21–30 of 411 posts
I 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.
Half of 50c even if I believe you is 25c still higher than 17c.
Earlier 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 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.
Unless you’re referring to farmers I don’t understand this point. As of right now it is the other way around.
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.ycom…
Seems like they're actively trying to fix it.
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
Earlier 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 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.
There's a difference between people that are in farming/ranching and industry vs. people that are rural to afford a more lavish home in the woods or on the hills.
Even still, a system that doesn't appropriately price and apportion risk will always be under pressure.
Earlier 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 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.
- we get rid of nimby enabling laws
- don’t subsidize rural customers
- automate farming
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.
As the blog also mentioned, Santa Clara city charges 17c while in the neighboring San Jose I pay average 50c (time of use plan). Half of 50c even if I believe you is 25c still higher than 17c.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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. There's a difference between people that are in farming/ranching and industry vs. people that are rural to afford a more lavish home in the woods or on the hills. Even still, a system that doesn't appropriately price and apportion risk will always be under pressure.
Very well stated, I am stealing this. Also in agreement with rural resource types vs rich rural.
Again I think it is more complex than just apportioning power costs. CA effectively has a state policy of not maintaining its forest/rural land (ditto feds and their land). My parents live adjacent to national forest and have fire evacuations nearly every year.
There is nothing that the rural residents in their area can do to mitigate risk, even at their own cost. So we're asking them to bear the cost of the state/fed policy decisions. This is exactly the problem you describe of inappropriate price/risk apportionment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> they provide the means for the urban areas to exist Unless you’re referring to farmers I don’t understand this point. As of right now it is the other way around.