by kevinburke on 2/7/25, 5:55 PM with 396 comments
by rmason on 2/8/25, 9:22 PM
After I moved a city council for whatever reason ended up selling. As a result the cost of electricity immediately doubled and power outages occurred regularly due to reduced maintenance. I don't know what they spent the money on that they received but it was a very poor decision that I have to believe they regret.
by Aurornis on 2/8/25, 7:27 PM
The article hedges against someone pointing this out by admitting that Walnut Creek is an unusually optimistic location and that PG&E is also recognizing large expenses related to ongoing infrastructure buildouts, but no solutions are offered for these caveats.
The hidden problem with projects like this is that once you roll these utilities into the city’s budget it’s too tempting to start dipping into taxpayer funds for needed improvements rather than raising electricity rates. When problems arise, politicians try to kick it down the road so it becomes their successor’s problem, or they try to offload the expense onto a growing debt load because that delays the problem to the next generation. It becomes easier to keep the highly visible rate down, but taxes might go up to cover the infrastructure costs instead.
So I’m skeptical. If there was an analysis that showed a drop in rates that was not 3X higher than the profit margins of the private utility I’d be more open to the idea, but as presented this feels like back of the envelope math that generates savings by ignoring all the details that didn’t make their way onto the envelope.
by bitmasher9 on 2/8/25, 7:47 PM
The number of people that pay for-profit companies for natural gas (heat), electricity, and water in North America is absolutely bonkers. There is a specific concern about foreign corporations purchasing water rights in the American west.
by kelseyfrog on 2/8/25, 9:20 PM
What isn't effective is electrification and maintenance of low density regions although power monopolies like PG&E are required to provide service. The urban and suburban customers are effectively subsidizing the cost of transmission and maintenance for rural customers.
PG&E doesn't want their most profitable customer base[cities] to have public utilities because if enough do, their company becomes unprofitable and implodes.
This is exactly the reason we should do it.
by roody15 on 2/9/25, 2:56 AM
by abeppu on 2/7/25, 7:40 PM
> 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.
by knappe on 2/8/25, 9:11 PM
https://www.cpr.org/2020/11/20/boulder-ends-decade-long-purs...
by xrd on 2/7/25, 8:04 PM
"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.
by flyinghamster on 2/8/25, 8:35 PM
Rochelle's municipal utility system also provides water and sewer, and fiber-optic internet. https://www.rmu.net/
by thelastgallon on 2/9/25, 12:26 PM
Austin Energy earns no profits and pays no federal income taxes. All revenues benefit the customers of Austin Energy and the residents of the City of Austin. The primary financial benefit to the City of Austin is Austin Energy’s transfer to the General Fund, which is set by policy and allocated by elected City Council members to municipal purposes such as fire and parks.
by shawndrost on 2/8/25, 7:59 PM
by hahamrfunnyguy on 2/9/25, 12:28 PM
People hate it and there has been a big effort from activists to turn it over to public hands. The local politicians are on board for the most part, but the company is of course fighting tooth and nail.
by payne92 on 2/8/25, 8:27 PM
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.)
by Zaheer on 2/8/25, 9:08 PM
by r0m4n0 on 2/9/25, 6:08 PM
Smud was very helpful and had a simple process while PGE wanted proof of business usage amongst other stuff (heard this all second hand though)
by rangestransform on 2/7/25, 6:39 PM
by bloomingkales on 2/8/25, 10:40 PM
We should be doing more really in our current world. I confess I too spend too much time trying to build little apps just for money.
This just for money thing has got me reflecting a lot lately.
by yonran on 2/9/25, 9:00 AM
by teknopaul on 2/9/25, 2:17 PM
Everytime there is a natural disaster in the US the press report xxxx houses without power. US leccy firms pride the bear minimum service, always. Profit comes first. Delivery second priority at best.
This doesn't ofter happen in Europe because they dont profit cream and builds reliable redundant grid for almost everone. The grid even extends beyond countries boundaries, with neighbouring countries supporting each other.
Some folk out in the sticks, who you might think don't matter, provide useful services to the city folk. Eg farmers.
I.e. Cost the grid not the city.
You probably are being ripped off in the US, but that's a different story to the one being told imho.
Careful what you wish for.
by bunabhucan on 2/9/25, 4:39 AM
If you see something you disagree with here please treat it as "I implemented notepad.exe in elisp" level of not even wrong.
by calvinmorrison on 2/9/25, 5:23 AM
Yes you can start it, but should we bow to political pressure to put off maintaining infrastructure? No. There's a real cost to maintain this stuff. But a political force doesn't want to raise prices so it gets depayed.
by drewda on 2/8/25, 3:33 PM
Sounds like an argument for ABAG to expand its energy related services into a full utility (at least on the electricity side): https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/energy-infrastructure
by clcaev on 2/9/25, 2:20 AM
by blkhp19 on 2/9/25, 6:46 AM
by blackeyeblitzar on 2/8/25, 11:18 PM
by fsckboy on 2/9/25, 2:46 AM
by lokar on 2/9/25, 3:22 AM
by rightbyte on 2/8/25, 9:34 PM
by owenthejumper on 2/9/25, 3:41 AM
by ChicagoDave on 2/9/25, 12:17 AM
by legitster on 2/8/25, 10:23 PM
In our area, they handed over all school bus services to a private firm. The number of drivers, buses, and routes do not change. How was it supposed to save costs without degrading the service? The answer is, it did not. But administrations were diluted that they could take it off their liabilities.
by a3w on 2/9/25, 7:15 PM
by gunian on 2/9/25, 11:20 AM
by imchillyb on 2/9/25, 2:45 PM
Our governments should provide these services to Citizens at no cost to them.
We already pay for the maintenance costs and infrastructure is already built out.
Charge the companies for the services, and give them to the populace.
But, but, but, that's socialism! Taxes are socialism. Take from the many, use that spending power to benefit the people.
by rsynnott on 2/9/25, 1:44 PM
by indus on 2/9/25, 5:05 AM
by jmyeet on 2/8/25, 8:12 PM
An enterprise, like providing a utility, has revenues and it has costs. The difference between the two can be called the "surplus labor value". What happens to that depends on the economic system.
In capitalism, capital owners own that enterprise (utility) and they siphon off profits raising the costs. Put another way, capital owners own the means of production, not the residents of the city or the city itself. This is rent-seeking behavior.
In a socialist organization of the economy, the residents either directly or through the city itself, would own the utility. Any profits would go back into the utility or be extra revenue for the city but there's really no incentive to increase prices on the citizens who own the utility (unlike the unquenchable thirst for increasing profits for capital owners).
I have to constantly point out that capitalism isn't markets (market existed thousands of years before it and exist in every economic system). Capitalism simply supplanted feudalism by replacing kings with billionaires. That's it.
We have abundant examples of how the latter is a substantially better system. Just compare EPB Internet (Chattanooga, TN and surrounds) vs Verizon, AT&T, Comcast or Spectrum. Municipal broadband, without exception, is substantially better than any national ISP. The only thing that keeps national ISPs in business is more rent-seeking behavior such as lobbying for legislation to ban municipal broadband.
Given this is the Superbowl weekend, it's worth adding that the Packers are owned by Green Bay (an arrangement the NFL now bans for any other franchise). What do we see in other cities? Teams extorating massive tax breaks from cities, counties and states to build massive stadiums at taxpayer expense without the team having to give up anything. The KC Chiefs are rumbling about leaving because the city didn't pass a sales tax increase to pay for upgrades to Arrowhead Stadium.
I don't know why anyone is surprised by any of this anymore.
by jcarrano on 2/8/25, 8:13 PM
Overall it reads like any other socialist argument for nationalizing (in this case "municipalizing") companies, which does not work both on theoretical grounds and based on historical experience. The claim "Walnut Creek could borrow from its utility in recessions, and loan money during booms" is laughable. We know how that ends: the city would finance its deficits with utility money until the company is bankrupt.
by tamaharbor on 2/9/25, 6:25 PM
by tristanb on 2/7/25, 7:22 PM
by atlas_hugged on 2/7/25, 9:25 PM
by gojomo on 2/8/25, 10:25 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/11/11/pge-helpe...
https://www.sacbee.com/article251851903.html
Why would any of California's uniparty establishment want to refund all that money to random utility customers – who might not even be reliable party footsoldiers?
PG&E's lowest overnight rates are 30¢/kwh, surging during peak hours to rates ranging from 39¢/kwh to 72¢/kwh.
In neighboring Nevada, the utility serving its major metros NV Energy has rates of 11¢/kwh for residential users & 7-9¢/kwh for small businesses.