5 ms·
> It costs a lot of money to deliver power to rural customers Utilities (generally) have a universal service obligation. If someone can cherry-pick just the
by payne92 2y ago
> It costs a lot of money to deliver power to rural customers
Utilities (generally) have a universal service obligation.
If someone can cherry-pick just the denser areas with lower distribution costs, of course they could "undercut" the utility with the requirement to serve everyone.
(I'm not saying that PG&E couldn't be better managed. I'm saying that there's a much, much deeper policy issue at stake here.)
- llamaimperative 2y agoLand Value Tax solves this
- aqueueaqueue 2y agoHow so?
- llamaimperative 2y agoIt incentivizes greater development of already-developed land (meaning less infrastructure serving more people) rather than acquisition and low-yield development of new (more rural) land.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- aqueueaqueue 2y agoThey made the point that this is the plan. Encourage people to live in cities.
- UncleEntity 2y agoThe more people that leave the rural areas for the cities makes it less profitable to serve the existing rural folks. I grew up in the Bay Area, lived in 'rural' Humboldt and Placer counties, and can say I would never move back to the bay no matter how much the technocrats would desire it. Pretty happy with my ~30k town nowhere near California TBH...
- tired-turtle 2y agoThat’s fine that you want to stay put, but GP is suggesting (I think) that others shouldn’t have to subsidize your choice to live in a rural area where power service is (currently) more expensive.
- novok 2y agoAnd you should be charged the actual cost of maintaining the costs of that small town too.