9 ms·

Here's the main reason: > The utility-backed concept suggests poorer Californians are paying higher utility rates to pay for lost profits that utilities endure

by floren 4y ago

Here's the main reason: > The utility-backed concept suggests poorer Californians are paying higher utility rates to pay for lost profits that utilities endure in order to pay solar owner for delivering clean energy to the grid. If every Californian reduced their electricity usage by half, PG&E would just double the rate and probably come up with a couple additional fees to tack on as well.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
California should've nationalized PG&E, but this is what they decided instead: continuing to rake ratepayers over the coals.
- mc32 4y ago
  What would that solve? It would have never the less been subsidized by taxes. (see: LIPA)
  - jeromegv 4y ago
    Some government owned utility companies are extremely profitable and provide billion of dollars in profit to taxpayers. A good example is Quebec, they nationalized all the electric corporations in the 1960s and it became a government monopoly. http://www.hydroquebec.com/history-electricity-in-quebec/timeline/second-nationalization.html http://www.hydroquebec.com/history-electricity-in-quebec/tim...
    - mc32 4y ago
      Uh, well, if you get virtually free inputs, after initial construction, from a Lagrande watershed, it's not hard to make profits. So if PG&E had massive three gorges and itaipu dams they too could offer cut rate electricity just Like Paraguay too has cheap electricity.
- analognoise 4y ago
  How do we get the ball rolling on nationalizing PG&E now?
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    You turn it into a co-op. California can afford to based on what its residents are already burning in fiat on allowing PG&E to exist, and it's the world's fourth largest economy. Far smaller economies of entire countries have nationalized electrical grids (France is in the process of nationalizing EDF, for example, at a cost of $9.7B; to do so in California would be closer to $2.5B). Your expenses are then governed by stakeholders within the state of California instead of shareholders sucking profits out of a dysfunctional public utility. Taxpayers already subsidize PG&E, so that's not an excuse against nationalizing, they've already Crossed The Rubicon with regards to ongoing state support; any profits shareholders have/would receive are potential re-investments back into the infrastructure. Why are taxpayers subsidizing PG&E shareholders? Subsidize the infrastructure directly! https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/business/pge-bankruptcy-newsom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/business/pge-bankruptcy-n... https://www.eastbaydsa.org/campaigns/pge/ https://www.eastbaydsa.org/campaigns/pge/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wildfires-california-pge/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wildfires-californ... https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/02/what-happens-if-california-takes-over-pge/ https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/02/what-happens-if-cali... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182562176667512833.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182562176667512833.html https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/28/pge-revenue-profit-rise-utility-charge-more-monthly-bill-wildfire/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/28/pge-revenue-profit-ri...
  - quags 4y ago
    Realistically pg&e being a publically traded company (like Twitter was) - California can use money from the budget and send a take over offer over 40 billion. The current market cap is around is 39 billion. They would need to bid a premium to get it approved by the current share holders. Boom it’s done and they can nationalize it.
  - robocat 4y ago
    You look at other states or other countries where the regulations have been configured to work, and model on that. The most important part is the network infrastructure (power lines, transformers, substations) is a natural monopoly so it needs to be owned by the state. Regulation and incentives keep failing when corporate ownership of the network infrastructure is tried. In New Zealand the national grid https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpower_New_Zealand https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpower_New_Zealand is a “state owned enterprise”, while local low voltage networks and power metering is owned by each local government. The idea is to use corporate (profit motivated) ownership for generators and retail metered billing to end consumers, but design the market to be competitive for multiple generation companies (don’t allow one generator to have a monopoly in any area) and for consumer choice of who bills them. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market has a good high-level overview of how everything is configured, and also refers to some of the failures of the regulations. It refers to a disputed study that consumers are overpaying by ~33%, so in theory bills could be reduced with nationalisation. . . although I personally would expect a government department to be more than 33% inefficient, so I don’t think electricity consumers win either way.
- yucky 4y ago
  How exactly would a state nationalize a company?
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    Look at your local police or fire department. Imagine if they were private companies. You need to buy the necessary equipment, pay the salaries of the staff, fire the board of directors, and cut out the shareholders.
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      Fire departments and police departments began as private companies; see the history of NYC. They were nationalized to limit the massive corruption associated with private fire departments (i.e., fire departments deliberately setting fire to rivals' customers). But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. The closest it can get is buying a private company, or creating a public agency or public-private partnership, all of which California has done before.
      - gumby 4y ago
        > But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. The closest it can get is buying a private company, or creating a public agency or public-private partnership, all of which California has done before. Or build its own competition. Quite a few califonia cities run their own utilities; Palo Alto started and ran its own phone company (sold to Pac Bell in the late 50s) and cable system (foolishly and destructively sold to crapcast in the '00s) but runs its own water, electricity, and gas system. Several counties run their own utility systems, often in cooperation. However the high speed rail project suggests that this is not the time for California to enter into such projects. A century ago progressivism flourished, building water, road, and other crucial infrastructure that we still depend on. But the "revolution" of the late 70s and 80s cut away all the maintenance and support for further such projects in the name of ideology.
      - nitwit005 4y ago
- refurb 4y ago
  Google the minutes from a PG&E and PBUC meeting. PG&E can’t replace a fence around a substation without PBUC approval. PG&E is privately funded but effectively managed by the state.
londons_explore 4y ago
That isn't the main reason... The main reason is that a power company defends its existence by generating and delivering as much power as possible. If everyone had on-site generation and batteries, PG&E would barely be required, and if they were to bill too much, users would just disconnect from the grid entirely (some battery systems can already work without a grid). To defend their existence, they need to do everything possible to stop homeowners not needing their service. And discouraging rooftop solar is part of that.
- nine_k 4y ago
  Is there any industry in California? Some office buildings? Maybe some datacenters? I suspect that a power company could concentrate on them and still turn a profit, if 90% of detached houses stop buying electricity from it and disconnect. (But the latter requires a lot of batteries installed.)
  - blululu 4y ago
    Yes there is a lot of industry in California. It typically leads the nation in its manufacturing output. A basic Google search would reveal the depth of the state's manufacturing capabilities. This includes includes aerospace, automotive, chemical and quite a few other products.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      Indeed! That was the point, driven home by a tiny morsel of irony. No chance that selling electric power to large consumers in California could disappear any time soon. I bet the electrical grid operator's margins are much thinner in residential neighborhoods, sometimes maybe even negative.

by floren 4y ago

toomuchtodo 4y ago

California should've nationalized PG&E, but this is what they decided instead: continuing to rake ratepayers over the coals.

mc32 4y ago
What would that solve? It would have never the less been subsidized by taxes. (see: LIPA)
- jeromegv 4y ago
  Some government owned utility companies are extremely profitable and provide billion of dollars in profit to taxpayers. A good example is Quebec, they nationalized all the electric corporations in the 1960s and it became a government monopoly. http://www.hydroquebec.com/history-electricity-in-quebec/timeline/second-nationalization.html http://www.hydroquebec.com/history-electricity-in-quebec/tim...
  - mc32 4y ago
    Uh, well, if you get virtually free inputs, after initial construction, from a Lagrande watershed, it's not hard to make profits. So if PG&E had massive three gorges and itaipu dams they too could offer cut rate electricity just Like Paraguay too has cheap electricity.
analognoise 4y ago
How do we get the ball rolling on nationalizing PG&E now?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  You turn it into a co-op. California can afford to based on what its residents are already burning in fiat on allowing PG&E to exist, and it's the world's fourth largest economy. Far smaller economies of entire countries have nationalized electrical grids (France is in the process of nationalizing EDF, for example, at a cost of $9.7B; to do so in California would be closer to $2.5B). Your expenses are then governed by stakeholders within the state of California instead of shareholders sucking profits out of a dysfunctional public utility. Taxpayers already subsidize PG&E, so that's not an excuse against nationalizing, they've already Crossed The Rubicon with regards to ongoing state support; any profits shareholders have/would receive are potential re-investments back into the infrastructure. Why are taxpayers subsidizing PG&E shareholders? Subsidize the infrastructure directly! https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/business/pge-bankruptcy-newsom.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/07/business/pge-bankruptcy-n... https://www.eastbaydsa.org/campaigns/pge/ https://www.eastbaydsa.org/campaigns/pge/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wildfires-california-pge/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/wildfires-californ... https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/02/what-happens-if-california-takes-over-pge/ https://calmatters.org/politics/2020/02/what-happens-if-cali... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182562176667512833.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182562176667512833.html https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/28/pge-revenue-profit-rise-utility-charge-more-monthly-bill-wildfire/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/28/pge-revenue-profit-ri...
- quags 4y ago
  Realistically pg&e being a publically traded company (like Twitter was) - California can use money from the budget and send a take over offer over 40 billion. The current market cap is around is 39 billion. They would need to bid a premium to get it approved by the current share holders. Boom it’s done and they can nationalize it.
- robocat 4y ago
  You look at other states or other countries where the regulations have been configured to work, and model on that. The most important part is the network infrastructure (power lines, transformers, substations) is a natural monopoly so it needs to be owned by the state. Regulation and incentives keep failing when corporate ownership of the network infrastructure is tried. In New Zealand the national grid https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpower_New_Zealand https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpower_New_Zealand is a “state owned enterprise”, while local low voltage networks and power metering is owned by each local government. The idea is to use corporate (profit motivated) ownership for generators and retail metered billing to end consumers, but design the market to be competitive for multiple generation companies (don’t allow one generator to have a monopoly in any area) and for consumer choice of who bills them. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market https://wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market has a good high-level overview of how everything is configured, and also refers to some of the failures of the regulations. It refers to a disputed study that consumers are overpaying by ~33%, so in theory bills could be reduced with nationalisation. . . although I personally would expect a government department to be more than 33% inefficient, so I don’t think electricity consumers win either way.
yucky 4y ago
How exactly would a state nationalize a company?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Look at your local police or fire department. Imagine if they were private companies. You need to buy the necessary equipment, pay the salaries of the staff, fire the board of directors, and cut out the shareholders.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    Fire departments and police departments began as private companies; see the history of NYC. They were nationalized to limit the massive corruption associated with private fire departments (i.e., fire departments deliberately setting fire to rivals' customers). But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. The closest it can get is buying a private company, or creating a public agency or public-private partnership, all of which California has done before.
    - gumby 4y ago
      > But to the point: a U.S. state can't nationalize a private company. It simply lacks that power. The closest it can get is buying a private company, or creating a public agency or public-private partnership, all of which California has done before. Or build its own competition. Quite a few califonia cities run their own utilities; Palo Alto started and ran its own phone company (sold to Pac Bell in the late 50s) and cable system (foolishly and destructively sold to crapcast in the '00s) but runs its own water, electricity, and gas system. Several counties run their own utility systems, often in cooperation. However the high speed rail project suggests that this is not the time for California to enter into such projects. A century ago progressivism flourished, building water, road, and other crucial infrastructure that we still depend on. But the "revolution" of the late 70s and 80s cut away all the maintenance and support for further such projects in the name of ideology.
    - nitwit005 4y ago
refurb 4y ago
Google the minutes from a PG&E and PBUC meeting. PG&E can’t replace a fence around a substation without PBUC approval. PG&E is privately funded but effectively managed by the state.

londons_explore 4y ago

That isn't the main reason... The main reason is that a power company defends its existence by generating and delivering as much power as possible. If everyone had on-site generation and batteries, PG&E would barely be required, and if they were to bill too much, users would just disconnect from the grid entirely (some battery systems can already work without a grid). To defend their existence, they need to do everything possible to stop homeowners not needing their service. And discouraging rooftop solar is part of that.

nine_k 4y ago
Is there any industry in California? Some office buildings? Maybe some datacenters? I suspect that a power company could concentrate on them and still turn a profit, if 90% of detached houses stop buying electricity from it and disconnect. (But the latter requires a lot of batteries installed.)
- blululu 4y ago
  Yes there is a lot of industry in California. It typically leads the nation in its manufacturing output. A basic Google search would reveal the depth of the state's manufacturing capabilities. This includes includes aerospace, automotive, chemical and quite a few other products.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    Indeed! That was the point, driven home by a tiny morsel of irony. No chance that selling electric power to large consumers in California could disappear any time soon. I bet the electrical grid operator's margins are much thinner in residential neighborhoods, sometimes maybe even negative.