7 ms·
One of my favorite things here in New York City is how Con Ed gets approval to pass infrastructure upgrade costs directly to consumers, but at the end of the fi
by crmd 1y ago
One of my favorite things here in New York City is how Con Ed gets approval to pass infrastructure upgrade costs directly to consumers, but at the end of the financing period the asset is mysteriously owned by their board of directors, not the public who paid for it.
- BrtByte 1y agoAnd good luck getting transparency on those asset transfers or executive benefits. It's all buried in regulatory filings that nobody reads except lawyers and lobbyists
- SoftTalker 1y agoIf a private company builds infrastructure with their profits, should it be owned by the customers "who paid for it"?
- 8fingerlouie 1y agoMy local electricity infrastructure provider is a private company, with the twist that all residents within their area are also automatically shareholders. They operate "for profit", but profits are distributed amongst shareholders in the form of reduced bills, ie last year we didn't get bills for electricity transport for december, and the year before that there were no bills from august through december. The "for profit" part pays infrastructure upgrades, so some years we pay the normal prices if there is infrastructure work being done, which in the end benefits all shareholders, meaning me (and other users).
- RileyJames 1y agoDo you live in Auckland? It sounds similar to the system I encountered there. I don’t remember all the details, I was only renting for a year. It didn’t sound like it was NZ wide.
- CubicalBatch 1y agoI live in Texas and I also have this system
- skort 1y agoWhy are we letting private companies own public infrastructure?
- mensetmanusman 1y agoGovernment bureaucrats are among the hardest to fire, because they rate their own excellence. Knowing this, there is probably a way to make things better…
- nine_k 1y agoIt's either owned by a private company, or public (owned by municipality or similar).
- supertrope 1y agoPoliticians lack the will to push for public utilities. That requires asking voters to go along with the government taking on financing, planning, operations, customer service, and being the bad guys who raise prices. It's easier to point to companies as the bad guys who raised electric rates, likely sparked a wildfire, or are taking so long to fix an outage.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoThe problem is this is set up as a dichotomy. Either you have privately owned infrastructure (and then a private monopoly), or make the utility company a government entity which then becomes an unaccountable bureaucracy captured by public sector unions etc. Whereas the better thing to do is have the government own the physical plant (utility poles and conduits etc.) and then hire private contractors -- large numbers of small entities, not small numbers of large entities -- to do all the actual work of operating and maintaining it. Make each contracted role simple and fungible so that none of them are too big to fail and they're all in competition with each other. You don't want a public monopoly. You don't want a private monopoly. But who says those are the only options?
- Spooky23 1y agoIn New York, the cheapest utilities by far are public utilities owned by municipal governments. Same in Massachusetts — I saved a fortune dropping some stuff in Holyoke. Generation is pretty low intensity from an employee standpoint. I know you’re brainwashed to hate unions, but they have little to do with it.
- kingkawn 1y agoYes
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- bichiliad 1y agoThey are given a de facto monopoly. It’s weird that a private company is building and owning public utilities, but if they’re going to be granted a monopoly, then it’s not unreasonable for that privilege to come at a price.
- philipallstar 1y agoIt does come at a price: they have to pay corporation tax.
- bichiliad 1y agoYou mean the one that every corp has to pay, regardless of monopoly status? Or something else?
- philipallstar 1y agoI mean compared to a public utility.
- anigbrowl 1y agoYes
- crmd 1y agoIt’s not paid for “with their profits”, it’s a passthru charge directly onto customers’ monthly bills.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- jayd16 1y agoIf you have a publicly supported monopoly you shouldn't have a private company.
- guerrilla 1y agoYes, of course it should be. You point out of of theain flaws in our system. Those who actually produce things and pay for them never get any ownership. They remain disadvantaged dispite their contributions.
- philipallstar 1y agoThey pay for the thing they get. They exchanged money for product or service. Anyone can start a company and contribute the money required for that company.
- guerrilla 1y ago> Anyone can start a company and contribute the money required for that company. No, anyone can't. That's the point. If the money is siphoned out of the lower class, then they have no capital (or free time) to start a business. They're barely getting by. It's a positive feedback loop in both directions (up and down). Rich get rich, poor get poorer (in general).
- boppo1 1y agoIf you are upset about 'rich get richer, poor get poorer', you should read up on quantitative easing and how it inflated assets if you're not familiar with the topic yet.
- nradov 1y agoAnyone in the USA can. I've met people who started successful small businesses doing things like landscaping and pest control with basically zero capital or free time. They just went ahead and did it. If you try hard enough you can always find an excuse for failure.
- guerrilla 1y agoThat is notremotely comparable. :D If you try hard enough you can always find an excuse for oppression.
- sidewndr46 1y agoIsn't it mandated that they do that by the state? The gas companies where I live work this way.
- jncfhnb 1y agoMost of these things are really liabilities. You have to maintain these things.
- s1artibartfast 1y agoFunny how the chef passes his costs on to me, but at the end of the day he owns the restaurant. What Injustice! If people don't like paying a private entity for a goods or service, the solution is to make it yourself, not complain. Tons of cities, counties, and states do just that
- anigbrowl 1y agoI'm sure you're well aware that many states pre-empt county or municipal efforts to develop public utilities like broadband internet or perservice.
- metalman 1y agofunny how the largest most modern power utility and grid infrastructur ever built is owned by the citizens who built it, in China, AND they have some realy fancy privatly owned resteraunts.........almost everywhere then there are things like the town of Lunenburg having it's own power company https://www.townoflunenburg.ca/electric-utility.html https://www.townoflunenburg.ca/electric-utility.html
- dghlsakjg 1y agoDoes the chef's menu and pricing get approved by a state regulator and prevent you from eating anything but that restaurant's food while they operate on land they don't own? The place that your analogy falls is that electric companies are private companies operating legal electricity monopolies where much of the infrastructure in question is placed on right of ways across public and private land not controlled by the operator.
- s1artibartfast 1y agoSounds like you have a problem with the state, not the chef.
- dghlsakjg 1y agoI have a problem with the weak analogy, mostly.
- delfinom 1y agoThe problem is, in the last few years NYC and NYS have mandated all kinds of green energy goals. One of the biggest one that is causing a fuck ton of concern and spending is "no more new gas cars after 2035". Well guess what that means! _infrastructure_ that someone has to pay for and the mandates are unfunded by the state. The city and state have also been pushing various schemes to ban decrease natural gas installations as well, resulting in _surprise_ more electric for heating and cooking. The other problem we have is moronic NIMBY and environmentalist behavior that led to our only nuclear power plant shutting down and a second one never being allowed to go online at all. The entire Long Island region is still on the hook financially to pay for vetoing a previously approved and built nuclear power plant decades ago. This leads to NY to now depend on imported electricity from other states and Canada at increased rates. And it's only going to get more expensive as datacenters eat up cheap electricity from the same sources.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 1y agoPoint of information: it's not owned by the directors, it's owned by the investors, the shareholders, just like every other private company. It's still a weird sanctioned monopoly. More places should get over their fear of public ownership.
- raxxorraxor 1y agoPublic ownership can be extremely detrimental, I think it is even worse than state ownership by a few margins. Especially for setting long term goals required for infrastructure. There are investors for that as well, but they are rare and an exception. I evade working directly for publicly traded companies like hell or let myself be paid very, very generously. Most often your time will be limited in the first place. Better to be employed as a freelancer in that case.
- ETH_start 1y ago[dead]
- nitwit005 1y agoMy power company has the state guaranteeing a monopoly, effectively sets prices, sets safety standards, approves new construction, requires every home be connected to the grid, etc. Throwing out the corporate management will probably save money simply because they're pointless middle men. They aren't making the decisions that truly matter.
- Yokolos 1y agoI'm very confused. Public and state ownership are the exact same thing. Public ownership is not the same thing as being publicly traded.