Live data from Hacker News

Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

kevin.burke.dev

11–20 of 411 posts

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#11

Can 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…

This whole model is nonsensical, though. Averaging costs among customers doesn’t give anyone the right incentives:

- Urban customers should have an incentive to use electricity over gas, which they would if rates were reasonable.

- Urban customers should not pay per kWh even if one thinks they should subsidize rural customers. It should be some kind of tax with reasonable allocation.

- Undercharging rural customers for provision of service and overcharging per kWh messes up incentives, too. If suburban or rural communities faced the actual cost of transmission to their area and distribution within it, they could make real decisions, for example:

# Technologies exist to reduce the risk that a power line fault starts a fire. Search for “ground fault neutralizer” or “REFCL.” Similarly common reclosers take a very YOLO approach to deal with a faulted line, and other approaches exist. PG&E, of course, doesn’t want to use these because the ridiculous CPUC rules let them make more profit by spending more money trimming trees.

# Communities could maintain their own lines and have actual locally enforced codes about vegetation.

# Communities could install batteries at their end of transmission lines to help ride through public safety power shutdowns and to level out their own loads. And they could even build small wind turbines optimized for operation in high winds (which are rather strongly correlated with those shutdowns) to generate a few MW and keep those batteries charged. Heck, this could be automated: de-energize the line when the wind is high automatically, and there won’t even be a substantial inrush when re-energizing when the wind stops because the batteries can reduce load to zero.

# A community could decide the cost isn’t worth it and build its own mini grid. This might spur interesting investment into things like small modular reactors :)

- The ownership and regulatory structure right now sucks, amplifying all the problems above and the lack of real solutions.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#12
The author mentions the cost of buying out the distribution network, and cites SF's failed attempt to do this. The author tries to figure out the price for Walnut Creek's grid based on inflation and population -- but the $2.5B figure this is based off was rejected by PG&E. The messed up thing is PG&E as a monopoly can set the price wherever they like -- and they can demand substantial continuing payments to connect to the grid so long as they retain it.

> PG&E continues to demand huge payments on routine power grid connections. For example, the cost to comply with PG&E’s latest requirements for the City to use public power to connect streetlights, traffic signals and other small loads would exceed $1 billion.

https://www.publicpowersf.org/en/faq

I think either we need the political will to use eminent domain to take the grid back (i.e. set the price through a legal proceeding), or we'd need to build a duplicate distribution grid and then abandon PG&E.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Construction itself isn't that expensive. It's certainly possible to self insure and accept that living in an area prone to fires means your house might burn down. It goes against the prevailing culture of the ever-growing housing bubble, but financialization has to hit its limits some time.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All utilities have usage based costs and large fixed costs. Historically, all utilities have charged solely on usage. The problem is when you have solar, or solar + battery, your usage goes way down. Unfortunately the grid still needs to be maintained and power plants at peak times (maybe a bit lower, but still high) still need to be paid for.

With usage based bills, people with solar pay less than their fair share for the maintenance component of a utility's cost, which means that this cost is larger for the other rate payers. On top of this California has huge subsidies to early rooftop solar adopters. This structure hurts lower income people more since lower income people are more likely to rent and apartments don't have as much space for / not as interested in rooftop solar.

So the CPUC started exploring different models for adding a bigger fixed charge to the bill and lowering the per-kwh cost. Of course the rooftop solar installers hated this as did the different "equity groups." Which is where you got the idea to adjust the fixed charge based on income.

I don't think it's a great idea but I at least understand where the CPUC is coming from. We probably need more innovation in utility pricing models.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#15
post #12

The author mentions the cost of buying out the distribution network, and cites SF's failed attempt to do this. The author tries to figure out the price for Walnut Creek's grid based on inflation and population -- but the $2.5B figure this is based off was rejected by PG&E. The messed up thing is PG&E as a monopoly can set the price wherever they like -- and they can demand substantial continuing payments to connect t…

Yes, the fact that PG&E rejected the offer is why I adjusted the figure for Walnut Creek's population and then increased it by 50%. The fact is muni borrowing is cheap - even if PG&E charged $1 billion we could finance that for about six cents per kilowatt hour.

I don't think the CPUC will let them get away with "we won't sell at any price" - I think the regulators would force them to sell at some price.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The income thing was a bit overstated; PG&E will offer discounted fees to people already on existing income-based discount programs.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/pge-electrici...

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that plan was ridiculous. A highly paid worker living efficiently in a small condominium would be heavily penalized. Meanwhile someone living in a McMansion with a lower salary would effectively have a lower bill per kWh.

It is best as it is today: a consumption tax, like the gasoline tax. What justification is there for charging a higher income bracket more for electricity? You could make the "infrastructure maintenance burden" argument about anything: food, movie tickets, etc.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#18
These formerly "public utilities" are now often owned by PE or Berkshire Hathaway. Whenever I see the folky wisdom of Charlie Munger or Warren Buffer posted on HN, I can't help but think about their firm's work in transforming State Farm insurance, GEICO and this gem I posted earlier today on HN:

"PacifiCorp Was Grossly Negligent in Oregon’s 2020 Wildfires. Now It’s Asking Lawmakers for Protection."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42971311

Because of regulation, they can gouge consumers who are captive to the damage, literally and financially.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#19
post #12

The author mentions the cost of buying out the distribution network, and cites SF's failed attempt to do this. The author tries to figure out the price for Walnut Creek's grid based on inflation and population -- but the $2.5B figure this is based off was rejected by PG&E. The messed up thing is PG&E as a monopoly can set the price wherever they like -- and they can demand substantial continuing payments to connect t…

Yes, the fact that PG&E rejected the offer is why I adjusted the figure for Walnut Creek's population and then increased it by 50%. The fact is muni borrowing is cheap - even if PG&E charged $1 billion we could finance that for about six cents per kilowatt hour. I don't think the CPUC will let them get away with "we won't sell at any price" - I think the regulators would force them to sell at some price.

> I don't think the CPUC will let them get away with "we won't sell at any price" - I think the regulators would force them to sell at some price.

Has the CPUC forced such a sale before? Functionally, if PG&E can just safely gauge what's likely to be out of reach for each city, they can name a price detached from reality and be confident of maintaining their stranglehold.

Re: Cities can cost effectively start their own utilities

#20

Can 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 am 90% in agreement with you. I do think that you should consider how rural/suburban areas have all of the generation and transmission which the cities rely on for their power.

It's not exactly fair to treat those rural residents as burdens to the urban areas when they provide the means for the urban areas to exist.

Post reply on HN