Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
kevin.burke.dev
Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
1–10 of 411 posts
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#2[deleted]
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#3Can the CA govt just impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free?
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#4Can the CA govt just impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free?
PG&E already went bankrupt recently, and taking over the whole state wouldn't really help very much. The problem is largely liability rules that make it very expensive to provide power to wildfire zones and rural areas. PG&E and the state have decided to pay for that by charging people who live in cities very high rates for electricity.
It's perverse that people who live in safe, urban areas are subsidizing people who live in wildfire zones. The savings come largely from not doing that anymore.
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#5Can the CA govt just impose prohibitive fire prevention liabilities on utility companies, bankrupt them, and scoop up the assets for free?
PG&E already went bankrupt recently, and taking over the whole state wouldn't really help very much. The problem is largely liability rules that make it very expensive to provide power to wildfire zones and rural areas. PG&E and the state have decided to pay for that by charging people who live in cities very high rates for electricity. It's perverse that people who live in safe, urban areas are subsidizing people wh…
I bang this drum all the time, but you are the first other person I've seen state it online.
If we stop subsidizing the foothills by creating urban utility districts it would solve the PG&E problem.
We would have a new problem of causing a ton of people to be unable to continue living in those areas without some kind of off-grid program.
Long term I think this is the only sane way forward though.
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
PG&E already went bankrupt recently, and taking over the whole state wouldn't really help very much. The problem is largely liability rules that make it very expensive to provide power to wildfire zones and rural areas. PG&E and the state have decided to pay for that by charging people who live in cities very high rates for electricity. It's perverse that people who live in safe, urban areas are subsidizing people wh…
I bang this drum all the time, but you are the first other person I've seen state it online. If we stop subsidizing the foothills by creating urban utility districts it would solve the PG&E problem. We would have a new problem of causing a ton of people to be unable to continue living in those areas without some kind of off-grid program. Long term I think this is the only sane way forward though.
Long term I don't see how it's possible to continue to let people live in areas so fire prone that insurance cannot be done, it seems to me. Unless you want to live in a concrete castle or something
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#7I am so sick of PG&E - our energy bills are nearly $1,000/mo. It's absolutely bonkers.
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
PG&E already went bankrupt recently, and taking over the whole state wouldn't really help very much. The problem is largely liability rules that make it very expensive to provide power to wildfire zones and rural areas. PG&E and the state have decided to pay for that by charging people who live in cities very high rates for electricity. It's perverse that people who live in safe, urban areas are subsidizing people wh…
I bang this drum all the time, but you are the first other person I've seen state it online. If we stop subsidizing the foothills by creating urban utility districts it would solve the PG&E problem. We would have a new problem of causing a ton of people to be unable to continue living in those areas without some kind of off-grid program. Long term I think this is the only sane way forward though.
> We would have a new problem of causing a ton of people to be unable to continue living in those areas without some kind of off-grid program.
But people in those areas are likely to be able to benefit from solar, so maybe being "off the grid" in the sense of not having long runs of power lines surrounded by trees to your house in the country is reasonable, and perhaps also cheaper for those rural residents anyway?
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#9I am so sick of PG&E - our energy bills are nearly $1,000/mo. It's absolutely bonkers.
Look at your power bill. Half of your kWh cost is taxes to the State of California.
You could literally have half the power bill tomorrow if CA would stop taxing it.
Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities
#10I am so sick of PG&E - our energy bills are nearly $1,000/mo. It's absolutely bonkers.
Look at your power bill. Half of your kWh cost is taxes to the State of California. You could literally have half the power bill tomorrow if CA would stop taxing it.
No can do, they are going to start taxing (hard to call that billing at that point) you based on your income. At least that was the plan last summer or so.