On 2018-08-29 09:22, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2018 at 7:22:25 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
snip
That's what our power company PG&E pulled off. Instead of
fixing fire danger prone overhead wiring they announced they'll
simply cut power if there is high wind in summer. It is up to
the political leaders to pull the charter if such behavior goes
too far.
I believe that in most, if not all, cases the generating plants
are the property of the electric company. If the local government
were to "cancel their contract" where would you get electricity
from?
Or do you propose that the local government, in some manner,
perhaps by a tax increase, purchase the generating plants?
It's about the distribution, not the plant. Utilities in America
run on the cost-plus basis which means carte blanche. They could
let them run the power plants that way but allow competition in the
distribution. Even Germany did that which, compared to a the US, is
much less capitalist.
Rate-setting is not carte blanche. It is the opposite of carte
blanche. An unregulated industry would mean all the remote moonscape
towns you think are quaint would not get power because there is no
market. The reason we got the rural electrification program, TVA,
Bonneville, etc. was exactly because private industry wanted no part
of it or the project was simply too big.
It is carte blanche. Cost-plus means the utility can rack up any amount
of cost, knowing they will always get x percent profit on top of that. I
have seen the same behavior in government work.
Also, how would you propose competition in distribution when the
distribution lines are owned by the incumbent provider? More wires?
Who in their right mind would shell out the cash for a parallel
distribution system? And if there were license agreements or shared
infrastructure, then you would still have an entity responsible for
repairs -- and undoubtedly someone you thought was incompetent or
unworthy to send electricity to your home. There will always be
someone who has to fix the broken ****. PG&E probably has as much
competence as anyone when it comes to keeping lines repaired.
It does but it does not deliver at an adequate price. We have among the
highest electricity costs in the nation and not a very reliable grid
anymore. Of course, part of it are nonsensical political mandates but a
utility is supposed to stand up stronger against those. Of course, in a
cost-plus deal it doesn't really matter to them or is actually
beneficial to them because x percent gueranteed profit of a high total
is more than x percent of a lower total.
... Try this free market electrical distribution system:
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015...8699426875.jpg
In many countries that _is_ the work of a government agency or a monopoly.
Of course once furnishing electricity became the responsibility
of the local government it would become a political factor, like
road maintenance?
Everything is a political factor these days.
As I said it is rather easy to build a bike rack that fits
contemporary bikes.
But, according to your posts, the racks are already installed so
you are talking about replacing them with a larger rack? Perhaps
an increase in fare for cyclists until the new racks are paid
for?
No, I already explained that. When a design flaw is discovered
they should try to get the vendor to perform the corrections for
free. Munis have enough clout to tell them that else the biz in
their direction could shrivel up. That's a good motivator.
Competition can be a wonderful factor. Old American saying: If you
don't take care of your customer someone else will.
And yet in Portland, the private bus line went bankrupt -- along with
the private trolley line. That's how we ended up with TriMet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Transit
Depends on the company. Our waste collection is done by a private
entity. That runs cheaper, more reliably and more profitably than the
typical municipal deal.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/