|
Leperflesh posted:
Leperflesh posted:
E: beat by someone who knows more than me. CopperHound fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Oct 29, 2019 |
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Nationalize it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
predicto posted:gently caress PG&E, but I’m not sure any utility can operate safely in California anymore. PGE has something like 80 million acres in its territory, and over 100,000 miles of transmission lines. How can they ensure that no trees ever fall on a line, or no lines ever fall into brush? I opened this thread for apparently the first time in almost a year and didn't realize I was reading old posts until I noticed the post date. Still topical a year later... gently caress PG&E indeed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
My aunt still lives in San Diego, and she was telling me that SDG&E responded to some truly awful firestorms in the 2000s by spending a small fortune (paid for by raising rates) upgrading their infrastructure - burying lines and building a high-tech monitoring system. PG&E spent their money on...executive bonuses and stock buybacks*. I notice that while the Bay Area and many other parts of PG&E territory are full of destructive fires, hundreds of thousands of evacuees, and (at one point) a million people without power, San Diego has sailed through the current Red Flag weather with zero major or even medium-grade fires. My mind boggles at the thought of San Diego showing any kind of leadership on any level (outside of the field of carne asada production) but that's a great example of just how much PG&E sucks. * They bought a bunch of stock that has since lost 90% of its value, and may drop to zero. Good one, PG&E.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
All of my republican relatives have suddenly, in lockstep, started posting articles about how PGE wouldn’t have so many problems if it weren’t for those meddling liberal environmentalists and all their regulations. I guess they got their Fox News marching orders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 08:52
|
|
|
Pump Jockey posted:All of my republican relatives have suddenly, in lockstep, started posting articles about how PGE wouldn’t have so many problems if it weren’t for those meddling liberal environmentalists and all their regulations. I guess they got their Fox News marching orders. California wont let the forest service use the firefighting planes because they want the federal government to pay them extra welfare first!!  lol youtube comments
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Pump Jockey posted:All of my republican relatives have suddenly, in lockstep, started posting articles about how PGE wouldn’t have so many problems if it weren’t for those meddling liberal environmentalists and all their regulations. I guess they got their Fox News marching orders. They're not entirely wrong, liberal technobabble is what allowed PG&E to make a shitload of dumb, ineffective rules instead of hiring people to do the maintenance and investing in a cleaner grid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:Nationalize it!  Edit: State agencies do gently caress up, and are probably less vulnerable to legal action when they do. However at the same time PG&E is an extremely bad actor, their choices have led to a lot of liberal fallacies regarding both the competence of government departments but also fallacies about development. I love the amount of articles attacking sprawl for causing this when Sacramento is the sprawliest sprawl and their public utility isn't having these problems. PG&E needs to be reformed to operate in the interest of the public without being controlled directly by politicians. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 16:23
|
|
|
I don't understand the complaints about profits and bonuses. Utilities are regulated to set their rates based on "allowed" capital investments and actual fuel and other approved costs to result in an allowed profit margin on that capital. If the public utility commission grinds down that allowed profit rate, the utility will get less investment via the capital markets and will have to fund everything with volatile rate increases now to fund capital improvements that pay off later or locked in high rates to cover bond issues. Eyeballing the last fifteen years, PG&E averaged about $1-1.2B a year in profit until the recent year of $8.7B losses. Even if we assume the high end of the average and ignore the recent losses, that gives you $18 billion in profit over the last 15 years for a hypothetical publicly owned, just as efficient, and better prioritized utility to spend on preventing these fires. That's...pretty drat inadequate when I'm seeing $100 billion estimates related to tree trimming and burying transmission lines. And a publicly owned utility serving northern California is unlikely to be cheerfully funded by the rest of the state for their local geographic and infrastructure problems. What PG&E should have done was invested more, gotten it approved by the public utility commission, and made even larger profits (off that increased capital budget) and put much higher rates on their customers to pay for it if you really want fewer fires caused by power infrastructure. The question is would you rather fund that in advance through crippling rates paid for the local community or temporarily raiding PG&E equity (a one time piggy bank), insurance, and emergency funds from the rest of the state and country to pay it off after the fact without actually fixing your future issues. So far the latter path has been chosen. You could also have chosen to transfer the actual past capital budget to things related to fire prevention and management. Were there any big, avoidable capital investments, like, say, renewable energy that might have been reappropriated for this purpose? Apparatchik Magnet fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Think issue here is that corporations in america "have a legal duty to shareholders regardless of whatever" even if republicans try to hide that, and a public utility should not be bound by those rules. The CPUC has also failed its regulatory oversight mission entirely, they are as worthless as current FCC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:I don't understand the complaints about profits and bonuses. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:I don't understand the complaints about profits and bonuses. Utilities are regulated to set their rates based on "allowed" capital investments and actual fuel and other approved costs to result in an allowed profit margin on that capital. If the public utility commission grinds down that allowed profit rate, the utility will get less investment via the capital markets and will have to fund everything with volatile rate increases now to fund capital improvements that pay off later or locked in high rates to cover bond issues. This is pretty drat disingenuous. No one is saying that the bare minimum safety is burying goddam transmission lines.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Apparently the Fox News talking points are making their way to more than just Facebook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
How does a profit middle man reduce costs for the rate payer or the tax burden of it's citizens? An 80 billion short fall in capital to fix infrastructure costs has to come from the rate prayer or the tax payer. Capital isn't coming to that market to burn it's money and never be repaid, certainly not at cost. Additionally, spending more on renewable energy isn't a bogey man here. The increased costs faced by PG&E are climate change induced. The price to operate non-renewable energy sources was always a debt borrowed against the climates future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:This is pretty drat disingenuous. No one is saying that the bare minimum safety is burying goddam transmission lines. That's true, the bare minimum of inspecting all the lines and removing the dangerous trees might cost as little as $75 billion. https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article224968200.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:How does a profit middle man reduce costs for the rate payer or the tax burden of it's citizens? An 80 billion short fall in capital to fix infrastructure costs has to come from the rate prayer or the tax payer. Capital isn't coming to that market to burn it's money and never be repaid, certainly not at cost. A profit middle man reduces costs by having an incentive to do things efficiently and earn big bonuses rather than just putting in some Soviet style effort. 100% of PG&E investments devoted to fire prevention benefit PG&E ratepayers. PG&E's renewable investments are the dream of a future fart in the wind as far as their local benefits without a global solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Is this a Dead Reckoning rereg?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Herm maybe it isn't as expensive to cut down a tree branch when it barely encroaching on the veg management area versus after you've let it grow for 10 years and its now dangerously close to HV lines.... Herm maybe replacing parts when they are showing wear or on a PM schedule is cheaper than waiting til they're about to fail or have already failed and then replacing them....
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:52
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Is this a Dead Reckoning rereg? Oh my God it is, isn't it
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:That's true, the bare minimum of inspecting all the lines and removing the dangerous trees might cost as little as $75 billion. The last line of the article indicates that the cost, provided by pg&e, was to fully clear/inspect everything within less than one year, not a long term plan where costs should massively decrease as part of standard maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Herm maybe it isn't as expensive to cut down a tree branch when it barely encroaching on the veg management area versus after you've let it grow for 10 years and its now dangerously close to HV lines.... All great points, I wonder why PG&E didn't want to make more money by proposing such investments and having the CPUC approve them as in the public interest? Apparatchik Magnet fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:A profit middle man reduces costs by having an incentive to do things efficiently and earn big bonuses rather than just putting in some Soviet style effort. A profit middle man reduces cost by cutting maintenance and and getting bonuses and then jumping to another company so he's not there when the bill comes due, also lol "soviet"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:A profit middle man reduces costs by having an incentive to do things efficiently and earn big bonuses rather than just putting in some Soviet style effort. Why would a profit middle man reduce costs or act efficiently if there is no competition? Why are bonuses necessary to attract capital?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:A profit middle man reduces costs by having an incentive to do things efficiently and earn big bonuses rather than just putting in some Soviet style effort. PG&E operated exactly as you described they would. They operated "efficiently" to earn big bonuses and burned down half of the state and got a lot of people killed. You gotta come back with something better then this. "Well actually the Capitalist solution would be the best if they did it right" because it sounds like the old arguments for communism. The efficient capitalist argument, btw, doesn't even apply here because it relies on competition. There isn't competition for infrastructure services. No one is out there building a parallel power grid, but also maintaining it and forcing a price competitive market environmental to provide better services at a lower price. It's complete nonsense. Additionally, calling it a "Soviet style" system is loving ridiculous when most Western Nations have nationally owned transmission companies
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:A profit middle man reduces costs by having an incentive to do things efficiently and earn big bonuses rather than just putting in some Soviet style effort. They literally did put in "some Soviet style effort" here to pay themselves big bonuses. Here, in reality. Not in your stupid capitalism 101 fantasy land. It's loving incredible that every single thing they told me about the USSR in the 80s came true here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Zachack posted:The last line of the article indicates that the cost, provided by pg&e, was to fully clear/inspect everything within less than one year, not a long term plan where costs should massively decrease as part of standard maintenance. Absolutely, let's say the annual cost over ten years would have been teh same, which is surely a low ball but hey. So $7.5B a year spread over 5.4M customer accounts is $1389 per account per year, or $115 per month. Less for residential accounts and more for big commercial/industrial accounts, of course, but then again this is a low estimate. Surprising that no one wanted to pay, I'm sure PG&E would have been happy to increase their revenues and profits to have made it happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Absolutely, let's say the annual cost over ten years would have been teh same, which is surely a low ball but hey. So $7.5B a year spread over 5.4M customer accounts is $1389 per account per year, or $115 per month. Less for residential accounts and more for big commercial/industrial accounts, of course, but then again this is a low estimate. Surprising that no one wanted to pay, I'm sure PG&E would have been happy to increase their revenues and profits to have made it happen. Or you could raise the revenues and profits and....not spend the money. Is this like your first day at Capitalism or what.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
If only PG&E had thought like capitalists in theory, instead of capitalists in reality. Alas,
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Why would a profit middle man reduce costs or act efficiently if there is no competition? Because you keep what you save after the PUC sets your rates. Do what was approved more efficiently and you make more money. Do it inefficiently and the PUC doesn't approve your expenditure and you eat it out of expected profits. (A problem a publicly owned utility doesn't face, as the government has to pay for every investment regardless.) Bonuses are necessary to attract and retain talented workers who achieve higher returns, which does attract capital.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Or you could raise the revenues and profits and....not spend the money. Oh, poo poo, someone needs to start regulating these guys, I guess, and telling them what they're allowed to charge and approving capital expenditures and budgets that will be reimbursable from rates. It's weird that California doesn't do that, the PUCs in the states where my utility operates figured that trick out decades ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Bonuses are necessary to attract and retain talented workers who achieve higher returns, which does attract capital. This talking point is also capitalism 101 horseshit that was utterly disproven here in America by the taxation and compensation rates of the 50s, 60s, and early 70s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
There is no efficientcy to chase for profit in a monopolized system. There is no other company to turn to for power transmission if PG&E shirks it's duty and turns extractive, as they already have. A profit scraped off the top is only more money for the rate payer in a monopolized infrastructure system. Your entire theory of more efficient, better system, is predicated on competition. There is no reason for PG&E, if given a profit motive, to operate better because they can never lose customers to a competitor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:14
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Oh, poo poo, someone needs to start regulating these guys, I guess, and telling them what they're allowed to charge and approving capital expenditures and budgets that will be reimbursable from rates. It's weird that California doesn't do that, the PUCs in the states where my utility operates figured that trick out decades ago. ~rhetorical shift~
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
Goodpancakes posted:There is no efficientcy to chase for profit in a monopolized system. There is no other company to turn to for power transmission if PG&E shirks it's duty and turns extractive, as they already have. A profit scraped off the top is only more money for the rate payer in a monopolized infrastructure system. Your entire theory of more efficient, better system, is predicated on competition. There is no reason for PG&E, if given a profit motive, to operate better because they can never lose customers to a competitor. Your competition is the guy who could be doing your job of squeezing contractors, employees, and suppliers better than you, as well as those contractors, employees, and suppliers whose costs are passed on to ratepayers. Pretty weird that a DOJ lawyer I know earns bonuses for both annual and per-case performance. Where's the competitive justice system, one wonders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Anyway, my point is not to dispute the typically weak grasp on economic reality held by the average goon, nor to argue that PG&E is good. It is to point out that this wildfire problem isn't actually solvable at a cost anyone was or is willing to pay. No alternate ownership structure of PG&E would have or will spend what is necessary to avoid this. At best you can get some marginal reductions that are unlikely to be worth what you paid. Better to start building huge high rises in the cities surrounded by concrete walls and leave the rest of the state fallow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Anyway, my point is not to dispute the typically weak grasp on economic reality held by the average goon, nor to argue that PG&E is good. It is to point out that this wildfire problem isn't actually solvable at a cost anyone was or is willing to pay. No alternate ownership structure of PG&E would have or will spend what is necessary to avoid this. At best you can get some marginal reductions that are unlikely to be worth what you paid. Better to start building huge high rises in the cities surrounded by concrete walls and leave the rest of the state fallow. Short of socialist revolution, I don't really disagree, except for that last sentence. Without socialist revolution, that's just the road to some serious Malthusian horrors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/internethippo/status/881161169469403137?lang=en edit: "I know a DOJ lawyer who gets bonuses, this is given to them not because every single institution in this country is now full of self-dealing and corruption, but because otherwise they can't attract good people" gtfo you absolute goober. Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Oct 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Lowtax's refusal to pay bonuses is what leads to such poor posting in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Electricity of France is a traded corporation, but the French government owns 85%. And I would submit that France comes closest to representing this audience's ideal real-world example of energy policy. PG&E can be exceptionally dumb and stupid, profit is a factor in that but it's not completely incompatible with a successful utility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:Your competition is the guy who could be doing your job of squeezing contractors, employees, and suppliers better than you, as well as those contractors, employees, and suppliers whose costs are passed on to ratepayers. Please, if that's your only source of profit off the top it isn't going to the rate payers when it could go entirely to the share holders. Without competition there is no reason to drop rates, or not be extractive. In addition: Oh my God, they pay bonuses to DOJ lawyers?!? Fuuuuuuuck my argument!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2019 18:36
|
|