3 ms·
Strictly punishing shut downs and damages makes sense to me though. They aren't really ideals that are at odds, if you consider the solution to both is to upgra
by ehnto 6y ago
Strictly punishing shut downs and damages makes sense to me though. They aren't really ideals that are at odds, if you consider the solution to both is to upgrade and properly maintain the infrastructure. To run a safe and effective power grid is really all that is asking for.
Perhaps you are on to something with regulations making it difficult for PG&E to upgrade the infrastructure, but I stand by the idea that it should become a public utility so that their goals align. I would say PG&E is a symptom rather than a scape goat, put any private utility in their place and the outcome would be the same.
I think we see the problem from a similar lens, I just differ in that I don't think less regulation would be the solution.
- andromeduck 6y agoRegulation, or more accurately piss poor market design is precisely is how we got into this stupid mess. A big reason why we are here is because we first tried to limit the profit margins on the marginal cost of power/transmission which then incentivised utilities to go big on cap-ex because thigh the profit margins there were capped too the mangitude of expenditures weren't. So of course we turn around and start specifying how they can spend it when then incentivised them to cost cut and defer maintenance because that's what was most profitable given the now extreme regulatory barriers to entry. And then of course there's the when Enron manipulation that was also just as much due to regulators not allowing the market to install new capacity where needed and forcing fixed pricing on retail distribution. What we really need is a complete market and regulatory transition to something more sane like texas model of separating things into a generation and distribution market with more lightly regulated players.