to keep things in balance. It was the removal of those regulations that sent things down the slide we've seen. Again, it started with Reagan, but it has taken until more modern times to fully feel the repercussions.
hindsightbias 6y ago
The very last thing in the universe the Governor wants to do is take over PG&E. Then they’d be reposnible for it all. Better to have public “oversight” and whip them everytime something goes wrong. If Newsom were making the blackout decisions, he’d be recalled already.
master-litty 6y ago
It's about control. Some people feel a public utility is closer to everyone's control, as they feel we have a good reign on our government. Others feel corporations are closer to everyone's control, as anyone can start an opposing corporation and compete on even ground, or influence an existing corporation by leveraging social cues. It's also about trust. If you are an individual that can more naturally give and help with little in return, it is easier to see the government as an altruistic and balanced entity that will do good in the end, especially if you feel empowered to assist or even lead those efforts. If you are often more worried about being hurt by other people, it is easier to see corporations as powerful tribes that can collectively protect us in the end, especially if you possess the skills to succeed in such environments and gain access to their benefits. On your example, it is a great benefit not having to worry about money, but there are still many reasons why a public water utility still might not deliver safe water, some of which still revolve around money: If the utility is not adequately funded, it may still be unable to deliver safe water. Consider the difficult situation we have today with lead pipes. It's not any easier for private corporations to deal with, but theoretically I think each one would feel a greater sense of urgency to fix the problem first. As for your terror, I find it comforting to see it this way: If an entity fails to use public infrastructure constructively, regardless of whether it be a public utility or private corporation, it will be modified or replaced until we find something that works. It will take time but we will get there, as long as we're in the company of good faith -- and we certainly are.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  > as they feel we have a good reign on our government That is probably not the homonym you meant (though it does describe how some feel about the government’s interaction with its citizens). Rein is something you use to control a horse (or government). Reign is something a king does.
  - master-litty 6y ago
    Ha! I did not know, thank you. Rein is what I meant.

momokoko 6y ago

PG&E is kind of public. We just structure it in a way that it’s technically private. This has a lot of clever tricks like the fact that if it loses a ton of money it can go bankrupt without the state of California going bankrupt or having to cover all the losses. Also, PG&E cannot just set whatever prices they want etc. the state has quite a bit of say over it.

labster 6y ago
PG&E is only public in the same sense as in IPO. They are regulated more than most industries, but make their own decisions on profits and investments. Which is why SoCal Edison and SDG&E are so much better off, better corporate boards. The state owns no share of the company, like say Norway does from its national oil company. California is prohibited from owning a portion of a company (outside of things like CALPERS), so it really cannot impose a true socialist model without violating the state constitution. It must own 100% or 0% only.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  My mind is unable to reconcile the claim that CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company and yet CALPERS invests most of it's ~$350B in companies, and quite a few CALPERS board members come from the CA government, and CALPERS is known as an activist shareholder that uses its ownership in companies to influence them. So the more accurate statement seems to be CA is prohibited from owning a portion of a company, except not really.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    CALPERS isn't CA, pretty simple.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      In what way? The bosses at CALPERS come from CA government, the losses in CALPERS have to be made up by the CA government, the earnings of CALPERS go the CA government. They named it something different, but it's basically CA department of retirement benefits for CA employees. I don't see how it's different than any other CA department of <x>.
- refurb 6y ago
  but make their own decisions on profits and investments I'm not so sure about that. I can't find the link, but someone posted the CPUC minutes on the discussion of PG&E's budget. It was a 900 page document. It has things like "PG&E recommends replacing the chain link fence surrounding the substation located 10 miles outside Modesto, CA". Then a comment by CPUC like "We find this request unreasonable as the fence still prevents site access and has an estimated remaining lifespan of 10 years". The way the minute read was PG&E doesn't make any decisions around where money is spent with the CPUC approving it. But maybe it's not binding? Either way the CPUC is deeply embedded with how PG&E operates.

qgrgergfqgfev 6y ago

Legitimate question, not sure why you are getting downvoted.

dylan604 6y ago
Of all of the utilities, power & water should be considered basic rights. Yet, I find it curious how cities provide water and sewage, yet power utilities are private. Solid waste also tends to be private. There are a few cities that provide power. Burbank, CA is one that I have personally had an account. I would include gas in that, but if you have power & water, you can do with out gas. In today's age, I think a basic internet connection (5mbps down/1Mbps up) should be required at all addresses, and then premium packages with higher speeds could be purchased. But that's a can I'd be happy to kick down the road if we could get power&water guaranteed to all first.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Whether something can be considered a "basic right" is independent of who is doing the manufacturing and distribution. Food is a basic right. We have food stamps to cover those who can't afford food. But that doesn't mean we need a nationalized canned soup manufacturer. Or to nationalize Wonder Bread. With proper money allocation and regulation, there's no reason that "basic rights" can't be provided for by a competitive albeit monitored market.

dylan604 6y ago

> Can someone explain how utility companies aren't part of the gov in the US of A? Ronald Reagan. His administration started the deregulation of public utilities. While that's a bit different than taking gov't run services private, but I see deregulation of industries as the cause for a lot of issues of today. It took a while for them to take rot and fester, but we are seeing the results of it all today.

refurb 6y ago
Ronald Reagan? Was he around when Edison Electric was formed as a private company in NY? I'd say private utilities pre-date Reagan by decades.
- dylan604 6y ago
  Do you even understand what deregulation did? It gave a free for all to the private run companies that they did not have before. In my comment, I even stated that deregulation is different taking gov't run institutions private. It seems that I needed to expand the thought further. As you stated, private companies have been running vital services for a long time. However, they were regulated to keep things in balance. It was the removal of those regulations that sent things down the slide we've seen. Again, it started with Reagan, but it has taken until more modern times to fully feel the repercussions.

hindsightbias 6y ago

The very last thing in the universe the Governor wants to do is take over PG&E. Then they’d be reposnible for it all. Better to have public “oversight” and whip them everytime something goes wrong. If Newsom were making the blackout decisions, he’d be recalled already.

master-litty 6y ago

It's about control. Some people feel a public utility is closer to everyone's control, as they feel we have a good reign on our government. Others feel corporations are closer to everyone's control, as anyone can start an opposing corporation and compete on even ground, or influence an existing corporation by leveraging social cues. It's also about trust. If you are an individual that can more naturally give and help with little in return, it is easier to see the government as an altruistic and balanced entity that will do good in the end, especially if you feel empowered to assist or even lead those efforts. If you are often more worried about being hurt by other people, it is easier to see corporations as powerful tribes that can collectively protect us in the end, especially if you possess the skills to succeed in such environments and gain access to their benefits. On your example, it is a great benefit not having to worry about money, but there are still many reasons why a public water utility still might not deliver safe water, some of which still revolve around money: If the utility is not adequately funded, it may still be unable to deliver safe water. Consider the difficult situation we have today with lead pipes. It's not any easier for private corporations to deal with, but theoretically I think each one would feel a greater sense of urgency to fix the problem first. As for your terror, I find it comforting to see it this way: If an entity fails to use public infrastructure constructively, regardless of whether it be a public utility or private corporation, it will be modified or replaced until we find something that works. It will take time but we will get there, as long as we're in the company of good faith -- and we certainly are.

sokoloff 6y ago
> as they feel we have a good reign on our government That is probably not the homonym you meant (though it does describe how some feel about the government’s interaction with its citizens). Rein is something you use to control a horse (or government). Reign is something a king does.
- master-litty 6y ago
  Ha! I did not know, thank you. Rein is what I meant.