Not sure how nationalization would help. PG&E has a state monopoly right? What if we went in the opposite direction and allowed smaller companies in to start competing, like what we have with ISPs?
What you'd get is a bunch of small companies competing. And, human nature being what it is, at least some of them would scrimp on maintenance and tree trimming, and hope that they'd continue to be lucky. And some of those wouldn't be lucky, and you'd still get fires.
The difference would be that when Billy Bob's Power Company set off a multi-billion-dollar fire, it would just fold. Sally Sue's Power Company would buy up their assets (but not their liabilities) for pennies on the dollar, and you'd be left hoping that Sally Sue did better at maintenance than Billy Bob.
You can vote out elected officials, it forces transparency, and also has the bonus of a government multiplier[1], you can't do that with the C-levels of PG&E and a private company.
Additionally, and I think this is non-debatable in the USA (though I'm up for debate, and to be wrong), C-levels have their primary and sole obligation to shareholders. When push comes to shove, and tough decisions need to be made, in
the USA it is always in the interest of shareholders unless mandated by the government. Sometimes better businesses push for that mandate, so they can remain competitive and not be flaming piles of shit unable to compete... [2].
PG&E executives, right now, can use this (shareholder returns) as disguise for moral ineptitude in their social circles allowing them to escape ridicule as monsters.
No amount of competition will fix these problems and incentivize the correct behaviour for a _utility_ as long as they're obligated to return dividends before moral decency.
[2] This is also a vector for abuse by monopolies and oligopolies; where, they lobby for regulation which creates a barrier to entry (in the market) insurmountable to new organizations and institutions.
> Additionally, and I think this is non-debatable in the USA (though I'm up for debate, and to be wrong), C-levels have their primary and sole obligation to shareholders.
No. Shareholders have a residual claim. Corporations have to obey the law, pay their debts, and pay their other obligations first. Shareholders may only claim from what remains.
There's already growing competition in power generation. But power transmission is a natural monopoly, and that (the power lines) is what causes fire risk.
The fact is that many Californians are served by an under-maintained aging grid, nominally maintained by a public-private utility with regulated pricing. PG&E is thrashing because they can't raise rates and they can't cut off customers and they don't have a maintenance time machine, so they are made a whipping boy for not solving the impossible.
At least this is focusing our attention on our electrical grid issues. There's major fire risk, but solar demands modernization as well. Let's hope this crisis does not go to waste.
Perhaps you read my comment as a defense of PG&E. I carry no water for them! I'm a Californian and I hope only for reliable affordable power, and climate change leadership.
> Maybe they could use some of that to a) not burn down california and b) provide their customers with reliable power.
Unfortunately they cannot because they are literally bankrupt.
> PG&E needs to be dissolved
Dissolving PG&E does not magically cut back vegetation or modernize the grid. That's the whipping boy: it's like blaming Exxon for climate change. It directs the energy of our anger to impotent punishment for past misdeeds, without solving today's problems.
CA's electrical grid has maintenance debt and underinsured fire risk. I think you're saying that my utility bill is more than enough to cover that - if so, that's great news! I'd love to be convinced that Calfornia can have reliable safe power for no more than I'm paying now.
But from what I've read, PG&E has a backlog of work and liability risk, plus limited ability to raise rates. So either our bills or taxes go up. And when then do, hopefully it also provides for the grid modernization necessary for climate change. (And wringing out the PG&E rent seekers would be fine by me too.)
With the net incoming directly from their financials, how were they prevented from clearing lines of fire hazards? They are bankrupt NOW because they failed to act with the resources at hand. Did they argue for rate increases to make the lines safe while at the same time failing to use that net income to clear the lines of hazards?
There is this false dichotomy woven in your arguments equating rate increases with safety measures.
Did I say that there is magic in a PG&E dissolution? If the organizational structure of PG&E can't use the resources it has (people, money, influence) to operate the grid safely, someone else needs to take over. When someone is systematically lousy at their job, they get fired.
Your rhetoric is riddled with logical fallacies, you aren't making analogies that explain your reasoning. You are making straw men and putting words in my mouth.
trying to paint the parent comment as a misleading trickster isn't very helpful, and just stating PG&E's net income doesn't touch on how regulated utilities work.
Removing all the profit puts a couple 2-3 year band-aid over the fact that PG&E's infrastructure recovery requests make up the bulk of their cases.
CPUC sees all their projections, plans, requests, and expenses, compensation when they come to them for rate cases. They also make decisions on executive compensation and incentive plans. Whether or not you make the assumption that CPUC is in cahoots with IOUs, what changes when you liquidate PG&E, when the new boss is just the old boss' boss?
You're probably better off trying to rebuild some generation system avoiding transmission lines in risky areas.
> What if we went in the opposite direction and allowed smaller companies in to start competing, like what we have with ISPs?
So, multiple competing electric distribution systems with the total fire danger being worse than that of the worst maintained? That would be...very, very bad, strictly worse than the status quo.
If you mean basically competing retail providers using PG&E’s distribution infrastructure, then that doesn't change anything relevant from the status quo.
Make it a public service run by the California Resources Agency, answering to the same cabinet secretary as CalFire does, then you've got both the Agency Secretary and the Governor who have a pretty strong incentive to ensure that: (1) deferred maintenance doesn't cause massive fires, and (2) deferred maintenance doesn't require blackouts to prevent causing massive fires.
