2 ms·

So you have an excessively built out electrical system... sounds like a win to me.

by pixl97 8mo ago

CGMthrowaway 8mo ago
I'm sure it sounds good to you as long as it's OPM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averch%E2%80%93Johnson_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averch%E2%80%93Johnson_effect
toomuchtodo 8mo ago
They said excessively expensive, not excessively robust. There is a difference.
- glenstein 8mo ago
  There's not necessarily a difference because they overlap on the venn diagram. The returns to the shareholders go up the more you build out, the benefits and performance face diminishing returns. Different utilities around the country get different scores for reliability and infrastructure integrity, because a dollar spent by one utility on one grid doesn't necessarily have the same impact as a dollar spent by another.
adgjlsfhk1 8mo ago
Absolutely not. The way to spend as much money as possible is to do intentionally inefficient repairs (e.g. last minute/reactive). The providers gain from grid unreliability since by causing problems, they get to justify spending money to "fix" them.
glenstein 8mo ago
Except for the cost to the ratepayers.
phil21 8mo ago
Depends on if the investments were in the right stuff or not. Overbuilt sounds great, so long as it’s overbuilt in capacity and reliability. If those were malinvestments instead it’s simply throwing money away for not even a theoretical “someday” return. Plenty of ways to look busy while spending massive amounts of capital. Generally agreed in principle though. Investment in the grid is pathetic almost everywhere in the US and has been for generations.
Manuel_D 8mo ago
It's about threading the needle between a well funded grid, and an over engineered grid. There's a point where diminishing returns makes investment greater than that threshold wasteful relative to opportunity cost of spending that tax money on different public services.

So you have an excessively built out electrical system... sounds like a win to me.

by pixl97 8mo ago

So you have an excessively built out electrical system... sounds like a win to me.

I'm sure it sounds good to you as long as it's OPM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averch%E2%80%93Johnson_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averch%E2%80%93Johnson_effect

toomuchtodo 8mo ago

They said excessively expensive, not excessively robust. There is a difference.

glenstein 8mo ago
There's not necessarily a difference because they overlap on the venn diagram. The returns to the shareholders go up the more you build out, the benefits and performance face diminishing returns. Different utilities around the country get different scores for reliability and infrastructure integrity, because a dollar spent by one utility on one grid doesn't necessarily have the same impact as a dollar spent by another.

adgjlsfhk1 8mo ago

Absolutely not. The way to spend as much money as possible is to do intentionally inefficient repairs (e.g. last minute/reactive). The providers gain from grid unreliability since by causing problems, they get to justify spending money to "fix" them.

glenstein 8mo ago

Except for the cost to the ratepayers.

phil21 8mo ago

Depends on if the investments were in the right stuff or not. Overbuilt sounds great, so long as it’s overbuilt in capacity and reliability. If those were malinvestments instead it’s simply throwing money away for not even a theoretical “someday” return. Plenty of ways to look busy while spending massive amounts of capital. Generally agreed in principle though. Investment in the grid is pathetic almost everywhere in the US and has been for generations.

Manuel_D 8mo ago

It's about threading the needle between a well funded grid, and an over engineered grid. There's a point where diminishing returns makes investment greater than that threshold wasteful relative to opportunity cost of spending that tax money on different public services.