5 ms·

Eminent domain can be used to acquire the assets if needed. It’s just not a popular idea to libertarian American political sensibilities to use those laws to ac

• s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >It’s just not a popular idea to libertarian American political sensibilities to use those laws to acquire assets for the public instead of acquire the public’s houses to build shopping malls. What a strange jab. Do you really think libertarians are excited about using eminent domain to seize houses?
• shagie 2y ago
  Hypothetically, let's do it. Wave the eminent domain wand and poof California now owns all the PG&E lines. They are now in competition for transmission with the private entity PacifiCorp that jointly owns some substations with PG&E and spans six states. This gets into tricky situations where the government is competing to provide the same service without any profit motive and able to monopolize its position through enacting laws... something that private entities can't really compete against. Next, you've got the power lines (and sub stations). What you don't have is the tools (vehicles, equipment) to maintain those power lines. https://www.fleetowner.com/operations/article/21242388/2022-private-fleet-of-the-year-pge https://www.fleetowner.com/operations/article/21242388/2022-... > Reichert is now a senior fleet engineer for PG&E, which has one of the largest battery-electric fleets in North America. The 49th largest commercial private fleet in the U.S. provides transportation services for the 117-year-old utility provider. Based in Oakland, the company has more than 5 million customers in central and northern California. > Its fleet includes more than 14,500 vehicles that cover nearly every duty cycle. These include construction and off-road equipment, snowcats, UTVs, and specialty gas and electric utility fleet assets. More traditional assets range from Classes 1-8: light-duty passenger cars and pickup trucks, medium-duty service trucks, aerial trouble trucks, gas welding, heavy-duty gas crew vehicles, electric line, material handlers, and day cab tractors. Does California suddenly also go and claim 14,500 vehicles that it would need to service the equipment that PG&E formerly had? And next we're at the people who actually do the work... https://jobs.pge.com/about-us https://jobs.pge.com/about-us > Based in San Francisco, our 25,000 employees work throughout our Northern and Central California service area 25,000 people isn't a small number, and there are 220,000 people working for the state of California ... but we also know how well the public sector pays compare to the private sector. I believe that it is absurd to think that you could use eminent domain to try to say that PG&E is doing a poor job and that the State of California is taking ownership of its power lines... and all of its assets... and expect its employees to continue to work there. The State of California is not an organization that is properly equipped to handle the management of some of the power lines in some of the state unless you are also wishing to have CalPower be a department within the state government that rivals CalTrans for quality and timeliness of service.
  • coldtea 2y ago
    >They are now in competition for transmission with the private entity PacifiCorp that jointly owns some substations with PG&E and spans six states. Then they can also acquire the PacifiCorp substations. Even better, make it a public utility thing, and forbid (with some transition plan) private companies handling this infrastructure entirely. >unless you are also wishing to have CalPower be a department within the state government that rivals CalTrans for quality and timeliness of service. Since other countries manage to have public infrastructure like trains and power grids and have it work well, perhaps it's not some unobtainable magical goal, but just a specific failure because of the way CalTrans was managed - and can thus change if there's the political will?
    • shagie 2y ago
      Other countries are smaller than California and as countries have more authority over their land. My claim is that the state of California does not have the funds to compensate multiple multi-state public and private companies within its borders, nor the equipment to be able to maintain that infrastructure (all the way down to the individual houses and the transformers on the pole), nor the manpower to be able to staff it. If the claim is "caltrans doesn't either - they use contractors for the projects and are only responsible for state highways - the local town roads are the town's infrastructure that the town maintains - not the state" Then you're going to hand over PG&E's gas and electrical infrastructure to San Francisco for them to maintain? How does a properly regulated utility company fundamentally differ from the state owning the equipment but allowing the private sector to do what it does? And if it was properly regulated, then PG&E and the state would be agreement about how to handle the addition of household solar... which is what people are up in arms about. I still hold that the state of California would be ill-equipped and poorly prepared to be able to assume all the responsibilities for all of the electrical infrastructure in the state (which is far more than PG&E).
      • coldtea 2y ago
        >Other countries are smaller than California and as countries have more authority over their land There are countries much larger than California out there - France (with public rail) is 1.5 times the size of California and over 2x the population. >I still hold that the state of California would be ill-equipped and poorly prepared to be able to assume all the responsibilities for all of the electrical infrastructure in the state (which is far more than PG&E). Perhaps. But that's on them. Not some infeasibility to do so with public (state) owned electrical infrastructure.