7 ms·

How does any kind of fine for PG&E not end up being a regressive tax? As long as they are the only supplier in NorCal the costs will just be passed on to all No

How does any kind of fine for PG&E not end up being a regressive tax? As long as they are the only supplier in NorCal the costs will just be passed on to all NorCal residents.

labster 6y ago
Because the rates they charge customers are highly regulated. PG&E is simply not allowed to raise rates to pay fines. Also, they are not the only supplier in NorCal, SMUD and many community choice energy organizations exist.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Where will the money come from to pay the fines?
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    Hopefully shareholders, ultimately.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      Do that enough times and nobody will invest in California's anything.
  - singlow 6y ago
    Profits will be reduced?
  - labster 6y ago
    They could take it out of the profit portion of the rates, or cut executive pay. But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance, maybe sell a power plant; most likely creditors will pay then lose out the next time they file for bankruptcy.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance That would be a decision made by the government of California, not by PG&E. Their budget has to be approved by the state. There were some fun articles back when they were blamed for fires about how PG&E had spent the last several years trying to allocate money to equipment maintenance only to have their budget rejected whenever they tried.
      - SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
        At this point the state might as well just take over the company as it sounds like they have essentially done so through regulation anyway.
        lotsofpulp 6y ago
        But then there won’t be a fall guy when things go wrong.
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Well, yes, that would make more sense. I assume the idea behind the current setup is that having the state own a power company would be "communist", whereas having a "private" power company for which the state determines the areas it serves, the rates it charges customers, and how it spends its money is "not communist".
        fastball 6y ago
        Never attribute to anti-communism that which can be more easily explained by crony capitalism.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        Huh, a private corporation where their budget is approved by state and the state meddles to prevent it from investing in critical infrastructure. That sounds like the worst of both worlds.
      - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
coding123 6y ago
The property I just bought in northern CA was a trip. In the full title report I got documents dating back to 1880 - all hand written. I got to read about various families that owned the land, and transferred ownership to various companies, including "Northern California Power Company Consolidated" in 1917 and eventually "Pacific Gas and Electric Company" as of December 10th 1948. It is a total mind-fuck how tied up we are with that company. But, I do have some hope that at some point in the future mini-grid technology will replace these large juggernauts.
zbrozek 6y ago
Fines are probably harder to deliberately mislabel as capex, and therefore less likely to get approved by the CPUC to be passed on to ratepayers. That said, I think these proposed fines are silly. PG&E did actually try really hard to get the word out, burying folks under a mountain of mailers and text messages and social media posts and advertising. Pointing to medical baseline customers as some ultra-vulnerable population and claiming that PG&E has extra responsibility to keep their power on feels disingenuous. Those are precisely the users who should be most keenly aware of their uptime requirements and have their own backups provisioned. It felt weird writing that. It makes me sound like a PG&E apologist. Changing focus... PG&E has optimized its business to reduce transparency and accountability, while also engaging in creative accounting to drive up costs and improve their take under a cost-plus model. Read the Camp Fire report (it's well-written and engaging) to get a better picture of the firm and its habits: https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/30/CFReport/PGE-THE-CAMP-FIRE-PUBLIC-REPORT.pdf?ver=2020-06-15-190515-977 https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/30/CFReport/PGE-THE-CAMP... (As an aside, reading that report, it's clear that Californians surely share some of the blame here. Overzealous conservationist regulation has made it unnecessarily difficult to do infrastructure maintenance. You can't do work in one season because the weather makes it dangerous or you're not allowed downtime. You can't do work in the other season because there's nesting birds on your poles. Or you can't cut down that protected heritage tree. And things like CEQA make building new unreasonably difficult, so you have to live with what you've got.) Prior to 2014, the CPUC was run by a dude soliciting bribes from those he regulated. So it's not surprising that the organization isn't doing a great job of putting consumer interests first. Corporate culture flows from the top: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CPUC-head-Michael-Peevey-to-step-down-5812009.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CPUC-head-Michael-Pee... PG&E has taken all of us for a ride, and has managed to do it despite a huge degree of regulatory oversight. We pay some of the highest rates for electricity in the United States, through some of the most complicated rate plans, and still don't manage to keep the lights on or avoid setting fires. And the rate of price increases make healthcare and higher education almost look sensible. See slide 28: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/News_Room/NewsUpdates/2019/Cal%20Advocates%20Rate%20Trend%20Presentation%20-%20April%2024th%202019.pdf https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ne...

How does any kind of fine for PG&E not end up being a regressive tax? As long as they are the only supplier in NorCal the costs will just be passed on to all NorCal residents.

labster 6y ago

Because the rates they charge customers are highly regulated. PG&E is simply not allowed to raise rates to pay fines. Also, they are not the only supplier in NorCal, SMUD and many community choice energy organizations exist.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Where will the money come from to pay the fines?
- ryandrake 6y ago
  Hopefully shareholders, ultimately.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    Do that enough times and nobody will invest in California's anything.
- singlow 6y ago
  Profits will be reduced?
- labster 6y ago
  They could take it out of the profit portion of the rates, or cut executive pay. But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance, maybe sell a power plant; most likely creditors will pay then lose out the next time they file for bankruptcy.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > But knowing PG&E they will cut back on maintenance That would be a decision made by the government of California, not by PG&E. Their budget has to be approved by the state. There were some fun articles back when they were blamed for fires about how PG&E had spent the last several years trying to allocate money to equipment maintenance only to have their budget rejected whenever they tried.
    - SOLAR_FIELDS 6y ago
      At this point the state might as well just take over the company as it sounds like they have essentially done so through regulation anyway.
      - lotsofpulp 6y ago
        But then there won’t be a fall guy when things go wrong.
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        Well, yes, that would make more sense. I assume the idea behind the current setup is that having the state own a power company would be "communist", whereas having a "private" power company for which the state determines the areas it serves, the rates it charges customers, and how it spends its money is "not communist".
        fastball 6y ago
        Never attribute to anti-communism that which can be more easily explained by crony capitalism.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      Huh, a private corporation where their budget is approved by state and the state meddles to prevent it from investing in critical infrastructure. That sounds like the worst of both worlds.
    - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

coding123 6y ago

The property I just bought in northern CA was a trip. In the full title report I got documents dating back to 1880 - all hand written. I got to read about various families that owned the land, and transferred ownership to various companies, including "Northern California Power Company Consolidated" in 1917 and eventually "Pacific Gas and Electric Company" as of December 10th 1948. It is a total mind-fuck how tied up we are with that company. But, I do have some hope that at some point in the future mini-grid technology will replace these large juggernauts.

zbrozek 6y ago

Fines are probably harder to deliberately mislabel as capex, and therefore less likely to get approved by the CPUC to be passed on to ratepayers. That said, I think these proposed fines are silly. PG&E did actually try really hard to get the word out, burying folks under a mountain of mailers and text messages and social media posts and advertising. Pointing to medical baseline customers as some ultra-vulnerable population and claiming that PG&E has extra responsibility to keep their power on feels disingenuous. Those are precisely the users who should be most keenly aware of their uptime requirements and have their own backups provisioned. It felt weird writing that. It makes me sound like a PG&E apologist. Changing focus... PG&E has optimized its business to reduce transparency and accountability, while also engaging in creative accounting to drive up costs and improve their take under a cost-plus model. Read the Camp Fire report (it's well-written and engaging) to get a better picture of the firm and its habits: https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/30/CFReport/PGE-THE-CAMP-FIRE-PUBLIC-REPORT.pdf?ver=2020-06-15-190515-977 https://www.buttecounty.net/Portals/30/CFReport/PGE-THE-CAMP... (As an aside, reading that report, it's clear that Californians surely share some of the blame here. Overzealous conservationist regulation has made it unnecessarily difficult to do infrastructure maintenance. You can't do work in one season because the weather makes it dangerous or you're not allowed downtime. You can't do work in the other season because there's nesting birds on your poles. Or you can't cut down that protected heritage tree. And things like CEQA make building new unreasonably difficult, so you have to live with what you've got.) Prior to 2014, the CPUC was run by a dude soliciting bribes from those he regulated. So it's not surprising that the organization isn't doing a great job of putting consumer interests first. Corporate culture flows from the top: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CPUC-head-Michael-Peevey-to-step-down-5812009.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/CPUC-head-Michael-Pee... PG&E has taken all of us for a ride, and has managed to do it despite a huge degree of regulatory oversight. We pay some of the highest rates for electricity in the United States, through some of the most complicated rate plans, and still don't manage to keep the lights on or avoid setting fires. And the rate of price increases make healthcare and higher education almost look sensible. See slide 28: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/News_Room/NewsUpdates/2019/Cal%20Advocates%20Rate%20Trend%20Presentation%20-%20April%2024th%202019.pdf https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ne...