Remix.run Logo
▲ baron816 an hour ago

It's a really tough, unsolved economic problem.

Just having government run it doesn't solve all the issues, and often adds in opportunities for corruption.

Utilities have to balance investment in infrastructure. We have good reason to move away from carbon heavy sources of electricity, but investing in those new sources and the transmission capacity doesn't just happen for free.

We also need to consider delivering electricity to rural areas, which is usually quite expensive. San Francisco is considering taking over the local utility from PG&E. That might save money for local ratepayers, but would almost certainly make things more expensive for other people in the state who were effectively being subsidized by SF.

Figuring out how to do these things efficiently and balancing multiple goals is not something governments have a great track record of. I think there's a lot of opportunity to construct better market structures to incentivize investment and competition AND keep rates low.

▲kennywinker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Private utilities typically under spend on infrastructure maintenance and improvement.

So, private owned is more expensive (see article) and under funds the future.

So the only “tough unsolved” part here seems to be that a lot of people have been fooled into thinking private is better.

▲glenstein an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When we say electricity is a "natural monopoly" what that means in the history of transmission utilities, states have stuck a bargain to grant monopolies in exchange for being tightly regulated, and so there's no version of reality where the state isn't already immersed in regulating them.

Every state in the country has a public utilities commission and they are constantly immersed in complex policy work from implementing legislation to working through an endless docket of cases that fine tune policy to specific tasked out responsibilities like getting a "standard offer". Sure it's complicated but I can't think of any reason that defaults to "don't regulate". We regulate healthcare too, and Medicare is always cheaper than private alternatives.

The problem with leaving private actors to their own devices when they have monopolies is that every conceivable grey area of judgment calls that impacts profitability will be subject to abuses of discretion, such as building out overpriced infrastructure, and investing in cheaper, unreliable transmission infrastructure instead of building for the long term.

▲nekusar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's a really tough, unsolved economic problem.

It's only tough if your politics is Republican or libertarian, and "privatize everything"

▲kennywinker an hour ago | parent [-]

I think “neoliberal” is the word you’re looking for. Centrist democrats are guilty of privatization too.

▲teiferer 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

In Berlin, the left (a party literally called The Left) was leading and eventually implementing an initiative to privatize tens of thousands of city-owned housing units. The same left which has just been elected to re-collectivize those same housing units.

(Tbf when they did the first of these two things, lots of housing units were unpopular and empty.)